Coercions, as we saw in the last chapter, involve fundamentally a map or a family of maps from one type to another specified by the type structure of a lexical entry. In this chaper, I consider four syntactic and morphosyntactic constructions that invoke a map from one type to another and provide grammaticized examples of coercion: the genitive, grinding, resultative constructions, and nominalization. At the end of this chapter, I address some questions about the logical power and expressivity of TCL.

The Genitive

Asher and Denis (2004) show that the genitive construction offers empirical evidence in favor of the more flexible typing system of TCL. They contrast their account with the one proposed by Vikner and Jensen (2002) that explicitly appeals to GL.

Let's start with some simple English examples of the genitive constructions:

1. (10.1) a. Bill's mother

2. b. Mary's ear

3. c. The girl's car

Interpreting phrases like (10.1) requires one to establish a relation between the two nominal referents that are introduced respectively by the specifier NP (the genitive NP, or possessum) and the head noun (the possessor). This relation is often not explicitly specified by the grammar, and as a result these constructions give rise to many interpretations (i.e., many different relations can be inferred). For instance, depending on the context, the girl's car can be the car owned/driven/dreamt about/designed… by the girl.

Vikner and Jensen's GL based account

Vikner and Jensen (2002) argue that GL's lexical semantics of the head noun is exploited during the interpretation of the genitive.