以往研究已经注意到动词的强迫能力存在差异，但是一方面缺乏基于语料库中动词使用情况的系统统计，另一方面动词差异是否会导致脑认知过程产生不同反应也未可知。此外，对动词强迫能力的理解也存在分歧，一些研究关注强迫用法出现的频次及搭配的名词范围，一些研究则着眼于考察动词消除语义错配的能力。基于语料统计分析和ERP实验，本文旨在考察不同强迫动词在语料库以及阅读认知过程中显示出的差异，进一步探讨影响动词强迫能力的因素，界定典型宾语强迫与动词强迫能力。

除了绪论，全文共分5章。

绪论部分主要交代文章的选题缘由、研究目标以及具体分析过程中涉及的语料来源。

第1章从语言学分析和实验研究两个角度总结了现有关于动词强迫能力差异的研究。发现已有研究在语料库统计及实验研究两方面缺乏对强迫动词内部的系统比较。据此提出了相应的研究问题及研究思路。

第2章基于语料库对动词在强迫用法出现的频次及搭配名词范围的表现进行统计分析。本章考察了12个汉语强迫动词与12个英语强迫动词在语料库中的表现，通过动词强迫用法占比、强迫名词类型频率等参数计算动词的强迫能力，利用聚类分析将动词根据强迫能力表现分为四类。研究发现，汉英体动词的强迫能力都表现出“完成>开始>继续”的序列，“完成、结束”义动词内部存在强迫能力差异。汉英双语中表示“开始”及“喜欢”义的动词强迫能力存在差异。分析认为导致语言中动词强迫能力存在差异的原因主要在于动词的时间性表征存在不同，跨语言差异则主要表现在类型学的差异上。

第3章对强迫句的阅读认知过程进行了实验分析。本章采用ERP手段展开了汉语宾语强迫句认知实验、汉语强迫动词内部认知差异实验及英语强迫动词内部认知差异实验三个阅读实验，考察被试在阅读宾语强迫句时的认知反应。实验结果发现在阅读汉语宾语强迫句时并不表现认知差异，而阅读英语不同强迫动词构成的宾语强迫句则表现出认知差异。分析认为这同动词和宾语的语义错配程度有关。英语强迫句中大量事物名词能够进入组合，导致语义错配程度较高，造成认知差异。

第4章通过考察动词和名词的续段表征说明典型强迫现象及动词强迫能力的实质。研究发现强迫动词在时间表征上存在差异，宾语名词在时间表征和内部连续性上存在差异。分析认为强迫动词的续段表征会要求名词提供相关的语义信息，而不具有续段表征的名词就需要激活相应的隐含谓词，转换为事件。这样的续段表征错配是造成宾语强迫现象的根本原因。动词强迫能力同动词对续段表征的要求相关，认知差异则是由语义错配程度不同引起的。进一步讨论动词强迫能力和认知差异之间的关系，重新思考“谓词隐含现象”与“动词强迫能力”之间的关系。研究认为典型的宾语强迫只出现在部分体动词同不具有续段表征的名词组合之中。强迫能力强弱则主要体现在动词要求并激活名词事件语义的能力上。

第5章总结全文的主要结论。语料库研究发现，同一语言中动词强迫能力差异主要同动词的时间表征有关，汉语和英语动词的强迫能力差异则主要由类型学因素导致。实验研究表明，被试在阅读汉语宾语强迫句时并不显示认知差异，而在阅读不同的英语宾语强迫句时，脑电反应存在差异。研究认为宾语强迫的实质是具有续段表征的动词强迫不具有续段表征的名词激活隐含谓词提供续段语义，是由续段语义错配导致的。此外，对研究中存在的不足进行了说明与反思。

Previous studies have noted differences in coercion verbs, but on the one hand there is a lack of systematic statistics based on verb usage in the corpus, and on the other hand it is not known whether verb differences lead to different responses in brain cognitive processes. Moreover, the understanding of verb coercive ability is also divergent, with some studies focusing on the frequency of coercion usage and the range of collocated nouns, while some studies focus on examining the ability of verbs to eliminate semantic mismatches. Based on statistical analysis of the corpus and ERP experiments, this paper aims to examine the differences shown by different coercion verbs in the corpus as well as during reading cognition. It further explores the factors affecting verb forcing ability and defines typical object forcing and verb forcing ability.

Except for the introduction, the full text is divided into five chapters.

The introductory section gives an account of the reasons for the selection of the article, the objectives of the study, and the sources of the corpus involved in the specific analysis process.

Chapter 1 summarizes the existing research on the differences in verb coercive ability of object coercion from both linguistic analysis and experimental studies. It is found that existing studies lack systematic comparisons within coercion verbs in terms of both corpus statistics and experimental studies. The corresponding research questions and research ideas are proposed.

Chapter 2 presents a statistical analysis of the frequency of verbs in coercive usage and the performance of the range of collocated nouns based on the corpus. This paper examines the performance of 12 Chinese coercion verbs and 12 English coercion verbs in the corpus, calculates the coercive ability of verbs by parameters such as the percentage of forcing usage of verbs and the frequency of forcing noun types, and uses cluster analysis to classify verbs into four categories according to the performance of coercive ability. It was found that the coercive ability of both Chinese-English verbs showed a sequence of “finish > begin > continue”, and there were differences in coercive ability within the verbs of “finish and end” meaning. There are also differences in the compulsion ability of verbs that mean “begin” and “like” in both Chinese and English. It is suggested that the main reason for the differences in verbal compulsion is the different temporal representations of verbs, and the cross-linguistic differences are mainly in the typological differences.

Chapter 3 provides an experimental analysis of the cognitive process of reading coercive sentences. Three reading experiments, the Chinese object coercion sentence cognitive experiment, the Chinese object coercion verb internal cognitive difference experiment, and the English object coercion verb internal cognitive difference experiment, were conducted using ERP instruments to examine the subjects' cognitive responses when reading object coercion sentences. The results of the experiments revealed that the subjects did not show cognitive differences when reading Chinese object coercion sentences, while they showed cognitive differences when reading English object coercion sentences composed of different coercion verbs. The analysis suggests that this is related to the degree of semantic mismatch between the verb and the object. The large number of object nouns that can enter into combinations in English coercion sentences leads to a higher degree of semantic mismatch, resulting in cognitive differences.

Chapter 4 illustrates the typical coercion phenomenon and the essence of verbal coercive ability by examining the sequential representations of verbs and nouns. It is found that there are differences in temporal representations for coercion verbs and differences in temporal representations and internal continuity for object nouns. The analysis suggests that the sequent representation of coercion verbs would require nouns to provide relevant semantic information, while nouns without sequent representation would need to activate the corresponding implicit predicate and convert to an event. Such a mismatch of sequent representations is the root cause of the phenomenon of object coercion. The verbal compulsion ability is related to the verb's requirement for a continuation representation, and the cognitive differences are caused by the different degrees of semantic mismatch. The relationship between verbal compulsion and cognitive differences is further discussed, and the relationship between "predicative implicit phenomena" and "verbal compulsion" is rethought. It is concluded that typical object compulsion occurs only in combinations of partitive verbs with nouns that do not have a segmental representation. The strength of the coercive ability is mainly reflected in the verb's ability to demand and activate the semantics of the noun event.

Chapter 5 summarizes the main findings of the full paper. The corpus study found that the differences in verbal coercive ability in the same language were mainly related to the temporal representation of the verb, while the differences in coercive ability between Chinese and English verbs were mainly due to typological factors. The experimental study showed that subjects did not show cognitive differences when reading Chinese object coercion sentences, while there were differences in EEG responses when reading different English object coercion sentences. The study concluded that the essence of object coercion is that verbs with sequential representations force nouns without sequential representations to activate implicit predicates to provide sequential semantics, which is caused by sequential semantic mismatch. In addition, the shortcomings of the study are explained and reflected upon.