Cover not available
Article published In:
The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based Research
Edited by Timothy Colleman, Frank Brisard, Astrid De Wit, Renata Enghels, Nikos Koutsoukos, Tanja Mortelmans and María Sol Sansiñena
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34] 2020
► pp. 5–16

Construction mining

Identifying construction candidates for the German constructicon

| Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
| Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf

The German Constructicon Project (www​.german​-constructicon​.de) aims at documenting grammatical constructions in contemporary standard German on the basis of annotated corpus examples, including relations between constructions and between constructions and evoked semantic frames. So far, the research focus has been mainly on the development and computational implementation of a constructicographic workflow (including a parsing pipeline) that allows for addressing any kind of constructions on varying levels of schematicity, idiomaticity, and abstractness. However, such an exemplar-driven procedure precludes us from systematically identifying constructional candidates. In this article, we scrutinize ways to operationalize and implement data-mining procedures to inductively identify construction candidates.

Keywords: German constructicon, construction mining, patterns, n-gram, UIF-PMI, constructicography
Article outline
  • 1.What’s out there in the constructicon?
  • 2.Identifying constructions
  • 3.Construction mining: Operationalization and implementation of a computational framework
    • 3.1Generating a list of patterns
    • 3.2From patterns to construction candidates
    • 3.3cxnMiner: A framework for mining constructions
    • 3.4Future work: From construction candidates to a constructicon
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00030.bar
References
Bäckström, Linnéa, Lars Borin, Markus Forsberg, Benjamin Lyngfelt, Julia Prentice, and Emma Sköldberg
2013 “Automatic Identification of Construction Candidates for a Swedish Constructicon.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on Lexical Semantic Resources for NLP at NODALIDA 2013 (= NEALT Proceedings Series 19 / Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 88), ed. by Lars Borin, Ruth Vatvedt Fjeld, Markus Forsberg, Sanni Nimb, Pierre Nugues, and Bolette Sandford Pedersen, 2–11.Google Scholar
Borges Völker, Emanuel, Maximilian Wendt, Felix Hennig, and Arne Köhn
2019 “HDT-UD: A Very Large Universal Dependencies Treebank for German.” In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW, SyntaxFest 2019), 46–57. Paris: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borin, Lars, Dana Dannélls, and Normunds Grūzītis
2018 “Linguistics vs. Language Technology in Constructicon Building and Use.” In: Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages, ed. by Benjamin Lyngfelt, Lars Borin, Kyoko Ohara, and Tiago Timponi Torrent, 229–254. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Jonathan
2017 “Computational Learning of Construction Grammars.” Language and Cognition 9 (2): 254–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
2008 “Border Conflicts: FrameNet Meets Construction Grammar.” In Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress Barcelona, ed. by Elisenda Bernal, and Janet De Cesaris, 49–68. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Foth, Kilian A., Arne Köhn, Niels Beuck, and Wolfgang Menzel
2014 “Because Size Does Matter: The Hamburg Dependency Treebank.” In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), ed. by Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk, and Stelios Piperidis, 2326–2333. Reykjavik: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Forsberg, Markus, Richard Johansson, Linnéa Bäckström, Lars Borin, Benjamin Lyngfelt, Joel Olofsson, and Julia Prentice
2014 “From Construction Candidates to Constructicon Entries: An Experiment Using Semi-Automatic Methods for Identifying Constructions in Corpora.” Constructions and Frames, 6 (1): 114–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fournier-Viger, Philippe, Jerry Chun-Wei Lin, Rage Uday Kiran, Yun Sing Koh, and Rincy Thomas
2017 “A Survey of Sequential Pattern Mining.” Data Science and Pattern Recognition 1 (1): 54–77.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guthrie, David, Ben Allison, Wei Liu, Louise Guthrie, and Yorick Wilks
2006 “A Closer Look at Skip-gram Modelling.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’06), ed. by Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Aldo Gangemi, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, and Daniel Tapias, 1222–1225. Genoa: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas
(ed) 2019 From Lexicography to Constructicography. Special Issue of Lexicographica 35.Google Scholar
Honnibal, Matthew, and Ines Montani
2017 spaCy 2: Natural Language Understanding with Bloom Embeddings, Convolutional Neural Networks and Incremental Parsing.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Lars Borin, Kyoko Ohara, and Tiago Torrent
(eds) 2018 Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages (= Constructional Approaches to Language, 22 ). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martí, Maria Antònia, Mariona Taulé, Venelin Kovatchev, and Maria Salamó
2019 “DISCOver: DIStributional Approach Based on Syntactic Dependencies for Discovering COnstructions.” In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (published online ahead of print, 04.01.2019).Google Scholar
Shibuya, Yoshikata, and Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
2015 “Mining for Constructions in Texts using N-Gram and Network Analysis.” Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication 21: 23–54.Google Scholar
Sidorov, Grigori
2019 Syntactic N-Grams in Computational Linguistics (= SpringerBriefs in Computer Science ). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wible, David, and Nai-Lung Tsao
2010 “StringNet as a Computational Resource for Discovering and Investigating Linguistic Constructions.” In: Proceedings of the NAACL HLT Workshop on Extracting and Using Constructions in Computational Linguistics, ed. by Magnus Sahlgren, and Ola Knutsson, 25–31. Los Angeles: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ziem, Alexander, and Alexander Lasch
2013 Konstruktionsgrammatik. Konzepte und Grundlagen gebrauchsbasierter Ansätze [Construction Grammar: Concepts and Foundations of Usage-Based Approaches]. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziem, Alexander, Johanna Flick, and Phillip Sandkühler
2019 “The German Constructicon Project: Framework, Methodology, Resources.” Lexicographica 351: 15–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar