Article published in:
Verb Phrase and Fluid Construction Grammar
Edited by Luc Steels and Katrien Beuls
[Constructions and Frames 9:2] 2017
► pp. 178–225

Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar

| Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra – CSIC
Fluid Construction Grammar (FCG) is a fully operational computational platform for developing grammars from a constructional perspective. It contains mechanisms for representing grammars and for using them in computational experiments and applications in language understanding, production and learning. FCG can be used by grammar writers who want to test whether their grammar fragments are complete and coherent for the domain they are investigating (for example verb phrases) or who are working in a team and have to share grammar fragments with others. It can be used by computational linguists implementing practical language processing systems or exploring how machine learning algorithms can acquire grammars. This paper introduces some of the basic mechanisms of FCG, illustrated with examples.
Keywords: Construction Grammar, Computational Construction Grammar, Fluid Construction Grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The semiotic cycle
    • 2.1Components of the semiotic cycle
    • 2.2Linguistic pathways
  • 3.Transient structures
    • 3.1Feature structures
      • Units
      • Symbols
      • Values
      • Variables
  • 4.Construction schemas
    • 4.1Rewrite rules using feature structures
    • 4.2Representing construction schemas
    • 4.3Interfacing
  • 5.Constructional processing
    • 5.1Adding meaning
    • 5.2The formulation and comprehension lock
    • 5.3An example of comprehension
    • 5.4An example of formulation
  • 6.Argument structure constructions
    • 6.1The double object construction
    • 6.2A formulation example
    • 6.3A comprehension example
  • 7.Other grammatical perspectives
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 30 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00002.ste
References

References

Barres, V., & Lee, J.
(2014) Template construction grammar: From visual scene description to language comprehension and agrammatism. Neuroinformatics, 12(1), 181–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K., & Chang, N. C.
(2003) Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and cross-language dimensions (pp. 147–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar
Beuls, K., van Trijp, R., & Wellens, P.
(2012) Diagnostics and repairs in Fluid Construction Grammar. In L. Steels & M. Hild (Eds.), Language grounding in robots (pp. 215–234). New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beul, K., & Steels, L.
(2013) Agent-based models of strategies for the emergence and evolution of arammatical Agreement. Plos One, 8(3), e58960.Google Scholar
Boas, H., & Sag, I.
(Eds.) (2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J.
(2001) Lexical Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Chang, N., De Beule, J. & Micelli, V.
(2011) Computational Construction Grammar: Comparing ECG and FCG. In: Steels, L. (Ed.) Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. (pp. 259–288) Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
De Beule, J., Chang, N., & Micelli, V.
(2011) Computational construction grammar: Comparing ecg and fcg. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 259–288). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dominey, P., & Boucher, J.
(2011) Learning to talk about events from narrated video in a construction grammar framework. Artificial Intelligence 167(1–2), 243–259.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1988) The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 35–55). Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Garcia-Casademont, E., & Steels, L.
(2016) Grammar learning as insight problem solving. The Journal of Cognitive Science, 5(17), 27–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2014) Fitting a slim dime between the verb template and argument structure construction approaches. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 113–135.Google Scholar
Kay, M.
(1984) Functional unification grammar: A formalism for machine translation. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Computational Linguistics (pp. 75–78). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knight, K.
(1989) Unification: A multidisciplinary survey. ACM Computing Surveys 21(1), 93–124 1989. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W.
(Ed.) (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Martelli, A. & Montanari, U.
(1982) An efficient unification algorithm. Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 4(2), 258–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, F., & Warren, D.
(1980) Definite clause grammars for language analysis – a survey of the formalism and a comparison with augmented transition networks. Artificial Intelligence, 131, 231–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I., Wasow, T., & Bender, E.
(2003) Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shieber, S. M. (1986) An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar, volume 4 of CSLI Lecture Notes Series. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Spranger, M., Pauw, S., Loetzsch, M., & Steels, L.
(2012) Open-ended procedural semantics. In L. Steels & M. Hild (Eds.), Language grounding in robots (pp. 153–172). New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spranger, M., Pauw, S., & Loetzsch, M.
(2010) Open-ended semantics co-evolving with spatial language. In A. D. M. Smith, M. Schouwstra, B. de Boer, & K. Smith (Eds.), The evolution of language ( EVOLANG 8 ) (pp. 297–304), Singapore: World Scientific. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L.
(2004) Constructivist development of grounded construction grammars. In D. Scott, W. Daelemans, & M. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistic Conference (pp. 9–19). Barcelona.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2011) Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012a) Experiments in cultural language evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2012b) Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar, Volume 7249 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
(2015) The talking heads experiment. Origins of words and meanings, Volume 1 of Computational models of language evolution. Berlin: Language Science Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L., & De Beule, J.
(2006) Unify and merge in Fluid Construction Grammar. In P. Vogt, Y. Sugita, E. Tuci, & C. Nehaniv (Eds.), Symbol grounding and beyond: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on the Emergence and Evolution of Linguistic Communication, LNAI 4211 (pp. 197–223). Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L., De Beule, J., Van Looveren, J., & Neubauer, N.
(2004) Fluid Construction Grammars. Paper presented at 3rd International Conference on Construction Grammar , Marseille.
Steels, L., & Szathmáry, E.
(2016) Fluid Construction Grammar as a biological system. Linguisics Vanguard, 2(1) 20150022.Google Scholar
van Trijp, R.
(2010) Argument realization in Fluid Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Computational approaches to Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2013) A comparison between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 5(1), 88–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Feature matrices and agreement: A case study for German case. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 205–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, Amsterdam. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wellens, P.
(2011) Organizing constructions in networks. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 181–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

Fischer, Kerstin
2021.  In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
McDonough, Terry
2020. Sam Browse. (2018) Cognitive Rhetoric . Journal of Language and Politics 19:2 ► pp. 256 ff. Crossref logo
Nevens, Jens, Paul Van Eecke & Katrien Beuls
2019. Computational construction grammar for visual question answering. Linguistics Vanguard 5:1 Crossref logo
Pfau, Johannes, Robert Porzel, Mihai Pomarlan, Vanja Sophie Cangalovic, Supara Grudpan, Sebastian Höffner, John Bateman & Rainer Malaka
2019.  In Entertainment Computing and Serious Games [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11863], ► pp. 85 ff. Crossref logo
Pijpops, Dirk, Isabeau De Smet & Freek Van de Velde
2018. Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax. Constructions and Frames 10:2 ► pp. 269 ff. Crossref logo
Pleyer, Michael & Stefan Hartmann
2020. Construction grammar for monkeys?. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 2:2 ► pp. 153 ff. Crossref logo
Trijp, Remi van
2020. Making good on a promise. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 357 ff. Crossref logo
Van Eecke, Paul & Katrien Beuls
2018. Exploring the Creative Potential of Computational Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66:3 ► pp. 341 ff. Crossref logo
Willaert, Tom, Paul Van Eecke, Katrien Beuls & Luc Steels
2020. Building Social Media Observatories for Monitoring Online Opinion Dynamics. Social Media + Society 6:2 ► pp. 205630511989877 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.