Advances in Embodied Construction Grammar
This paper describes the continuing goals and present status of the ICSI/UC Berkeley efforts on Embodied
Construction Grammar (ECG). ECG is semantics-based formalism grounded in cognitive linguistics. ECG is the most explicitly
inter-disciplinary of the construction grammars with deep links to computation, neuroscience, and cognitive science. Work
continues on core cognitive, computational, and linguistic issues, including aspects of the mind/body problem. Much of the recent
emphasis has been on applications and on tools to facilitate new applications. Extensive documentation plus downloadable systems
and grammars can be found at the ECG Homepage.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The basics of embodied construction grammar
- 3.Implementation
- 4.Some additional aspects of ECG
- 5.ECG2, system and applications
- 6.Prospects
- Notes
-
References
References (35)
References
Bergen, B. (2014). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
Bergen, B., Chang, N., & Narayan, S. (2004). Simulated action in an embodied construction grammar. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 261, 108–113.
Bryant, J. (2008). Best fit constructional analysis. Unpublished UC Berkeley dissertation.
Chang, N., & Mok, E. (2006). Putting context in constructions. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG4). Tokyo, Japan.
Dodge, E., David, O., Stickles, E., & Sweetser, E. (2014).
Constructions and metaphor: Integrating MetaNet and embodied construction grammar. Paper presented at The 8th International Construction Grammar Conference.
Dodge, E., Trott, S., Gilardi, L., & Stickles, E. (2017). Grammar scaling: Leveraging FrameNet data to increase embodied construction grammar coverage. The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding. Technical Report SS-17–02 (pp. 154–162). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Publications.
Eppe, M., Trott, S., Raghuram, V., Feldman, J., & Janin, A. (2016). Application-independent and integration-friendly natural language understanding. Global Conference on Artificial Intelligence (GCAI 2016) (pp. 340–352). Berlin: EasyChair, EPiC Series in Computing, v.41.
Eppe, M., Trott, S., & Feldman, J. (2016a). Exploiting deep semantics and compositionality of natural language for human-robot interaction. 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (pp. 731–738). Daejeon, South Korea: IEEE. 

Feldman, J. (2006). From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. MIT Press. 

Feldman, J. (2010). Embodied language, best-fit analysis, and formal compositionality. Physics of Life Reviews, 7(4), 385–410. 

Feldman, J. (2017). Mysteries of visual experience. <[URL]>
Feldman, J. (2018). Towards a science of the mind. <[URL]>
Feldman, J., Lakoff, G., Bailey, D., Narayanan, S., Regier, T., & Stolcke, A. (1996). L0 – the first five years of an automated language acquisition project. In P. Mc Kevitt (Ed.), Integration of Natural Language and Vision Processing: Theory and Grounding Representations Volume III (pp. 205–231). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 

Feldman, J., Bryant, J., & Dodge, E. (2009). A neural theory of language and embodied construction grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics (pp. 38–111). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, C., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. (2003). Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. 

Gedigian, M., & Narayanan, S. (2009). A multilingual primary health care resource. Proceedings of the Computer Science and Global Development Conference (pp. 63–65). Washington, DC: Computing Community Consortium.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
Khayrallah, H., Trott, S., & Feldman, J. (2015). Natural language for human-robot interaction. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Portland, Oregon.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Levesque, H., Davis, E., & Morgenstern, L. (2012). The Winograd schema challenge. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (pp. 552–561). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
Michaelis, L. A. (2017). Construction grammar and the syntax-semantics interface. Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax (pp. 421–435). New York: Bloomsbury.
Mok, E. H., & Bryant, J. (2006). A best-fit approach to productive omission of arguments. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 32 (1), 551–560. 

Narayanan, S. (1999a). Reasoning about actions in narrative understanding. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI ’99) (pp. 350–358). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Narayanan, S. (1999b). Moving right along: A computational model of metaphoric reasoning about events. In Proceedings of the Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI ’99) (pp. 121–128). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
Narayanan, S., & Jurafsky, D. (1998). Bayesian models of human sentence processing. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 752–757). Allendale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Newell, A. (1994). Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Raghuram, V., Trott, S., Shen, K., Goldberg, E., & Oderberg, S. (2017). Semantically-driven coreference resolution with embodied construction grammar. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding. Technical Report SS-17–02 (pp. 238–244). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Publications.
Raghuram, V. (2018). Natural language understanding for healthcare queries. UC Berkeley Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2018-35. <[URL]>
Regier, T. (2002). The human semantic potential. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stickles, E., David, O., & Sweetser, E. (2015). Grammatical constructions, frame structure, and metonymy: Their contributions to metaphor computation. In Proceedings of the 11th Meeting of the High Desert Linguistics Society (HDLS) (pp. 317–345). Albuquerque, NM: High Desert Linguistics Society.
Trott, S., Eppe, M., & Feldman, J. (2016). Recognizing intentions from natural language: Clarification dialog and construction grammar. Paper presented at
RO-MAN 2016, Workshop on Communicating Intentions in Human-Robot Interaction
. New York, NY.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023.
Constructionist Approaches,

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. 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.