Cover not available
Part of
Language Processing and Grammars: The role of functionally oriented computational models
Edited by Brian Nolan and Carlos Periñán-Pascual
[Studies in Language Companion Series 150] 2014
► pp. 367–390

Low-level situational cognitive models within the Lexical Constructional Model and their computational implementation in FunGramKB

| University of La Rioja
This paper investigates the notion of low-level situational cognitive model, its role in linguistic description and its possible computational treatment in the knowledge base FunGramKB. Low-level situational models are exploited metonymically to produce situation-based implicatures. When such inferences become stably associated with a formal pattern, they give rise to implicational constructions. Other kinds of construction make use of different kinds of cognitive model. For example, argument-structure constructions are based on high-level non-situational cognitive models. The paper then provides a typology of low-level situational cognitive models, which can be roughly equated with Schank and Abelson’s now classical notion of script. Schank and Abelson’s classification into situational, personal and instrumental scripts is revised and refined to make it include a further division into simple, complex and composite scripts. Simple scripts capture sequences of actions, while complex scripts consist of chained sequences of subscripts and composite scripts are combinations of independent subscripts. Since scripts are cases of procedural knowledge, which is included in the so-called cognicon of FunGramKB, the paper explores the incorporation of this typology into the architecture of this part of the knowledge base. This incorporation is argued to endow the cognicon with greater descriptive parsimony, which results in a more efficient computational implementation. Finally, the paper uses the FunGramKB representation metalanguage COREL as an adequate way of supplying precise descriptions in terms of event structure variables and their sequencing, which turns out to be useful to enhance descriptive adequacy in the linguistic model itself.
Published online: 1 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.150.15iba
References
Allen, James F.
1989 Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. In Readings in Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems , Daniel S. Weld & Johan de Kleer (eds), 361–372. San Francisco CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Atkins, Sue, Fillmore, Charles J. & Johnson, Christopher R.
2003 Lexicographic relevance: Selecting information from corpus evidence. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3):251–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Colin F. & Ruppenhoffer, Josef
2002 FrameNet’s frames vs. Levin’s verb classes. In J. Larson and M. Paster (eds.) Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , pp. 27–38.
de Beaugrande, Robert & Dressler, Wolfgang U.
1981  Introduction to Text Linguistics . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C.
2005 From theory to practice: Frame semantics and the design of FrameNet. In Semantik im Lexikon , Stefan Langer & Daniel Schnorbusch (eds), 129–160. TÜbingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Butler, Christpher S.
2009 The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In Deconstructing Constructions [Studies in Language Companion Series 107], Christopher S. Butler & Javier Martín Arista (eds), 117–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Christopher S.
2013 Constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model. In Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in a Functional Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 145], Brian Nolan & Elke Diedrichsen (eds), 271–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Del Campo Martínez, Nuria
2012 A constructional account of advising: Construal operations and social conventions. Atlantis: Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos 33: 115–132.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1975 An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 123–131. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
1977 Scenes-and-frames semantics. In Linguistic Structures Processing , Antonio Zampolli (ed.), 55–82. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
1982 Frame Semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm , Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), 111–138. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
1985 Frames and the semantic understanding. Quaderni di Semantica VI(2): 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Atkins, B.T.
Sue 1992 Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Frames, Fields, and Contrast: New Essays in Semantics and Lexical Organization , Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Kittay (eds), 75–102. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Johnson, Christopher R. & Petruck, Miriam R.L.
2003 Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O’Connor, Mary Catherine
1998 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64: 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A.C.
1981  Prose comprehension beyond the word . New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark
1987  The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason . Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter
1988 The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review 95: 163–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987  Wome, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind . Chicago IL: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought , 2nd. edn, Andrew Ortony (ed.), 202–251. Cambridge MA: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark
1999  Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought . New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987  Foundations of Cognitive Grammar , Vol 1: Theoretical Prerequisites . Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999  Grammar and Conceptualization . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mairal Usón, Ricardo & Periñán-Pascual, Carlos
2009a Teoría lingüística y representación del conocimiento: Una discusión preliminar. In Tendencias en lingüística general y aplicada , Dolores García Padrón & Maria del Carmen Fumero Pérez (eds), 155–168. Berlín: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2009b The anatomy of the lexicon within the framework of an NLP knowledge base. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 22: 217–244.Google Scholar
2010 Teoría lingüística y representación del conocimiento: Una discusión preliminar. In Tendencias en lingüística general y aplicada , Dolores García Padrón & Maria del Carmen Fumero Pérez (eds), 155–168. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, Ricardo & Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José
2009 Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Deconstructing Constructions [Studies in Language Companion Series 107], Christopher S. Butler & Javier Martín Arista (eds),153–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manning, Chris D. & Schütze, Hinrich
1999  Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Minsky, Marvin
1975 A Framework for Representing Knowledge. MIT-AI Laboratory Memo 306.
Peña Cervel, Sandra
2008 Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics 40(6): 1041–1066. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Periñán-Pascual, Carlos
2012 The situated common-sense knowledge in FunGramKB. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 10(1): 184–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Periñán-Pascual, Carlos & Arcas Túnez, Francisco
2004 Meaning postulates in a lexico-conceptual knowledge base. In 15th International Workshop on Databases and Expert Systems Applications , 38–42. Los Alamitos CA: IEEE.Google Scholar
2005 Microconceptual-knowledge spreading in FunGramKB. In Proceedings on the 9th IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing , 239–244. Anaheim CA: ACTA Press.Google Scholar
2006 Reusing computer-oriented lexica as foreign-language electronic dictionaries. Anglogermánica Online 4: 69–93.Google Scholar
2007 Cognitive modules of an NLP knowledge base for language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 39: 197–204.Google Scholar
2010a Ontological commitments in FunGramKB. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 44: 27–34.Google Scholar
. 2010b. The Architecture of FunGramKB. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation , 2667–2674. Malta, ELRA.Google Scholar
Periñán-Pascual, Carlos & Mairal Usón, Ricardo
2009 Bringing Role and Reference Grammar to natural language understanding Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 43: 265–273.Google Scholar
2010 La gramática de COREL: Un lenguaje de representación conceptual. Onomázein 21: 11–45.Google Scholar
2012 La dimensión computacional de la Gramática del Papel y la Referencia: La estructura lógica conceptual y su aplicación en el procesamiento del lenguaje natural”. In El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística. La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia. Introducción, avances y aplicaciones , Ricardo Mairal Usón, Lilián Guerrero & Carlos González (eds), 333–348. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
In preparation. Cultural distinctiveness in a knowledge engineering project. Ms.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José
1996 Semantic networks in conceptual structure. Epos. Revista de Filología XII: 339–356.Google Scholar
1997 Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction. ATLANTIS. Revista de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglonorteamericanos 19: 281–295.Google Scholar
2007 High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In Perspectives on Metonymy , Krzysztof Kosecki (ed.), 11–30. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2011 Metonymy and cognitive operations. In Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a Consensus View [Human Cognitive Processing 28], Reka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza (eds), 103–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in a Functional Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 145], Brian Nolan & Elke Diedrichsen (eds), 231–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Baicchi, Annalisa
2007 Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects , Istvan Kecskes & Laurence Horn (eds), 95–128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Luzondo Oyón, Alba
In preparation. Figurative and non-figurative motion in English resultative constructions. In Conceptualizing Movement. A Cognitive and Cross-Linguistic Perspective , Diana Ponterotto (ed.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Mairal Usón, Ricardo
2008 Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica 42(2): 355–400.Google Scholar
2011 Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model. In Morphosyntactic Alternations in English , Pilar Guerrero Medino (ed.), 62–82. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José & Peérez Hernaández, Lorena
2003 Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing , Klaus-Uwe Panther & Linda Thornburg (eds), 23–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, David E.
1975 Notes on a schema for stories. In Representation and Understanding: Studies on Cognitive Science , Daniel Gureasko Bobrow & Allan M. Collins (eds). New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Ellsworth, Michael, Petruck, Miriam R.L., Johnson, Christopher R. & Scheffczyk, Jan
2010 FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Technical Report, International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley. [URL]>
Sanford, Anthony J. & Simon C. Garrod
1981  Understanding Written Language . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Schank, Roger C. & Robert P. Abelson
1977  Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding . Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. & Kintsch, Walter
1983  Strategies of Discourse Comprehension . New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Veale, Tony
2006 Computability as a test on linguistic theories. In Cognitive Linguistics. Current Applications and Future Perspectives , Gitte Kristiansen, Michel, Achard, Reneé Dirven & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza (eds),461–484. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 15 other publications

Mairal-Usón, Ricardo
2015. Constructional meaning representation within a knowledge engineering framework. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Morras, Javier
2022. Semantic Parameters, Cognitive Models, and Mental Units. Cognitive Semantics 8:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Name index. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Chapter 6. Conclusions. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Chapter 4. Cognitive operations. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Chapter 3. Cognitive models. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Subject index. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. References. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Chapter 5. Content operations across levels of representation. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Chapter 2. Theoretical pre-requisites. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Acknowledgements. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. ix ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 2023. 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.