Fluid Construction Grammar on Real Robots

This chapter introduces very briefly the framework and tools for lexical and grammatical processing that have been used in the evolutionary language game experiments reported in this book. This framework is called Fluid Construction Grammar (FCG) because it rests on a constructional approach to language and emphasizes flexible grammar application. Construction grammar organizes the knowledge needed for parsing or producing utterances in terms of bi-directional mappings between meaning and form. In line with other contemporary linguistic formalisms, FCG uses feature structures and unification and includes several innovations which make the formalism more adapted to implement flexible and robust language processing systems on real robots. This chapter is an introduction to the formalism and how it is used in processing.

[1]  Mirjam Fried,et al.  Construction grammars : cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions , 2005 .

[2]  John T. Maxwell,et al.  Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar , 1998 .

[3]  Benjamin K. Bergen,et al.  Embodied Construction Grammar , 2013 .

[4]  Luc Steels,et al.  Open-ended Procedural Semantics , 2012, Language Grounding in Robots.

[5]  Michael Spranger,et al.  Syntactic Indeterminacy and Semantic Ambiguity: A Case Study for German Spatial Phrases , 2012 .

[6]  Pieter Wellens,et al.  Organizing constructions in networks , 2011 .

[7]  Luc Steels.  Fluid Construction Grammar , 2013 .

[8]  Luc Steels,et al.  Unify and Merge in Fluid Construction Grammar , 2006, EELC.

[9]  Josefina Sierra Santibáñez.  Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar , 2012, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[10]  A. Goldberg.  Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure , 1995 .

[11]  B. Heine,et al.  The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis , 2009 .

[12]  Luc Steels,et al.  Language Grounding in Robots , 2012, Springer US.

[13]  Chrystopher L. Nehaniv,et al.  Symbol grounding and beyond: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on the Emergence and Evolution of Linguistic Communication, EELC 2006. LNAI 4211 , 2006 .

[14]  Jan-Ola Östman,et al.  Historical and intellectual background of Construction Grammar , 2004 .

[15]  Mirjam Fried,et al.  Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis , 2009 .

[16]  Katrien Beuls.  Construction Sets and Unmarked Forms: A Case Study for Hungarian Verbal Agreement , 2011 .

[17]  Luc Steels,et al.  The Origins of Syntax in Visually Grounded Robotic Agents , 1997, IJCAI.

[18]  Martin Kay,et al.  Parsing in functional unification grammar , 1986 .

[19]  Ann Copestake,et al.  Implementing typed feature structure grammars , 2001, CSLI lecture notes series.

[20]  C. Fillmore,et al.  Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone , 1988 .

[21]  Chrystopher L. Nehaniv,et al.  Symbol Grounding and Beyond, Third International Workshop on the Emergence and Evolution of Linguistic Communication, EELC 2006, Rome, Italy, September 30 - October 1, 2006, Proceedings , 2006, EELC.

[22]  Luc Steels,et al.  Design patterns in fluid construction grammar , 2011 .

[23]  Remi van Trijp.  Feature Matrices and Agreement: A Case Study for German Case , 2011 .

[24]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.