Computational Construction Grammar: Comparing ECG and FCG

This chapter compares two computational frameworks developed over the last decade to support investigations into the emergence and use of language, Fluid Construction Grammar (FCG) and Embodied Construction Grammar (ECG). Both of these representational formalisms are rooted in the construction grammar tradition, sharing basic assumptions about the nature of linguistic units and the crucial role played by contextual factors. Nonetheless, they have arisen from different perspectives and with different goals: FCG was designed to support computational language game experiments that address the evolution of communication in populations of robotic agents, while ECG was designed to support cognitive modeling of human language acquisition and use. We investigate how these differing emphases motivated different design choices in the two formalisms and illustrate the linguistic and computational consequences of these choices through a concrete case study. Results of this comparison sharpen issues relevant to computational construction grammar in general and may hold lessons for broader computational investigations into linguistic phenomena.

[1]  Joachim De Beule,et al.  Search in linguistic processing , 2011 .

[2]  Jerome A. Feldman,et al.  Best-fit constructional analysis , 2008 .

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

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

[5]  Jerome A. Feldman,et al.  From Molecule to Metaphor - A Neural Theory of Language , 2006 .

[6]  C. Fillmore,et al.  Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction , 1999 .

[7]  Nathan Schneider,et al.  Computational Cognitive Morphosemantics: Modeling Morphological Compositionality in Hebrew Verbs with Embodied Construction Grammar , 2010 .

[8]  Benjamin K. Bergen,et al.  Embodied Construction Grammar in Simulation-Based Language Understanding , 2003 .

[9]  Liviu Ciortuz,et al.  Fluid Construction Grammar and Feature Constraint Logics , 2012, Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar.

[10]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

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

[12]  Vanessa Micelli,et al.  Field Topology and Information Structure: A Case Study for German Constituent Order , 2012, Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar.

[13]  Ellen Kirsten Dodge.  Constructional and Conceptual Composition , 2010 .

[14]  Luc Steels,et al.  A first encounter with Fluid Construction Grammar , 2011 .

[15]  D. Gary Miller,et al.  1. Theoretical Prerequisites , 1994 .

[16]  Remi van Trijp,et al.  Framing Fluid Construction Grammar , 2009 .

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

[18]  R. Langacker.  Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[19]  Jerome A. Feldman,et al.  Contextual bootstrapping for grammar learning , 2008 .

[20]  Jerome A. Feldman,et al.  Scaling Understanding up to Mental Spaces , 2004, HLT-NAACL 2004.

[21]  Nancy Chang,et al.  A computational model of the emergence of early constructions , 2008 .

[22]  Bob Carpenter,et al.  Probabilistic Parsing using Left Corner Language Models , 1997, IWPT.