Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar

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.

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

[2]  Luc Steels,et al.  Fluid construction grammar as a biological system , 2016 .

[3]  Luc Steels,et al.  The Talking Heads experiment , 2015 .

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

[5]  Remi van Trijp.  A comparison between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar , 2013 .

[6]  Luc Steels,et al.  The emergence and evolution of linguistic structure: from lexical to grammatical communication systems , 2005, Connect. Sci..

[7]  Katrien Beuls,et al.  Diagnostics and Repairs in Fluid Construction Grammar , 2012, Language Grounding in Robots.

[8]  Charles J. Fillmore,et al.  The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar” , 1988 .

[9]  Luc Steels,et al.  Experiments in cultural language evolution , 2012 .

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

[11]  Joachim De Beule,et al.  Computational Construction Grammar: Comparing ECG and FCG , 2012, Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar.

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

[13]  Adele E. Goldberg,et al.  Fitting a slim dime between the verb template and argument structure construction approaches , 2014 .

[14]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction , 1999, Computational Linguistics.

[15]  Luc Steels,et al.  Constructivist Development of Grounded Construction Grammar , 2004, ACL.

[16]  Jinyong Lee,et al.  Template Construction Grammar: From Visual Scene Description to Language Comprehension and Agrammatism , 2013, Neuroinformatics.

[17]  W. Levelt,et al.  Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

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

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

[20]  Luc Steels,et al.  Insight Grammar Learning , 2016 .

[21]  Michael Spranger,et al.  Open-ended semantics co-evolving with spatial language , 2010 .

[22]  David H. D. Warren,et al.  Definite Clause Grammars for Language Analysis - A Survey of the Formalism and a Comparison with Augmented Transition Networks , 1980, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Alberto Martelli,et al.  An Efficient Unification Algorithm , 1982, TOPL.

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

[25]  Kevin Knight,et al.  Unification: a multidisciplinary survey , 1989, CSUR.

[26]  Peter Ford Dominey,et al.  Learning to talk about events from narrated video in a construction grammar framework , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[27]  Martin Kay,et al.  Functional Unification Grammar: A Formalism for Machine Translation , 1984, ACL.

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

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

[30]  Hans C. Boas,et al.  Sign-Based Construction Grammar , 2012 .

[31]  J. Bresnan.  Lexical-Functional Syntax , 2000 .