A design pattern for argument structure constructions

This paper presents a design pattern for handling argument structure and offers a concrete operationalization of this pattern in Fluid Construction Grammar. Argument structure concerns the mapping between ‘participant structure’ (who did what to whom) and instances of ‘argument realization’ (the linguistic expression of participant structures). This mapping is multilayered and indirect, which poses great challenges for grammar design. In the proposed design pattern, lexico-phrasal constructions introduce their semantic and syntactic potential of linkage. Argument structure constructions, then, select from this potential the values that they require and implement the actual linking.

[1]  Luc Steels,et al.  Introducing Fluid Construction Grammar , 2011 .

[2]  Hans C. Boas,et al.  Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar , 2008 .

[3]  Charles J. Fillmore,et al.  THE CASE FOR CASE. , 1967 .

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

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

[6]  William Croft,et al.  Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective , 2001 .

[7]  Noriko Nemoto.  ON THE POLYSEMY OF DITRANSITIVE SAVE : THE ROLE OF FRAME SEMANTICS IN CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR , 1998 .

[8]  Luc Steels.  A design pattern for phrasal constructions , 2011 .

[9]  Luc Steels,et al.  Linking in Fluid Construction Grammars , 2005, BNAIC.

[10]  Stefan Müller,et al.  Discussion Note: Phrasal or Lexical Constructions? , 2007 .

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

[12]  Beth Levin,et al.  Argument Realization , 2005 .

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

[14]  F. R. Palmer.  Grammatical roles and relations , 1994 .

[15]  Seizi Iwata.  Locative Alternation: A lexical-constructional approach , 2008 .

[16]  Robert D. van Valin,et al.  Semantic macroroles in Role and Reference Grammar , 2001 .

[17]  W. Bruce Croft.  Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations , 1990 .

[18]  M. Baltin,et al.  The Mental representation of grammatical relations , 1985 .

[19]  Pieter Wellens,et al.  PRIMING THROUGH CONSTRUCTIONAL DEPENDENCIES A CASE STUDY IN FLUID CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR , 2010 .

[20]  David R. Dowty.  Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[21]  John B. Carroll,et al.  Language, Thought and Reality , 2020 .

[22]  A. Goldberg,et al.  The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions , 2004 .

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

[24]  Hans C. Boas,et al.  A Constructional Approach to Resultatives , 2003 .

[25]  S. Pinker.  Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure , 1989 .

[26]  Luc Steels,et al.  How to make construction grammars fluid and robust , 2011 .

[27]  Jonathan Ginzburg,et al.  Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives , 2001 .

[28]  M. Haspelmath,et al.  Pre-established categories don't exist: Consequences for language description and typology , 2007 .

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

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

[31]  Luc Steels,et al.  Hierarchy in Fluid Construction Grammars , 2005, KI.

[32]  A. Goldberg.  Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language , 2006 .

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

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

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

[36]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy , 2003 .

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

[38]  S. Levinson,et al.  The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. , 2009, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[39]  G. Lakoff.  Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mind , 1989 .