Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barres, V. , & Lee, J.
    (2014) Template construction grammar: From visual scene description to language comprehension and agrammatism. Neuroinformatics, 12(1), 181–208. doi: 10.1007/s12021‑013‑9197‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-013-9197-y [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergen, B. K. , & Chang, N. C.
    (2003) Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and cross-language dimensions (pp.147–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beuls, K. , van Trijp, R. , & Wellens, P.
    (2012) Diagnostics and repairs in Fluid Construction Grammar. In L. Steels & M. Hild (Eds.), Language grounding in robots (pp.215–234). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4614‑3064‑3_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3064-3_11 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beul, K. , & Steels, L.
    (2013) Agent-based models of strategies for the emergence and evolution of arammatical Agreement. Plos One, 8(3), e58960.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boas, H. , & Sag, I.
    (Eds.) (2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bresnan, J.
    (2001) Lexical Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chang, N. , De Beule, J. & Micelli, V.
    (2011) Computational Construction Grammar: Comparing ECG and FCG. In: Steels, L. (Ed.) Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. (pp.259–288) Berlin: Springer Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. De Beule, J. , Chang, N. , & Micelli, V.
    (2011) Computational construction grammar: Comparing ecg and fcg. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp.259–288). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dominey, P. , & Boucher, J.
    (2011) Learning to talk about events from narrated video in a construction grammar framework. Artificial Intelligence167(1–2), 243–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1988) The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. InProceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp.35–55). Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Garcia-Casademont, E. , & Steels, L.
    (2016) Grammar learning as insight problem solving. The Journal of Cognitive Science, 5(17), 27–62. doi: 10.17791/jcs.2016.17.1.27
    https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2016.17.1.27 [Google Scholar]
  12. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2014) Fitting a slim dime between the verb template and argument structure construction approaches. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(1–2), 113–135.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kay, M.
    (1984) Functional unification grammar: A formalism for machine translation. InProceedings of the International Conference of Computational Linguistics (pp.75–78). doi: 10.3115/980431.980509
    https://doi.org/10.3115/980431.980509 [Google Scholar]
  15. Knight, K.
    (1989) Unification: A multidisciplinary survey. ACM Computing Surveys21(1), 93–124 1989. doi: 10.1145/62029.62030
    https://doi.org/10.1145/62029.62030 [Google Scholar]
  16. Levelt, W.
    (Ed.) (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Martelli, A. & Montanari, U.
    (1982) An efficient unification algorithm. Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 4(2), 258–282. doi: 10.1145/357162.357169
    https://doi.org/10.1145/357162.357169 [Google Scholar]
  18. Pereira, F. , & Warren, D.
    (1980) Definite clause grammars for language analysis – a survey of the formalism and a comparison with augmented transition networks. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 231–278. doi: 10.1016/0004‑3702(80)90003‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(80)90003-X [Google Scholar]
  19. Sag, I. , Wasow, T. , & Bender, E.
    (2003) Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Shieber, S. M. (1986) An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar, volume 4 of CSLI Lecture Notes Series. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Spranger, M. , Pauw, S. , Loetzsch, M. , & Steels, L.
    (2012) Open-ended procedural semantics. In L. Steels & M. Hild (Eds.), Language grounding in robots (pp.153–172). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4614‑3064‑3_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3064-3_8 [Google Scholar]
  22. Spranger, M. , Pauw, S. , & Loetzsch, M.
    (2010) Open-ended semantics co-evolving with spatial language. In A. D. M. Smith , M. Schouwstra , B. de Boer , & K. Smith (Eds.), The evolution of language ( EVOLANG 8 ) (pp.297–304), Singapore: World Scientific. doi: 10.1142/9789814295222_0038
    https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814295222_0038 [Google Scholar]
  23. Steels, L.
    (2004) Constructivist development of grounded construction grammars. In D. Scott , W. Daelemans , & M. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistic Conference (pp.9–19). Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (Ed.) (2011) Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2012a) Experiments in cultural language evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ais.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.3 [Google Scholar]
  26. (Ed.) (2012b) Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar, Volume 7249 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2015) The talking heads experiment. Origins of words and meanings, Volume 1 of Computational models of language evolution. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi: 10.26530/OAPEN_559870
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_559870 [Google Scholar]
  28. Steels, L. , & De Beule, J.
    (2006) Unify and merge in Fluid Construction Grammar. In P. Vogt , Y. Sugita , E. Tuci , & C. Nehaniv (Eds.), Symbol grounding and beyond: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on the Emergence and Evolution of Linguistic Communication, LNAI 4211 (pp.197–223). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/11880172_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/11880172_16 [Google Scholar]
  29. Steels, L. , De Beule, J. , Van Looveren, J. , & Neubauer, N.
    (2004) Fluid Construction Grammars. Paper presented at 3rd International Conference on Construction Grammar , Marseille.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Steels, L. , & Szathmáry, E.
    (2016) Fluid Construction Grammar as a biological system. Linguisics Vanguard, 2(1) 20150022.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. van Trijp, R.
    (2010) Argument realization in Fluid Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Computational approaches to Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2013) A comparison between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 5(1), 88–116. doi: 10.1075/cf.5.1.04van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.5.1.04van [Google Scholar]
  33. (2011) Feature matrices and agreement: A case study for German case. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp.205–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, Amsterdam. doi: 10.1075/cal.11.12tri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11.12tri [Google Scholar]
  34. Wellens, P.
    (2011) Organizing constructions in networks. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp.181–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.11.10wel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11.10wel [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error