Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar

References

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. Goldberg, A. E.
    (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.
    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. Steels, L.
    (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. Steels, L.
    (2012a) Experiments in cultural language evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ais.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.3 [Google Scholar]
26. Steels, L.
    (Ed.) (2012b) Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar, Volume 7249 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Steels, L.
    (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. van Trijp, R.
    (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. van Trijp, R.
    (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]