Advances in Embodied Construction Grammar

References

1. Bergen, B.
   (2014) Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bergen, B., Chang, N., & Narayan, S.
   (2004) Simulated action in an embodied construction grammar. InProceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 26, 108–113.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bryant, J.
   (2008) Best fit constructional analysis. Unpublished UC Berkeley dissertation.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Chang, N., & Mok, E.
   (2006) Putting context in constructions. InProceedings of the 4th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG4). Tokyo, Japan.
   [Google Scholar]
5. C&F (2013) In memory of Charles J. Fillmore. Constructions and Frames, 5(2), 117–118. doi:  10.1075/cf.5.2.00orb
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.5.2.00orb [Google Scholar]
6. Dodge, E., David, O., Stickles, E., & Sweetser, E.
   (2014) Constructions and metaphor: Integrating MetaNet and embodied construction grammar. Paper presented atThe 8th International Construction Grammar Conference.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Dodge, E.
   (2016) A deep semantic corpus-based approach to metaphor analysis: A case study of metaphoric conceptualizations of poverty. Constructions and Frames, 8(2), 256–294. doi:  10.1075/cf.8.2.05dod
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.2.05dod [Google Scholar]
8. Dodge, E., Trott, S., Gilardi, L., & Stickles, E.
   (2017) Grammar scaling: Leveraging FrameNet data to increase embodied construction grammar coverage. The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding. Technical Report SS-17–02 (pp.154–162). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Publications.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Eppe, M., Trott, S., Raghuram, V., Feldman, J., & Janin, A.
   (2016) Application-independent and integration-friendly natural language understanding. Global Conference on Artificial Intelligence (GCAI 2016) (pp.340–352). Berlin: EasyChair, EPiC Series in Computing, v.41.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Eppe, M., Trott, S., & Feldman, J.
    (2016a) Exploiting deep semantics and compositionality of natural language for human-robot interaction. 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (pp.731–738). Daejeon, South Korea: IEEE. doi:  10.1109/IROS.2016.7759133
    https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2016.7759133 [Google Scholar]
11. Feldman, J.
    (2006) From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3135.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3135.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
12. Feldman, J.
    (2010) Embodied language, best-fit analysis, and formal compositionality. Physics of Life Reviews, 7(4), 385–410. 10.1016/j.plrev.2010.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2010.06.006 [Google Scholar]
13. Feldman, J.
    (2017) Mysteries of visual experience. arxiv.org/abs/1604.08612
14. Feldman, J.
    (2018) Towards a science of the mind. https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.06825
15. Feldman, J., Lakoff, G., Bailey, D., Narayanan, S., Regier, T., & Stolcke, A.
    (1996) L0 – the first five years of an automated language acquisition project. InP. Mc Kevitt (Ed.), Integration of Natural Language and Vision Processing: Theory and Grounding Representations Volume III (pp.205–231). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:  10.1007/978‑94‑009‑1639‑5_15
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1639-5_15 [Google Scholar]
16. Feldman, J., Bryant, J., & Dodge, E.
    (2009) A neural theory of language and embodied construction grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics (pp.38–111). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Fillmore, C., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M.
    (2003) Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. 10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235 [Google Scholar]
18. Gedigian, M., & Narayanan, S.
    (2009) A multilingual primary health care resource. Proceedings of the Computer Science and Global Development Conference (pp.63–65). Washington, DC: Computing Community Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Khayrallah, H., Trott, S., & Feldman, J.
    (2015) Natural language for human-robot interaction. Paper presented at theInternational Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Portland, Oregon.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
23. Levesque, H., Davis, E., & Morgenstern, L.
    (2012) The Winograd schema challenge. InProceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (pp.552–561). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2017) Construction grammar and the syntax-semantics interface. Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax (pp.421–435). New York: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Mok, E. H., & Bryant, J.
    (2006) A best-fit approach to productive omission of arguments. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 32 (1), 551–560. 10.3765/bls.v32i1.3462
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v32i1.3462 [Google Scholar]
26. Narayanan, S.
    (1999a) Reasoning about actions in narrative understanding. InProceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI ’99) (pp.350–358). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Narayanan, S.
    (1999b) Moving right along: A computational model of metaphoric reasoning about events. InProceedings of the Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI ’99) (pp.121–128). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Narayanan, S., & Jurafsky, D.
    (1998) Bayesian models of human sentence processing. InProceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.752–757). Allendale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Newell, A.
    (1994) Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Petruck, M.
    (Ed.) (2016) Constructions and Frames [Special issue on Metanet], 8(2). 10.1075/cf.8.2.01pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.2.01pet [Google Scholar]
31. Raghuram, V., Trott, S., Shen, K., Goldberg, E., & Oderberg, S.
    (2017) Semantically-driven coreference resolution with embodied construction grammar. InProceedings of the AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding. Technical Report SS-17–02 (pp.238–244). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Raghuram, V.
    (2018) Natural language understanding for healthcare queries. UC Berkeley Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2018-35. www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2018/EECS-2018-35.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
33. Regier, T.
    (2002) The human semantic potential. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Stickles, E., David, O., & Sweetser, E.
    (2015) Grammatical constructions, frame structure, and metonymy: Their contributions to metaphor computation. InProceedings of the 11th Meeting of the High Desert Linguistics Society (HDLS) (pp.317–345). Albuquerque, NM: High Desert Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Trott, S., Eppe, M., & Feldman, J.
    (2016) Recognizing intentions from natural language: Clarification dialog and construction grammar. Paper presented atRO-MAN 2016, Workshop on Communicating Intentions in Human-Robot Interaction. New York, NY.