1887
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper describes the continuing goals and present status of the ICSI/UC Berkeley efforts on Embodied Construction Grammar (ECG). ECG is semantics-based formalism grounded in cognitive linguistics. ECG is the most explicitly inter-disciplinary of the construction grammars with deep links to computation, neuroscience, and cognitive science. Work continues on core cognitive, computational, and linguistic issues, including aspects of the mind/body problem. Much of the recent emphasis has been on applications and on tools to facilitate new applications. Extensive documentation plus downloadable systems and grammars can be found at the ECG Homepage.1

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00038.fel
2020-07-29
2020-08-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

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 Unpublished UC Berkeley dissertation.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. (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. (2017) Mysteries of visual experience. arxiv.org/abs/1604.08612
  14. (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. (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.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00038.fel
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00038.fel
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): best fit , compositionality , construction , embodiment , framework , robotics , semantics and workbench
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