1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Composing or not composing?
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Understanding how language comprehension works remains a central challenge. While meaning is traditionally viewed as incrementally constructed through compositional processes, numerous studies show that non-compositional mechanisms also play a crucial role. In this paper, we propose a unified framework grounded in Construction Grammar and Distributional Semantics that integrates both aspects. In this perspective, we extend Sign-Based Construction Grammar by formalizing meaning as the interaction of three semantic components: constructions, frames, and events, to which distributional information is integrated. We further introduce a processing mechanism in which meaning emerges through activation dynamics, evaluated and controlled via similarity and unification.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.25004.bla
2026-01-08
2026-01-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.25004.bla
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y.
    (2004) An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, (), –. 10.1037/0033‑295X.111.4.1036
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1036 [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, N., Van de Cruys, T., Bride, A., & Abrusán, M.
    (2016) Integrating type theory & distributional semantics: A case study on adjective–noun compositions. Computational Linguistics, (), –. 10.1162/COLI_a_00264
     https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00264 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baggio, G.
    (2021) Compositionality in a parallel architecture for language processing. Cognitive Science, (). 10.1111/cogs.12949
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12949 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baldwin, T., & Kim, S. N.
    (2010) Multiword expressions. InN. Indurkhya & F. J. Damerau (Eds.), Handbook of natural language processing (pp. –). CRC Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baroni, M., & Lenci, A.
    (2010) Distributional memory: A general framework for corpus-based semantics. Computational Linguistics, (), –. 10.1162/coli_a_00016
     https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00016 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baroni, M., Bernardi, R., & Zamparelli, R.
    (2013) Frege in space: A program for compositional distributional semantics. Linguistic Issues in Language Technologies, .
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Beltagy, I., Roller, S., Cheng, P., Erk, K., & Mooney, R. J.
    (2016) Representing meaning with a combination of logical and distributional models. Computational Linguistics, (). 10.1162/COLI_a_00266
     https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00266 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bergen, B. K., & Chang, N.
    (2005) Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. InJ-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.08ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.08ber [Google Scholar]
  9. Berwick, R. C., Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J.
    (2013) Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/j.tics.2012.12.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bicknell, K., Elman, J. L., Hare, M., McRae, K., & Kutas, M.
    (2010) Effects of event knowledge in processing verbal arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, (), –. 10.1016/j.jml.2010.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Blache, P.
    (2005) Property Grammars: A fully constraint-based theory. InH. Christiansen, P. R. Skadhauge, & J. Villadsen (Eds.), Constraint solving and language processing (pp. –). Springer. 10.1007/11424574_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/11424574_1 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2011) Evaluating language complexity in context: New parameters for a constraint-based model. InP. Blache, H. Christiansen, V. Dahl & J. Villadsen (Eds.), Constraints and language processing (pp. –). Roskilde University.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2016) Representing syntax by means of properties: A formal framework for descriptive approaches. Journal of Language Modelling, (), –. 10.15398/jlm.v4i2.129
     https://doi.org/10.15398/jlm.v4i2.129 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2024) A neuro-cognitive model of comprehension based on prediction and unification. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, . 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1356541
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2024.1356541 [Google Scholar]
  16. Boleda, G., & Herbelot, A.
    (2016) Formal Distributional Semantics. Introduction to the special issue. Computational Linguistics, (), –. 10.1162/COLI_a_00261
     https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00261 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bolognesi, M.
    (2020) Where words get their meaning. John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.23
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.23 [Google Scholar]
  18. Bos, J., Clark, S., Steedman, M., Curran, J. R., & Hockenmaier, J.
    (2004) Wide-coverage semantic representations from a CCG parser. InCOLING 2004: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. –). COLING. 10.3115/1220355.1220535
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1220355.1220535 [Google Scholar]
  19. Britton, J., Cong, Y., Hsu, Y.-Y., Chersoni, E., & Blache, P.
    (2024) On the influence of discourse connectives on the predictions of humans and language models. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, . 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1363120
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2024.1363120 [Google Scholar]
  20. Brouwer, H., Crocker, M. W., Venhuizen, N. J., & Hoeks, J. C. J.
    (2017) Neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing. Cognitive Science, (). 10.1111/cogs.12461
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12461 [Google Scholar]
  21. Bybee, J.
    (2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Carrol, G.
    (2021) Psycholinguistic approaches to figuration. InA. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative language–intersubjectivity and usage (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.11.10car
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.11.10car [Google Scholar]
  25. Chersoni, E., Blache, P., & Lenci, A.
    (2016) Towards a distributional model of semantic complexity. InD. Brunato, F. Dell’Orletta, G. Venturi, T. François & P. Blache. Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Linguistic Complexity (CL4LC) (pp. –). COLING.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Chersoni, E., Lenci, A., & Blache, P.
    (2017a) Logical metonymy in a distributional model of sentence comprehension. InN. Ide, A. Herbelot & L. Màrquez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2017) (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/S17‑1021
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S17-1021 [Google Scholar]
  27. Chersoni, E., Santus, E., Blache, P., & Lenci, A.
    (2017b) Is structure necessary for modeling argument expectations in distributional semantics?InC. Gardent & C. Retoré (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS) — Long papers.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Chersoni, E., Santus, E., Pannitto, L., Lenci, A., Blache, P., & Huang, C.-R.
    (2019) A structured distributional model of sentence meaning and processing. Natural Language Engineering, (), –. 10.1017/S1351324919000214
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324919000214 [Google Scholar]
  29. Chersoni, E., Pannitto, L., Santus, E., Lenci, A., Huang, C.-R.,
    (2020) Are word embeddings really a bad fit for the estimation of thematic fit?InProceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (pp. –). European Language Resources Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Chersoni, E., Santus, E., Lenci, A., Blache, P., & Huang, C.-R.
    (2021) Not all arguments are processed equally: A distributional model of argument complexity. Language Resources and Evaluation, (), –. 10.1007/s10579‑021‑09533‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-021-09533-9 [Google Scholar]
  31. Chomsky, N.
    (1980) Rules and representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, (), –. 10.1017/S0140525X00001515
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00001515 [Google Scholar]
  32. Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F.
    (2001) Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, (), –. 10.1006/cogp.2001.0752
     https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0752 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ciaccio, C., Sartor, M., Miaschi, A., & Dell’Orletta, F.
    (2025) Beyond the spelling miracle: Investigating substring awareness in character-blind language models. InW. Che, J. Nabende, E. Shutova, M. Taher Pilehvar (Eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2025.findings‑acl.593
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.593 [Google Scholar]
  34. Clark, S.
    (2015) Vector space models of lexical meaning. InS. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The Handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. –). Wiley. 10.1002/9781118882139.ch16
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118882139.ch16 [Google Scholar]
  35. Colmerauer, A.
    (1982) An interesting subset of natural language. InK. Clark & S. Tärnlund (Eds.), Logic Programming (pp. –). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Cong, Y., Chersoni, E., Hsu, Y.-Y., & Lenci, A.
    (2023) Are language models sensitive to semantic attraction? A study on surprisal. InA. Palmer, J. Camacho-collados (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2023) (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2023.starsem‑1.13
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.starsem-1.13 [Google Scholar]
  37. Contreras Kallens, P., & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2022) Models of language and multiword expressions. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, . 10.3389/frai.2022.781962
     https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.781962 [Google Scholar]
  38. Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A.
    (2005) Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on language and computation, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  40. Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R.
    (1999) The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry, (), –. 10.1162/002438999554200
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554200 [Google Scholar]
  41. Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ding, N., Melloni, L., Zhang, H., Tian, X., & Poeppel, D.
    (2016) Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience, (), –. 10.1038/nn.4186
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4186 [Google Scholar]
  43. Dunn, J.
    (2024) Computational Construction Grammar: A usage-based approach. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009233743
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009233743 [Google Scholar]
  44. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2014) Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0057
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0057 [Google Scholar]
  45. Elman, J. L.
    (1991) Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks and grammatical structure. Machine Learning, (), –. 10.1023/A:1022699029236
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022699029236 [Google Scholar]
  46. Elman, J.
    (2014) Systematicity in the lexicon: On having your cake and eating it too. InP. Calvo & J. Symons (Eds.), The architecture of cognition: Rethinking Fodor and Pylyshyn’s systematicity challenge. The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9559.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9559.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  47. Emerson, G., & Copestake, A.
    (2016) Functional Distributional Semantics. InP. Blunsom, K. Cho, S. Cohen, E. Grefenstette, K. M. Hermann, L. Rimell, J. Weston, S. Wen-tau Yih (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/W16‑1605
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W16-1605 [Google Scholar]
  48. Emerson, G. E. T.
    (2018) Functional Distributional Semantics: Learning linguistically informed representations from a precisely annotated corpus [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Cambridge.
  49. Engelmann, F., Jäger, L. A., & Vasishth, S.
    (2019) The effect of prominence and cue association in retrieval processes: A computational account. Cognitive Science, (). 10.1111/cogs.12800
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12800 [Google Scholar]
  50. Feldman, J. A.
    (2020) Advances in Embodied Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.00038.fel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00038.fel [Google Scholar]
  51. Ferreira, F.
    (2003) The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, (), –. 10.1016/S0010‑0285(03)00005‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7 [Google Scholar]
  52. Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D.
    (2007) The ‘Good Enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, (), –. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00007.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x [Google Scholar]
  53. Ferreira, F., & Lowder, M. W.
    (2016) Prediction, information structure, and good-enough language processing. InB. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. –). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Fillmore, C.
    (1977) Scenes-and-Frames Semantics. InA. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic Structure Processing (pp. –). North Holland Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. (1988) The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, , –. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  57. Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C.
    (2009) A frames approach to semantic analysis. InB. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0013
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0013 [Google Scholar]
  58. Friederici, A. D.
    (2011) The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function. Physiological Reviews, (), –. 10.1152/physrev.00006.2011
     https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00006.2011 [Google Scholar]
  59. Gibson, E.
    (1998) Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, , –. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(98)00034‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1 [Google Scholar]
  60. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  61. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. (2016) Compositionality. InN. Riemer (Ed.), Semantics Handbook. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Goldberg, A. E., & Ferreira, F.
    (2022) Good-enough language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  64. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2024) Usage-based constructionist approaches and large language models. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.23017.gol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23017.gol [Google Scholar]
  65. Grefenstette, E.
    (2013) Towards a formal Distributional Semantics simulating logical calculi with tensors. InM. Diab, T. Baldwin, M. Baroni (Eds.), Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM), Volume 1: Proceedings of the Main Conference and the Shared Task: Semantic Textual Similarity (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Hagoort, P.
    (2003) Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, (), –. 10.1162/089892903322370807
     https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903322370807 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2013) MUC (Memory, Unification, Control) and beyond. Frontiers in Psychology, . 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00416
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00416 [Google Scholar]
  68. Hale, J.
    (2001) A Probabilistic Earley Parser as a psycholinguistic model. InNAACL ’01: Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language technologies (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/1073336.1073357
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1073336.1073357 [Google Scholar]
  69. (2006) Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science, (), –. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_64
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_64 [Google Scholar]
  70. Herbst, T., & Hoffmann, T.
    (2018) Construction Grammar for students: A constructionist approach to syntactic analysis (CASA). Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, (), –. 10.1515/gcla‑2018‑0010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2018-0010 [Google Scholar]
  71. Hilpert, M.
    (2019) Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474433624
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474433624 [Google Scholar]
  72. (2021) Ten lectures on diachronic Construction Grammar. Brill. 10.1163/9789004446793
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004446793 [Google Scholar]
  73. Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
    (Eds.) (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  74. Hoffmann, T., Brunner, T., & Horsch, J.
    (2020) English comparative correlative constructions: A usage-based account. Open Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/opli‑2020‑0012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2020-0012 [Google Scholar]
  75. Hoffmann, T.
    (2022) Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139004213
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139004213 [Google Scholar]
  76. Holsinger, E., & Kaiser, E.
    (2013) Processing (non)compositional expressions: Mistakes and recovery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Huettig, F.
    (2015) Four central questions about prediction in language processing. Brain Research, , –. 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.014 [Google Scholar]
  78. Jackendoff, R.
    (1997) The architecture of the language faculty. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. (2013) Constructions in the parallel architecture. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S.
    (2015) Retrieval interference in reflexive processing: Experimental evidence from Mandarin, and computational modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, , . 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00617
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00617 [Google Scholar]
  81. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U.
    (1993) From discourse to logic: Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, (), –. 10.2307/417472
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  83. Kay, P. & Michaelis, L.
    (2013) Constructional meaning and compositionality. InC. Maienborn, K. Heusinger & P. Portner (Ed.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning Volume 3 (pp. –). Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Kim, A., & Osterhout, L.
    (2005) The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, (), –. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  85. Kounios, J., W. Smith, R., Yang, W., Bachman, P., & D’Esposito, M.
    (2001) Cognitive association formation in human memory revealed by spatiotemporal brain imaging. Neuron, (), –. 10.1016/S0896‑6273(01)00199‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00199-4 [Google Scholar]
  86. Langacker, R.
    (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. InR. Langacker (Ed.), Grammar and conceptualization (pp. –). CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Lenci, A.
    (2008) Distributional Semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Italian Journal of Linguistics, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. (2011) Composing and updating verb argument expectations: A Distributional Semantic model. InF. Keller & D. Reitter (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Lenci, A., & Sahlgren, M.
    (2023) Distributional Semantics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9780511783692
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511783692 [Google Scholar]
  90. Levy, R.
    (2008) Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, (), –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  91. Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S.
    (2005) An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, , –. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25 [Google Scholar]
  92. Lewis, M., & Steedman, M.
    (2013) Combined distributional and logical semantics. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, , –. 10.1162/tacl_a_00219
     https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00219 [Google Scholar]
  93. Liu, R., Garrette, D., Saharia, C., Chan, W., Roberts, A., Narang, S., Blok, I., Mical, R., Norouzi, M., & Constant, N.
    (2022) Character-aware models improve visual text rendering. arXiv:2212.10562.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Lo, C. H., Cheng, H., Lam, W., & Emerson, G.
    (2023) Functional Distributional Semantics at scale. InA. Palmer, J. Camacho-collados (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2023) (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2023.starsem‑1.37
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.starsem-1.37 [Google Scholar]
  95. Madabushi, H. T., Romain, L., Divjak, D., & Milin, P.
    (2020) CxGBERT: BERT meets Construction Grammar. InD. Scott, N. Bel, C. Zong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2020.coling‑main.355
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.355 [Google Scholar]
  96. Madabushi, H. T., Romain, L., Milin, P., & Divjak, D.
    (2025) Construction grammar and language models. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.023
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.023 [Google Scholar]
  97. Marton, Y., & Sayeed, A.
    (2022) Thematic fit bits: Annotation quality and quantity interplay for event participant representation. InN. Calzolari, F. Béchet, P. Blache, K. Choukri, C. Cieri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, H. Isahara, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. McRae, K., & Matsuki, K.
    (2009) People use their knowledge of common events to understand language and do so as quickly as possible. Language and Linguistics Compass, (), –. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2009.00174.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00174.x [Google Scholar]
  99. Meister, C., Giulianelli, M., & Pimentel, T.
    (2024) Towards a similarity-adjusted surprisal theory. InY. Al-Onaizan, M. Bansal & Y-N. Chen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp‑main.921
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.921 [Google Scholar]
  100. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2013) Sign-based Construction Grammar. InB. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Michalon, O., & Baggio, G.
    (2019) Meaning-driven syntactic predictions in a parallel processing architecture: Theory and algorithmic modeling of ERP effects. Neuropsychologia, , –. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.05.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  102. Minsky, M.
    (1975) A framework for representing knowledge. InP. H. Winston (Ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision (pp. –). McGraw-Hill Book.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Mitchell, J., & Lapata, M.
    (2010) Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science, (), –. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2010.01106.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01106.x [Google Scholar]
  104. Montague, R.
    (1973) The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. InJ. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik, & P. S. (Eds.), Approaches to Natural Language (pp. –). Dordrecht. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑2506‑5_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2506-5_10 [Google Scholar]
  105. Moot, R.
    (2012) Wide-coverage semantics for spatio-temporal reasoning. TAL, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Nair, S., & Resnik, P.
    (2023) Words, subwords, and morphemes: What really matters in the surprisal–reading time relationship?InH. Bouamor, J. Pino, K. Bali (Eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2023.findings‑emnlp.752
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.752 [Google Scholar]
  107. Partee, B. H.
    (2011) Formal semantics: Origins, issues, early impact. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, ().
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Pereira, F. C. N., & Shieber, S. M.
    (1987) Prolog and natural-language analysis. Microtome.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Pickel, B., & Szabó, Z. G.
    (2004) Compositionality. InE. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compositionality/
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S.
    (2013) An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, (), –. 10.1017/S0140525X12001495
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495 [Google Scholar]
  111. Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C.
    (2018) Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin, (), –. 10.1037/bul0000158
     https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000158 [Google Scholar]
  112. Pickering, M., & Garrod, S.
    (2021) Understanding dialogue. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108610728
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108610728 [Google Scholar]
  113. Pijpops, D., De Smet, I., & Van de Velde, F.
    (2018) Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax: Four case studies. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.00021.pij
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00021.pij [Google Scholar]
  114. Pulvermüller, F., Cappelle, B., & Shtyrov, Y.
    (2013) Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions, and grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. –). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Rambelli, G., Chersoni, E., Blache, P., & Lenci, A.
    (2022) Compositionality as an analogical process: Introducing ANNE. InM. Zock, E. Chersoni, Y-Y. Hsu & E. Santus (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of the Lexicon (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2022.cogalex‑1.10
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.cogalex-1.10 [Google Scholar]
  116. Rambelli, G., Chersoni, E., Senaldi, M., Blache, P., & Lenci, A.
    (2023) Are frequent phrases directly retrieved like idioms? An investigation with self-paced reading and language models. InA. Bhatia, K. Evang, M. Garcia, V. Giouli, L. Han & S. Taslimipoor (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on Multiword Expressions (MWE 2023) (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2023.mwe‑1.13
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.mwe-1.13 [Google Scholar]
  117. Rambelli, G.
    (2024) Constructions and compositionality: Cognitive and computational explorations. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009437929
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009437929 [Google Scholar]
  118. Rommers, J., Dijkstra, T., & Bastiaansen, M.
    (2013) Context-dependent semantic processing in the human brain: Evidence from idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, (), –. 10.1162/jocn_a_00337
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00337 [Google Scholar]
  119. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2010) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. International Computer Science Institute.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Schwarzer-Petruck, M., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice [Technical Report]. International Computer Science Institute.
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Sag, I. A., Baldwin, T., Bond, F., Copestake, A., & Flickinger, D.
    (2002) Multiword expressions: A pain in the neck for NLP. InA. Gelbukh (Ed.), Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing (pp. –). Springer. 10.1007/3‑540‑45715‑1_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45715-1_1 [Google Scholar]
  122. Sag, I.
    (2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. InH. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. –). CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Salicchi, L., Chersoni, E., & Lenci, A.
    (2023) A study on surprisal and semantic relatedness for eye-tracking data prediction. Frontiers in Psychology, , . 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1112365
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1112365 [Google Scholar]
  124. Santus, E., Chersoni, E., Lenci, A., & Blache, P.
    (2017) Measuring thematic fit with distributional feature overlap. InM. Palmer, R. Hwa & S. Riedel (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/D17‑1068
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D17-1068 [Google Scholar]
  125. Sayeed, A., Greenberg, C., & Demberg, V.
    (2016) Thematic fit evaluation: An aspect of selectional preferences. InProceedings of the 1st Workshop on Evaluating Vector-Space Representations for NLP. Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/W16‑2518
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W16-2518 [Google Scholar]
  126. Shain, C., Meister, C., Pimentel, T., Cotterell, R., & Levy, R.
    (2024) Large-scale evidence for logarithmic effects of word predictability on reading time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (), e2307876121. 10.1073/pnas.2307876121
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2307876121 [Google Scholar]
  127. Siewierska, A., & Hollmann, W. B.
    (2007) Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect. InM. Hannay & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Structural-functional studies in English grammar (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.83.06sie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.83.06sie [Google Scholar]
  128. Smith, N. J., & Levy, R.
    (2013) The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition, (), –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013 [Google Scholar]
  129. Stalnaker, R.
    (2002) Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, (), –. 10.1023/A:1020867916902
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 [Google Scholar]
  130. Steedman, M.
    (2000) The syntactic process. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Steels, L., & De Beule, J.
    (2006) Unify and merge in Fluid Construction Grammar. InP. Vogt, Y. Sugita, E. Tuci, & C. Nehaniv (Eds.), Symbol grounding and beyond (pp. –). Springer. 10.1007/11880172_16
     https://doi.org/10.1007/11880172_16 [Google Scholar]
  132. Steels, L.
    (2017) Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.00002.ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00002.ste [Google Scholar]
  133. Tomasello, M.
    (2005) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv26070v8
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv26070v8 [Google Scholar]
  134. Ullman, M. T.
    (1999) Acceptability ratings of regular and irregular past-tense forms: Evidence for a dual-system model of language from word frequency and phonological neighbourhood effects. Language and Cognitive Processes, (), –. 10.1080/016909699386374
     https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386374 [Google Scholar]
  135. (2001) The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, (). 10.1023/A:1005204207369
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005204207369 [Google Scholar]
  136. Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S.
    (2023) Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009308717
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009308717 [Google Scholar]
  137. van Trijp, R., Beuls, K., & Van Eecke, P.
    (2022) The FCG editor: An innovative environment for engineering computational Construction Grammars. PLOS ONE, (), –. 10.1371/journal.pone.0269708
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269708 [Google Scholar]
  138. Venhuizen, N. J., Hendriks, P., Crocker, M. W., & Brouwer, H.
    (2022) Distributional formal semantics. Information and Computation, , . 10.1016/j.ic.2021.104763
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2021.104763 [Google Scholar]
  139. Weissweiler, L., Hofmann, V., Köksal, A., & Schütze, H.
    (2022) The better your syntax, the better your semantics? Probing pretrained language models for the English comparative correlative. InY. Goldberg, Z. Kozareva, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. –). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp‑main.746
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.746 [Google Scholar]
  140. Wilcox, E. G., Pimentel, T., Meister, C., Cotterell, R., & Levy, R. P.
    (2023) Testing the predictions of surprisal theory in 11 languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, , –. 10.1162/tacl_a_00612
     https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00612 [Google Scholar]
  141. Willich, A.
    (2022) Introducing construction semantics (CxS): A frame-semantic extension of Construction Grammar and constructicography. Linguistics Vanguard, (), –. 10.1515/lingvan‑2022‑0082
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2022-0082 [Google Scholar]
  142. Zwaan, R., & Radvansky, G.
    (1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, (), –. 10.1037/0033‑2909.123.2.162
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.25004.bla
Loading
Composing or not composing?
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.25004.bla
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.25004.bla
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.25004.bla
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: construction grammar ; hybrid access to the meaning ; distributional semantics ; compositionality ; comprehension

Most Cited

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