1887
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

FunGramKB is a multipurpose lexico-conceptual knowledge base for natural language processing systems, and more particularly, for natural language understanding. The linguistic layer of this knowledge-engineering project is grounded in compatible aspects of two linguistic accounts, namely, Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) and the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM). RRG, although originally a lexicalist approach, has recently incorporated constructional configurations into its descriptive and explanatory apparatus. The LCM has sought to understand from its inception the factors that constrain lexical-constructional integration. Within this theoretical context, this paper discusses the format of lexical entries, highly inspired in RRG proposals, and of constructional schemata, which are organized according to the descriptive levels supplied by the LCM. Both lexical and constructional structure is represented by means of Attribute Value Matrices (AVMs). Thus, the lexical and grammatical levels of FunGramKB are the focus of our attention here. Additionally, the need for a conceptualist approach to meaning construction is highlighted throughout our discussion.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.13.1.01mai
2015-06-23
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bergen, B. , & Chang, N
    (2005) Embodied Construction Grammar and simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.147–190). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.3.08ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.08ber [Google Scholar]
  2. Boas, H.C
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2008) Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–144. doi: 10.1075/arcl.6.06boa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.06boa [Google Scholar]
  4. Bod, R
    (2009) Constructions at work or at rest?Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 129–134. doi: 10.1515/COGL.2009.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.006 [Google Scholar]
  5. Butler, C.S
    (2009) The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In C.S. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp.117–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.107.07the
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.07the [Google Scholar]
  6. (2013) Constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 271–194). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.145.10but
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.10but [Google Scholar]
  7. Croft, W
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dik, S.C
    (1997a) The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. 2nd edition by K. Hengeveld. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1997b) The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2: Complex and derived constructions. 2nd editionby K. Hengeveld . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110218374
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218374 [Google Scholar]
  10. Enfield, N
    (2002) Cultural logic and syntactic productivity: Associated posture constructions in Lao. In N. Enfield (Ed.), Ethnosyntax (pp. 231–258). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, C.J
    (1977) The case for case reopened. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 8: Grammatical relations (pp. 59–81). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1982) Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–138). Seoul, Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fillmore, C.J. , & Atkins, B.T
    (1992) Towards a frame-based organization of the lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantics and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldberg, A.E
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2010) Verbs, constructions and semantic frames. In M. Rappaport Hovav , E. Doron , & I. Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics and event structure (pp. 39–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gonzálvez, F
    (2008) Construction Grammar works: An interview with Adele E. Goldberg. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 345–360. doi: 10.1075/arcl.6.19gon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.19gon [Google Scholar]
  18. Halliday, M.A.K. , & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M
    (2004) An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edition. London: Hodder Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hengeveld, K. , & Mackenzie, J.L
    (2008) Functional discourse grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kay, P. , & Fillmore, C.J
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. doi: 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lakoff, G
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M
    (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Langacker, R.W
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110800524
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Luzondo, A
    (2014) Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 30–63. doi: 10.1075/rcl.12.1.02luz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.1.02luz [Google Scholar]
  27. Mairal, R
    (2012) La arquitectura de una base de conocimiento léxico conceptual: implicaciones lingüísticas. In M. Giammatteo , L. Ferrari , & H. Albano (Eds.), Léxico y sintaxis (pp.183–210). FFyL, UNCuyo y SAL: Mendoza [Available at: ffyl.uncu.edu.ar/spip.php?article3638].
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mairal, R. , & Gonzálvez, F
    (2010) Verbos y construcciones en el espacio cognitivo-funcional del siglo XXI. In V. Álvaro , J. Francisco, & M.C. Horno Chéliz (Eds.), La gramática del sentido: Léxico y sintaxis en la encrucijada. Conocimiento, lenguaje y comunicación, 3 (pp. 123–152). Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mairal, R. , & Periñán, C
    (2009) The anatomy of the lexicon component within the framework of a conceptual knowledge base. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 22, 217–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2014) Representing constructional schemata in FunGramKB grammaticon. In J. Fleischhauer , A. Latrouite , & R. Osswald (Eds.), Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Düsseldorf University Press (in press).
    [Google Scholar]
  31. . (in preparation). Cultural distinctiveness and cognitive modelling.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mairal, R. , Periñán, C. , & Pérez Cabello de Alba, M.B
    (2012) La representación léxica. Hacia un enfoque ontológico. In R. Mairal Usón , L. Guerrero , & C. González (Eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística. La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia. Introducción, avances y aplicaciones (pp. 85–102). Akal: Madrid.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mairal, R. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
    (2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C.S. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp.153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev [Google Scholar]
  34. Michaelis, L
    (2003) Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuyckens , R. Dirven , & J.R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 93–122). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219074.163
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219074.163 [Google Scholar]
  35. Periñán, C
    (2013) Towards a model of constructional meaning for natural language understanding. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.)Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in a functional grammar (pp. 205–230). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.145.08per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.08per [Google Scholar]
  36. Periñán, C. , & Arcas, F
    (2004) Meaning postulates in a lexico-conceptual knowledge base. InProceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Databases and Expert Systems Applications (pp. 38–42). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society. doi: 10.1109/DEXA.2004.1333446
    https://doi.org/10.1109/DEXA.2004.1333446 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2005) Microconceptual-knowledge spreading in FunGramKB. InProceedings of the 9th IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing (pp. 239–244). Anaheim-Calgary-Zurich: ACTA Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2007) Cognitive modules of an NLP knowledge base for language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 39, 197–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2010) Ontological commitments in FunGramKB. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 44, 27–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2014) The implementation of the FunGramKB CLS Constructor in ARTEMIS. In C. Periñán & B. Nolan (Eds.), Language processing and grammars: The role of functionally oriented computational models (pp.165–196). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.150.07per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.150.07per [Google Scholar]
  41. Periñán, C. , & Mairal, R
    (2009) Bringing Role and Reference Grammar to natural language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 43, 265–273.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (2010) La Gramática de COREL: Un lenguaje de representación conceptual. Onomazein, 21(2010/1), 11–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2012) La dimensión computacional de la Gramática del Papel y la Referencia: La estructura lógica conceptual y su aplicación en el procesamiento del lenguaje natural. In R. Mairal Usón , L. Guerrero , & C. González (Eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística. La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia: Introducción, avances y aplicaciones (pp. 333–348). Akal: Madrid.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Petruck, M
    (1996) Frame semantics. In J. Verschueren , J.-O. Östman , J. Blommaert , & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam/Philadelpia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hop.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.1 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pustejovsky, J
    (1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
    (2007) High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (2013) Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2014) Low-level situational cognitive models within the Lexical Constructional Model and their computational implementation in FunGramKB. In B. Nolan & C. Periñán (Eds.), Language processing and grammars: The role of functionally oriented computational models (pp. 367–390). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.150.15iba
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.150.15iba [Google Scholar]
  49. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. , & Baicchi, A
    (2007) Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (pp. 95–128). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. , & Díez, O
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197.489
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  51. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. , & Galera, A
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  52. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. , & Gonzálvez, F
    (2011) Illocutionary meaning revisited: Subjective-transitive constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Turning points in the philosophy of language and linguistics (pp.65–78). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. , & Mairal, R
    (2007) High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden , K.M. Köpcke , T. Berg , & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar (pp. 33–49). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.136.05rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.05rui [Google Scholar]
  54. (2008) Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. (2011) Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). London, UK/ Oakville, CT: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Talmy, L
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. Concept structuring systems.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Van Valin, R
    (2005) The syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface: An introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  58. Van Valin, R. , & LaPolla, R
    (1997) Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Valin, R. , & Mairal, R
    (2014) Interfacing the Lexicon and an Ontology in a linking algorithm. In M.A. Gómez , F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza , & F. Gonzálvez-García (Eds.), Form and function in language: Functional, cognitive and applied perspectives: Essays in honor of Christopher S. Butler (pp.205–228). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.68.09val
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.68.09val [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.13.1.01mai
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