The interaction of parsing rules and argument – Predicate constructionsimplications for the structure of the Grammaticon in FunGramKB

  1. Fumero Pérez, María del Carmen
  2. Díaz Galán, Ana
Revista:
Revista de lingüística y lenguas aplicadas

ISSN: 1886-2438

Año de publicación: 2017

Número: 12

Páginas: 33-44

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.4995/RLYLA.2017.5406 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista de lingüística y lenguas aplicadas

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

The Functional Grammar Knowledge Base (FunGramKB), (Periñán-Pascual and Arcas-Túnez 2010) is a multipurpose lexico-conceptual knowledge base designed to be used in different Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. It is complemented with the ARTEMIS (Automatically Representing Text Meaning via an Interlingua–based System) application, a parsing device linguistically grounded on Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) that transduces natural language fragments into their corresponding grammatical and semantic structures. This paper unveils the different phases involved in its parsing routine, paying special attention to the treatment of argumental constructions. As an illustrative case, we will follow all the steps necessary to effectively parse a For-Benefactive structure within ARTEMIS. This methodology will reveal the necessity to distinguish between Kernel constructs and L1-constructions, since the latter involve a modification of the lexical template of the verb. Our definition of L1-constructions leads to the reorganization of the catalogue of FunGramKB L1-constructions, formerly based on Levin’s (1993) alternations. Accordingly, a rearrangement of the internal configuration of the L1-Constructicon within the Grammaticon is proposed.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Boas, H. and Sag, I. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, Cal.: CSLI Publications.
  • Ferrari, G. (2004). State of the Art in Computational Linguistics. In Van Sterkenburg, P. (ed.) Linguistics Today: Facing a Greater Challenge. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 163-186. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.126.09fer
  • Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at Work: the Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago / London: University of Chicago Press.
  • Luzondo-Oyón, A. and Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2015). “Argument structure constructions in a Natural Language Processing environment”. Language Sciences, 48: 70-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.01.001
  • Mairal Usón, R. and Periñán-Pascual, C. (2009). “The anatomy of the lexicon within the framework of an NLP knowledge base”. RESLA, 22: 217-244.
  • Mairal Usón, R. and Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Butler, C. and Martín Arista, J. (eds.) Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 153-198.
  • Periñán-Pascual, C. (2012). “En defensa del Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural Fundamentado en la Lingüística Teórica”. ONOMÁZEIN, 26/2: 13-48.
  • Periñán-Pascual, C. (2013). Towards a Model of Constructional Meaning for natural Language Understanding. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E. (eds.) Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in RRG Grammars (Studies in Language Series). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 205-230. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.08per
  • Periñán-Pascual, C. and Arcas-Túnez, F. (2010). The Architecture of FungramKB. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 2667-2674. Malta: European Language Resources Association.
  • Periñán-Pascual, C. and Arcas-Túnez, F. (2014). The implementation of the CLS constructor in ARTEMIS. In Nolan, B. and Periñán-Pascual, C. (eds.) Language Processing and Grammars the role of functionally oriented computational models. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 164-196.
  • Periñán-Pascual, C. and Mairal Usón, R. (2010). “La gramática de COREL: un lenguaje de representación conceptual The COREL grammar: a conceptual representation language”. ONOMÁZEIN, 21/1: 11-45.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. and Mairal Usón, R. (2008). “Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model”. Folia Linguistica, 42/2: 355-400. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2008.355
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E. (eds.) Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in RRG Grammars (Studies in Language Series). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 231-270. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225
  • Sag, I, Wasow, T. and Bender, E. (2003). Syntactic Theory: Formal Introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  • Steels, L. (2015). “Introducing Fluid Construction Grammar”. In L. Steels (ed.) Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3-30.
  • Van Valin, R. (2005). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578
  • Van Valin, R. and La Polla, R. (1997). Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799
  • Wintner, S. (2009). “What science underlies natural language engineering?” Computational Linguistics, 35/4: 641-644. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2009.35.4.35409
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet