Reassessing Constructions in the ARTEMIS Parser

  1. Francisco José Cortés Rodríguez
  2. Ricardo Mairal Usón
Revista:
Journal of English Studies

ISSN: 1576-6357

Año de publicación: 2022

Número: 20

Páginas: 25-58

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.18172/JES.5354 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Journal of English Studies

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

En este trabajo se somete a reexamen el estatus de las construcciones en ARTEMIS (Automatically Representing TExt Meaning via an Interlingua-based System), un prototipo para la comprensión del lenguaje natural cuyo objetivo es obtener la estructura sintáctica y semántica de un fragmento de lenguaje natural. ARTEMIS está diseñado según los postulados básicos del Modelo Léxico-Construccional (MLC), en el que las construcciones tienen un papel central para la descripción lingüística. Sin embargo, dado que ARTEMIS es un recurso computacional, hay diversos condicionantes de formalización para la adaptación del MLC, los cuales a su vez llevan a replantear varios aspectos, como son: (i) qué debe considerarse como construcción; (ii) cómo las construcciones contribuyen en los procesos de parseado en ARTEMIS; y (iii) la ubicación y el formato de las estructuras construccionales

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Cortés-Rodríguez, F.J. 2016. “Towards the computational implementation of Role and Reference Grammar: Rules for the syntactic parsing of RRG Phrasal constituents”. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación (CLAC) 65: 75-108.
  • Cortés-Rodríguez, F.J. 2021. “La Gramática Formalizada Léxico-Construccional: Aspectos generales”. Aportaciones al estudio de las lenguas: Perspectivas teóricas y aplicadas. Eds. J.L. Herrera Santana, J.L. and A.C. Díaz-Galán, A.C. Berlin: Peter Lang. 91-108.
  • Cortés-Rodríguez, F.J. and R. Mairal-Usón. 2016. “Building an RRG computational grammar”. Onomázein 34: 86-117.
  • Cortés-Rodríguez, F.J. and C. Rodríguez-Juárez. 2018. “Parsing phrasal constituents in ASD-STE100 with ARTEMIS”. Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki (Issues of Cognitive Linguistics) 2018 (3): 97-109.
  • Cortés-Rodríguez, F.J. and C. Rodríguez-Juárez. 2019. “The syntactic parsing of ASD-STE100 adverbials in ARTEMIS”. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 14: 59-79.
  • Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Croft, W. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Díaz-Galán, A.C. and M.C. Fumero-Pérez. 2017. “ARTEMIS: State of the art and future horizons”. Revista de Lengua para Fines Específicos 23(2): 16-40.
  • Earley, J. 1970. “An efficient context-free parsing algorithm”. Communications of the ACM 13(2): 94-102.
  • Fillmore, C. J. and P. Kay. 1996. Construction Grammar Coursebook. Unpublished manuscript. UC Berkeley.
  • Fumero-Pérez, M.C. and A.C. Díaz-Galán, A. 2017. “The Interaction of parsing rules and argument- predicate constructions: implications for the structure of the Grammaticon in FunGramKB”. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 12: 33-44.
  • 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.
  • Kallmeyer, L. and R. Osswald. 2013. “Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars”. Journal of Language Modelling, 1(2): 267–330.
  • Kay, P. 2002. “An Informal Sketch of the Formal Architecture of Construction Grammar”. Grammars 5: 1–19.
  • Langacker, R. W. 2005. “Dynamicity, factivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning”. Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language and Thinking. Eds. D. Pecher and R. A. Zwaan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 164-197.
  • Langacker, R. W. 2009a. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics Research). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Langacker, R. W. 2009b. “Constructions and constructional meaning”. Human Cognitive Processing 24: 225-267.
  • Lichte, T. and L. Kallmeyer. 2017. “Tree-Adjoining Grammar: A tree-based constructionist grammar framework for natural language understanding”. The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on computational construction grammar and natural language understanding (Technical Report SS-17-02). Eds. L. Steels and J. Feldman. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 205-212.
  • Luzondo, A. and F. Ruiz de Mendoza. 2015. “Argument structure constructions in a Natural Language Processing environment”. Language Sciences 48: 70-89.
  • Mairal-Usón, R. and C. Periñán-Pascual. 2016. “Representing constructional schemata in the FunGramKB Grammaticon”. Explorations of the syntax-semantics interface. Eds. J. Fleischhauer, A. Latrouite and R. Osswald. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press. 77-108.
  • Mairal-Usón, R., C. Periñán-Pascual, C. and B. Pérez-Cabello de Alba. 2012. “La representación léxica. Hacia un enfoque ontológico”. El Funcionalismo en la Teoría Lingüística. La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia. Eds. R. Mairal-Usón, L. Guerrero and C. González. Madrid: Akal. 85-102.
  • Mairal-Usón, R. and F. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. 2008. “Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction”. Deconstructing Constructions. Eds. C. Butler and J. Martín-Arista. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 153-198.
  • Malouf, R. 2003. “Cooperating constructions”. Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar. Eds. E. Francis and L. Michaelis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 403-424.
  • Martín-Díaz, A. 2017. “An account of English yes/no interrogative sentences within ARTEMIS”. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (RLFE) 23.2: 41-62.
  • Michaelis, L.A. 2012. “Making the case for Construction Grammar”. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Eds. H. Boas and I. Sag. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 31-69.
  • Michaelis, L.A. 2013. “Sign-Based Construction Grammar”. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Eds. T. Hoffman and G. Trousdale. Oxford: OUP. 133-152.
  • Michaelis, L.A. and K. Lambrecht. 1996. “Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition”. Language 72 (2): 215-247.
  • Müller, S. 2016. Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-based Approaches. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  • Pelletier, F. J. 2012. “Holism and compositionality”. The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Eds. M. Werning, W, Hinzen and E. Machery. Oxford: OUP. 149–174
  • Periñán-Pascual, C. 2013. “Towards a model of constructional meaning for natural language understanding”. Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar. Eds. B. Nolan and E. Diedrichsen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 205-230.
  • Periñán-Pascual, C. and F. Arcas-Túnez. 2010. “Ontological commitments in FunGramKB”. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 44: 27-34.
  • Periñán-Pascual, C. 2013. “Towards a model of constructional meaning for natural language understanding”. Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of gonstructions in grammar. Eds. B. Nolan and E.Diedrichsen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 205-230
  • Periñán, C. and F. Arcas (2014). “The implementation of the FunGramKB CLS Constructor in ARTEMIS”. Language Processing and Grammars: The role of functionally oriented computational models. Eds. C. Periñán and B. Nolan. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 165-196.
  • Pollard, C. and I.A. Sag, I. A. 1987. Information-based Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1: Fundamentals. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications
  • Pollard, C. and I.A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. and R. Mairal-Usón. 2008. “Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model”. Folia Lingüística 42 (2): 355–400.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. and R. Mairal-Usón. 2011. “Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model”. Morphosyntactic Alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives. Ed. P. Guerrero. London/Oakville, CT: Equinox. 62-82.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. and A. Galera Masegosa. 2014. Cognitive Modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Sag, I. A. 2012. “Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis”. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Eds. H. C. Boas and I. A. Sag. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 69-202.
  • Sag, I. A., H. Boas and P. Kay. 2012. “Introducing Sign-Based Construction Grammar”. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Eds. H. C. Boas and I. A. Sag. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 1-30.
  • Sag, I., T. Wasow and E. Bender. 2003. Syntactic Theory: Formal introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  • Steels, L., ed. 2011. Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Steels, L., ed. 2012. Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Berlin: Springer.
  • Steels, L. 2017. “Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar”. Constructions and Frames 9 (2): 178-225.
  • Van Trijp, R. 2013. “A comparison between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar”. Constructions and Frames 5 (1): 88-116.
  • Van Trijp, R. 2017. “How a Construction Grammar account solves the auxiliary controversy”. Constructions and Frames 9 (2): 251–277.
  • Van Valin, R.D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Van Valin, R.D. 2008. “RPs and the nature of lexical and syntactic categories in Role and Reference Grammar”. Investigations of the Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Ed. R.D. Van Valin. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 161-178.
  • Van Valin, R. D. and R. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Zwicky, A. 1994. “Dealing out meaning: Fundamentals of grammatical constructions”. Berkeley Linguistic Society Proceedings 20: 611-625.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet