Reassessing Constructions in the ARTEMIS Parser

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

ISSN: 1576-6357

Année de publication: 2022

Número: 20

Pages: 25-58

Type: Article

DOI: 10.18172/JES.5354 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccès ouvert editor

D'autres publications dans: Journal of English Studies

Objectifs de Développement Durable

Résumé

The aim of this study is to reexamine the status of constructions in ARTEMIS (Automatically Representing TExt Meaning via an Interlingua-based System), a Natural Language Understanding prototype that seeks to provide the syntactic and semantic structure of a given fragment in a natural language. The architecture of ARTEMIS has been designed to conform to the tenets of the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM), a theory in which constructions are a central tool for the linguistic description of languages. However, since ARTEMIS is a computational device, there are many formalization requirements which involve the adaptation of the LCM, a process which necessarily leads to reconsidering several issues, as are: (i) what counts as a constructional structure; (ii) how constructions contribute to parsing operations in ARTEMIS; and (iii) the location and the format of constructional patterns.

Références bibliographiques

  • 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.
La source de données: Dialnet