Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 13:1 (2015) ► pp.1–27

Constructional meaning representation within a knowledge engineering framework

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.
Keywords: Attribute Value Matrices, the Lexical Constructional Model, Role and Reference Grammar, FunGramKB, constructional schemata, constructions
Published online: 23 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.01mai
References (59)
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H.C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. (2008). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 61, 113–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bod, R. (2009). Constructions at work or at rest? Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 129–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
. (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 logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
. (1997b). The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2: Complex and derived constructions. 2nd edition by K. Hengeveld. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul, Hanshin.Google Scholar
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
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (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 logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez, F. (2008). Construction Grammar works: An interview with Adele E. Goldberg. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 61, 345–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edition. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, J.L. (2008). Functional discourse grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luzondo, A. (2014). Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 30–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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: [URL]].Google Scholar
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
Mairal, R., & Periñán, C. (2009). The anatomy of the lexicon component within the framework of a conceptual knowledge base. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 221, 217–244.Google Scholar
. (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
. (in preparation). Cultural distinctiveness and cognitive modelling.
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Periñán, C., & Arcas, F. (2004). Meaning postulates in a lexico-conceptual knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Databases and Expert Systems Applications (pp. 38–42). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). Microconceptual-knowledge spreading in FunGramKB. In Proceedings of the 9th IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing (pp. 239–244). Anaheim-Calgary-Zurich: ACTA Press.Google Scholar
. (2007). Cognitive modules of an NLP knowledge base for language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 391, 197–204.Google Scholar
. (2010). Ontological commitments in FunGramKB. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 441, 27–34.Google Scholar
. (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 logoGoogle Scholar
Periñán, C., & Mairal, R. (2009). Bringing Role and Reference Grammar to natural language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 431, 265–273.Google Scholar
. (2010). La Gramática de COREL: Un lenguaje de representación conceptual. Onomazein, 21(2010/1), 11–45.Google Scholar
. (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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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
. (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 logoGoogle Scholar
. (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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
. (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
. (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
Talmy, L. (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. (2005). The syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface: An introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R., & LaPolla, R. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gardelle, Laure, Elise Mignot & Julie Neveux
2024. Why the Morphosyntax/Semantics Interface Matters for Nouns. In Nouns and the Morphosyntax / Semantics Interface, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.