Argument structure constructions in a natural language processing environment

  1. Luzondo-Oyón, A. 1
  2. Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez, F.J. 2
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    GRID grid.10702.34

  2. 2 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    GRID grid.119021.a

Journal:
Language Sciences

ISSN: 0388-0001

Year of publication: 2015

Volume: 48

Pages: 70-89

Type: Article

Export: RIS
DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2015.01.001 SCOPUS: 2-s2.0-84921921874 WoS: 000350782600007 GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Metrics

Cited by

  • Scopus Cited by: 8 (30-11-2021)

JCR (Journal Impact Factor)

  • Year 2015
  • Journal Impact Factor: 0.79
  • Best Quartile: Q2
  • Area: LINGUISTICS Quartile: Q2 Rank in area: 74/181 (Ranking edition: SSCI)

SCImago Journal Rank

  • Year 2015
  • SJR Journal Impact: 0.417
  • Best Quartile: Q1
  • Area: Language and Linguistics Quartile: Q1 Rank in area: 148/747
  • Area: Linguistics and Language Quartile: Q1 Rank in area: 160/774

CIRC

  • Social Sciences: A
  • Human Sciences: A+

CiteScore

  • Year 2015
  • CiteScore of the Journal : 2.0
  • Area: Language and Linguistics Percentile: 86
  • Area: Linguistics and Language Percentile: 85

Abstract

This paper contributes to the field of computational Construction Grammar (cf. Steels, 2012; Van Trijp, 2011) by providing a linguistically oriented formalized treatment of argument structure constructions within the architecture of a multipurpose lexico-conceptual knowledge base for Natural Language Processing systems known as FunGramKB (Periñán, 2013). More concretely, we analyze three members of the family of the English resultative, namely, the resultative (e.g. He hammered the metal flat/into a flat sheet), the caused-motion construction (e.g. He shoved the canoe into the water) and the way construction (e.g. He fought his way free/to freedom), paying special attention to lexical-constructional integration variability. Thus, the present article offers a description of the format of constructional schemata in FunGramKB as machine-tractable representations of constructions and proposes a 'splitting-like' solution (à la Boas, 2003) to handle the mismatches resulting from lexical-constructional fusion. We finally argue that, in the case of FunGramKB, a feasible computational implementation must be based on constructional sub-types rather than on broad-scale constructions of the Goldbergian kind.