Cover not available

Article published In: Construction Grammar across Borders
Edited by Tiago Timponi Torrent, Ely Edison da Silva Matos and Natália Sathler Sigiliano
[Constructions and Frames 12:1] 2020
► pp. 149–169

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Advances in Embodied Construction Grammar

 | International Computer Science Institute | University of California Berkeley
Published online: 29 July 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00038.fel
Abstract
This paper describes the continuing goals and present status of the ICSI/UC Berkeley efforts on Embodied Construction Grammar (ECG). ECG is semantics-based formalism grounded in cognitive linguistics. ECG is the most explicitly inter-disciplinary of the construction grammars with deep links to computation, neuroscience, and cognitive science. Work continues on core cognitive, computational, and linguistic issues, including aspects of the mind/body problem. Much of the recent emphasis has been on applications and on tools to facilitate new applications. Extensive documentation plus downloadable systems and grammars can be found at the ECG Homepage.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The basics of embodied construction grammar
  • 3.Implementation
  • 4.Some additional aspects of ECG
    • 4.1Metaphor
  • 5.ECG2, system and applications
  • 6.Prospects
  • Notes
  • References
References (35)
References
Bergen, B. (2014). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B., Chang, N., & Narayan, S. (2004). Simulated action in an embodied construction grammar. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 261, 108–113.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bryant, J. (2008). Best fit constructional analysis. Unpublished UC Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, N., & Mok, E. (2006). Putting context in constructions. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG4). Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
C&F (2013). In memory of Charles J. Fillmore. Constructions and Frames, 5(2), 117–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dodge, E., David, O., Stickles, E., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Constructions and metaphor: Integrating MetaNet and embodied construction grammar. Paper presented at The 8th International Construction Grammar Conference.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dodge, E., Trott, S., Gilardi, L., & Stickles, E. (2017). Grammar scaling: Leveraging FrameNet data to increase embodied construction grammar coverage. The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding. Technical Report SS-17–02 (pp. 154–162). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eppe, M., Trott, S., Raghuram, V., Feldman, J., & Janin, A. (2016). Application-independent and integration-friendly natural language understanding. Global Conference on Artificial Intelligence (GCAI 2016) (pp. 340–352). Berlin: EasyChair, EPiC Series in Computing, v.41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eppe, M., Trott, S., & Feldman, J. (2016a). Exploiting deep semantics and compositionality of natural language for human-robot interaction. 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (pp. 731–738). Daejeon, South Korea: IEEE. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, J. (2006). From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Embodied language, best-fit analysis, and formal compositionality. Physics of Life Reviews, 7(4), 385–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Mysteries of visual experience. <[URL]>
(2018). Towards a science of the mind. <[URL]>
Feldman, J., Lakoff, G., Bailey, D., Narayanan, S., Regier, T., & Stolcke, A. (1996). L0 – the first five years of an automated language acquisition project. In P. Mc Kevitt (Ed.), Integration of Natural Language and Vision Processing: Theory and Grounding Representations Volume III (pp. 205–231). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, J., Bryant, J., & Dodge, E. (2009). A neural theory of language and embodied construction grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics (pp. 38–111). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. (2003). Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gedigian, M., & Narayanan, S. (2009). A multilingual primary health care resource. Proceedings of the Computer Science and Global Development Conference (pp. 63–65). Washington, DC: Computing Community Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khayrallah, H., Trott, S., & Feldman, J. (2015). Natural language for human-robot interaction. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levesque, H., Davis, E., & Morgenstern, L. (2012). The Winograd schema challenge. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (pp. 552–561). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2017). Construction grammar and the syntax-semantics interface. Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax (pp. 421–435). New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mok, E. H., & Bryant, J. (2006). A best-fit approach to productive omission of arguments. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 32 (1), 551–560. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Narayanan, S. (1999a). Reasoning about actions in narrative understanding. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI ’99) (pp. 350–358). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999b). Moving right along: A computational model of metaphoric reasoning about events. In Proceedings of the Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI ’99) (pp. 121–128). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Narayanan, S., & Jurafsky, D. (1998). Bayesian models of human sentence processing. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 752–757). Allendale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newell, A. (1994). Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petruck, M. (Ed.) (2016). Constructions and Frames [Special issue on Metanet], 8(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raghuram, V., Trott, S., Shen, K., Goldberg, E., & Oderberg, S. (2017). Semantically-driven coreference resolution with embodied construction grammar. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding. Technical Report SS-17–02 (pp. 238–244). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raghuram, V. (2018). Natural language understanding for healthcare queries. UC Berkeley Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2018-35. <[URL]>
Regier, T. (2002). The human semantic potential. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stickles, E., David, O., & Sweetser, E. (2015). Grammatical constructions, frame structure, and metonymy: Their contributions to metaphor computation. In Proceedings of the 11th Meeting of the High Desert Linguistics Society (HDLS) (pp. 317–345). Albuquerque, NM: High Desert Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trott, S., Eppe, M., & Feldman, J. (2016). Recognizing intentions from natural language: Clarification dialog and construction grammar. Paper presented at RO-MAN 2016, Workshop on Communicating Intentions in Human-Robot Interaction. New York, NY.
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Madabushi, Harish Tayyar, Laurence Romain, Petar Milin & Dagmar Divjak
2025. Construction Grammar and Language Models. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, ► pp. 572 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023. Constructionist Approaches, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue