Cover not available

Article published In: Constructions and Frames: Online-First Articles

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

Composing or not composing?

Towards Distributional Construction Grammar

ORCiD logo with link | Laboratoire Parole et LangageCNRS | ILCB Institute of Language, Communication and the Brain
ORCiD logo with link | ILCB Institute of Language, Communication and the Brain | University of Bologna
 | The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
 | University of Pisa
Published online: 8 January 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.25004.bla
Abstract
Understanding how language comprehension works remains a central challenge. While meaning is traditionally viewed as incrementally constructed through compositional processes, numerous studies show that non-compositional mechanisms also play a crucial role. In this paper, we propose a unified framework grounded in Construction Grammar and Distributional Semantics that integrates both aspects. In this perspective, we extend Sign-Based Construction Grammar by formalizing meaning as the interaction of three semantic components: constructions, frames, and events, to which distributional information is integrated. We further introduce a processing mechanism in which meaning emerges through activation dynamics, evaluated and controlled via similarity and unification.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Situation
    • 2.1Formal and distributional semantics
    • 2.2Accessing meaning: (non-)Compositionality
    • 2.3Knowledge of the world: Frames and events
  • 3.Formalization: The objects to be processed
    • 3.1Constructions
      • 3.1.1Form features
      • 3.1.2Meaning features
      • 3.1.3Argument structure
      • 3.1.4Complete constructions
    • 3.2Frames and events
      • 3.2.1Representation of frames
      • 3.2.2Representation of events
      • 3.2.3Examples
    • 3.3Bringing vectors into constructions
    • 3.4The question of inheritance
  • 4.Operationalization: The processing mechanisms
    • 4.1The activation function
    • 4.2Types of cues, types of activation
      • 4.2.1Lexical cues: Similarity
      • 4.2.2Syntactic cues: Unification
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Contributions
  • Notes
  • References
References (142)
References
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1060. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asher, N., Van de Cruys, T., Bride, A., & Abrusán, M. (2016). Integrating type theory & distributional semantics: A case study on adjective–noun compositions. Computational Linguistics, 42(4), 703–725. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baggio, G. (2021). Compositionality in a parallel architecture for language processing. Cognitive Science, 45(5). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baldwin, T., & Kim, S. N. (2010). Multiword expressions. In N. Indurkhya & F. J. Damerau (Eds.), Handbook of natural language processing (pp. 267–292). CRC Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baroni, M., & Lenci, A. (2010). Distributional memory: A general framework for corpus-based semantics. Computational Linguistics, 36(4), 673–721. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baroni, M., Bernardi, R., & Zamparelli, R. (2013). Frege in space: A program for compositional distributional semantics. Linguistic Issues in Language Technologies, 91.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beltagy, I., Roller, S., Cheng, P., Erk, K., & Mooney, R. J. (2016). Representing meaning with a combination of logical and distributional models. Computational Linguistics, 42(4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2013). Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(2), 91–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bicknell, K., Elman, J. L., Hare, M., McRae, K., & Kutas, M. (2010). Effects of event knowledge in processing verbal arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 489–505. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blache, P. (2005). Property Grammars: A fully constraint-based theory. In H. Christiansen, P. R. Skadhauge, & J. Villadsen (Eds.), Constraint solving and language processing (pp. 1–16). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Evaluating language complexity in context: New parameters for a constraint-based model. In P. Blache, H. Christiansen, V. Dahl & J. Villadsen (Eds.), Constraints and language processing (pp. 7–20). Roskilde University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Representing syntax by means of properties: A formal framework for descriptive approaches. Journal of Language Modelling, 4(2), 183–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). A neuro-cognitive model of comprehension based on prediction and unification. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boleda, G., & Herbelot, A. (2016). Formal Distributional Semantics. Introduction to the special issue. Computational Linguistics, 42(4), 619–635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bos, J., Clark, S., Steedman, M., Curran, J. R., & Hockenmaier, J. (2004). Wide-coverage semantic representations from a CCG parser. In COLING 2004: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 1240–1246). COLING. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Britton, J., Cong, Y., Hsu, Y.-Y., Chersoni, E., & Blache, P. (2024). On the influence of discourse connectives on the predictions of humans and language models. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brouwer, H., Crocker, M. W., Venhuizen, N. J., & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2017). Neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing. Cognitive Science, 41(6). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carrol, G. (2021). Psycholinguistic approaches to figuration. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative language–intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 307–338). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chersoni, E., Blache, P., & Lenci, A. (2016). Towards a distributional model of semantic complexity. In D. Brunato, F. Dell’Orletta, G. Venturi, T. François & P. Blache. Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Linguistic Complexity (CL4LC) (pp. 12–22). COLING.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chersoni, E., Lenci, A., & Blache, P. (2017a). Logical metonymy in a distributional model of sentence comprehension. In N. Ide, A. Herbelot & L. Màrquez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2017) (pp. 168–177). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chersoni, E., Santus, E., Blache, P., & Lenci, A. (2017b). Is structure necessary for modeling argument expectations in distributional semantics? In C. Gardent & C. Retoré (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS) — Long papers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chersoni, E., Santus, E., Pannitto, L., Lenci, A., Blache, P., & Huang, C.-R. (2019). A structured distributional model of sentence meaning and processing. Natural Language Engineering, 25(4), 483–502. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chersoni, E., Pannitto, L., Santus, E., Lenci, A., Huang, C.-R., et al. (2020). Are word embeddings really a bad fit for the estimation of thematic fit? In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (pp. 5708–5713). European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chersoni, E., Santus, E., Lenci, A., Blache, P., & Huang, C.-R. (2021). Not all arguments are processed equally: A distributional model of argument complexity. Language Resources and Evaluation, 55(4), 873–900. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christianson, K., Hollingworth, A., Halliwell, J. F., & Ferreira, F. (2001). Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology, 42(4), 368–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ciaccio, C., Sartor, M., Miaschi, A., & Dell’Orletta, F. (2025). Beyond the spelling miracle: Investigating substring awareness in character-blind language models. In W. Che, J. Nabende, E. Shutova, M. Taher Pilehvar (Eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 (pp. 11361–11372). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, S. (2015). Vector space models of lexical meaning. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.), The Handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 493–522). Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colmerauer, A. (1982). An interesting subset of natural language. In K. Clark & S. Tärnlund (Eds.), Logic Programming (pp. 45–66). Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cong, Y., Chersoni, E., Hsu, Y.-Y., & Lenci, A. (2023). Are language models sensitive to semantic attraction? A study on surprisal. In A. Palmer, J. Camacho-collados (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2023) (pp. 141–148). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Contreras Kallens, P., & Christiansen, M. H. (2022). Models of language and multiword expressions. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (2005). Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on language and computation, 3(2), 281–332.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (1999). The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(4), 543–571. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ding, N., Melloni, L., Zhang, H., Tian, X., & Poeppel, D. (2016). Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience, 19(1), 158–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunn, J. (2024). Computational Construction Grammar: A usage-based approach. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2014). Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 617–653. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1991). Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks and grammatical structure. Machine Learning, 7(2–3), 195–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elman, J. (2014). Systematicity in the lexicon: On having your cake and eating it too. In P. Calvo & J. Symons (Eds.), The architecture of cognition: Rethinking Fodor and Pylyshyn’s systematicity challenge. The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emerson, G., & Copestake, A. (2016). Functional Distributional Semantics. In P. Blunsom, K. Cho, S. Cohen, E. Grefenstette, K. M. Hermann, L. Rimell, J. Weston, S. Wen-tau Yih (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (pp. 40–52). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emerson, G. E. T. (2018). Functional Distributional Semantics: Learning linguistically informed representations from a precisely annotated corpus [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Cambridge.
Engelmann, F., Jäger, L. A., & Vasishth, S. (2019). The effect of prominence and cue association in retrieval processes: A computational account. Cognitive Science, 43(12). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, J. A. (2020). Advances in Embodied Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 12(1), 149–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘Good Enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Lowder, M. W. (2016). Prediction, information structure, and good-enough language processing. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 217–247). Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1977). Scenes-and-Frames Semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic Structure Processing (pp. 55–82). North Holland Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 141, 35–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. (2009). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. (2011). The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function. Physiological Reviews, 91(4), 1357–1392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 681, 1–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Compositionality. In N. Riemer (Ed.), Semantics Handbook. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Ferreira, F. (2022). Good-enough language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(4), 300–311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grefenstette, E. (2013). Towards a formal Distributional Semantics simulating logical calculi with tensors. In M. Diab, T. Baldwin, M. Baroni (Eds.), Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM), Volume 1: Proceedings of the Main Conference and the Shared Task: Semantic Textual Similarity (pp. 1–10). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagoort, P. (2003). Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(6), 883–899. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). MUC (Memory, Unification, Control) and beyond. Frontiers in Psychology, 41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, J. (2001). A Probabilistic Earley Parser as a psycholinguistic model. In NAACL ’01: Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language technologies (pp. 1–8). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science, 30(4), 643–672. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, T., & Hoffmann, T. (2018). Construction Grammar for students: A constructionist approach to syntactic analysis (CASA). Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 6(1), 197–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Ten lectures on diachronic Construction Grammar. Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., Brunner, T., & Horsch, J. (2020). English comparative correlative constructions: A usage-based account. Open Linguistics, 6(1), 196–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holsinger, E., & Kaiser, E. (2013). Processing (non)compositional expressions: Mistakes and recovery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 866–878.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huettig, F. (2015). Four central questions about prediction in language processing. Brain Research, 16261, 118–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Constructions in the parallel architecture. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 70–92). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., & Vasishth, S. (2015). Retrieval interference in reflexive processing: Experimental evidence from Mandarin, and computational modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 61, 617. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Michaelis, L. (2013). Constructional meaning and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. Heusinger & P. Portner (Ed.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning Volume 3 (pp. 2271–2296). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kounios, J., W. Smith, R., Yang, W., Bachman, P., & D’Esposito, M. (2001). Cognitive association formation in human memory revealed by spatiotemporal brain imaging. Neuron, 29(1), 297–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In R. Langacker (Ed.), Grammar and conceptualization (pp. 24–63). CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenci, A. (2008). Distributional Semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 20(1), 1–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Composing and updating verb argument expectations: A Distributional Semantic model. In F. Keller & D. Reitter (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (pp. 58–66). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenci, A., & Sahlgren, M. (2023). Distributional Semantics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 291, 375–419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, M., & Steedman, M. (2013). Combined distributional and logical semantics. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11, 179–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, R., Garrette, D., Saharia, C., Chan, W., Roberts, A., Narang, S., Blok, I., Mical, R., Norouzi, M., & Constant, N. (2022). Character-aware models improve visual text rendering. arXiv:2212.10562.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lo, C. H., Cheng, H., Lam, W., & Emerson, G. (2023). Functional Distributional Semantics at scale. In A. Palmer, J. Camacho-collados (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2023) (pp. 423–436). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Madabushi, H. T., Romain, L., Divjak, D., & Milin, P. (2020). CxGBERT: BERT meets Construction Grammar. In D. Scott, N. Bel, C. Zong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 4020–4032). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Madabushi, H. T., Romain, L., Milin, P., & Divjak, D. (2025). Construction grammar and language models. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 572–595). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marton, Y., & Sayeed, A. (2022). Thematic fit bits: Annotation quality and quantity interplay for event participant representation. In N. Calzolari, F. Béchet, P. Blache, K. Choukri, C. Cieri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, H. Isahara, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (pp. 5188–5197). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McRae, K., & Matsuki, K. (2009). People use their knowledge of common events to understand language and do so as quickly as possible. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(6), 1417–1429. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meister, C., Giulianelli, M., & Pimentel, T. (2024). Towards a similarity-adjusted surprisal theory. In Y. Al-Onaizan, M. Bansal & Y-N. Chen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 16485–16498). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2013). Sign-based Construction Grammar. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michalon, O., & Baggio, G. (2019). Meaning-driven syntactic predictions in a parallel processing architecture: Theory and algorithmic modeling of ERP effects. Neuropsychologia, 1311, 171–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision (pp. 211–277). McGraw-Hill Book.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitchell, J., & Lapata, M. (2010). Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science, 34(8), 1388–1429. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In J. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik, & P. S. (Eds.), Approaches to Natural Language (pp. 221–242). Dordrecht. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moot, R. (2012). Wide-coverage semantics for spatio-temporal reasoning. TAL, 53(2), 115–142.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nair, S., & Resnik, P. (2023). Words, subwords, and morphemes: What really matters in the surprisal–reading time relationship? In H. Bouamor, J. Pino, K. Bali (Eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 (pp. 11251–11260). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (2011). Formal semantics: Origins, issues, early impact. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 6(1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pereira, F. C. N., & Shieber, S. M. (1987). Prolog and natural-language analysis. Microtome.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickel, B., & Szabó, Z. G. (2004). Compositionality. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: [URL]
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018). Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review. Psychological Bulletin, 144(10), 1002–1044. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2021). Understanding dialogue. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., De Smet, I., & Van de Velde, F. (2018). Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax: Four case studies. Constructions and Frames, 10(2), 269–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., Cappelle, B., & Shtyrov, Y. (2013). Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions, and grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 397–416). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rambelli, G., Chersoni, E., Blache, P., & Lenci, A. (2022). Compositionality as an analogical process: Introducing ANNE. In M. Zock, E. Chersoni, Y-Y. Hsu & E. Santus (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of the Lexicon (pp. 78–96). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rambelli, G., Chersoni, E., Senaldi, M., Blache, P., & Lenci, A. (2023). Are frequent phrases directly retrieved like idioms? An investigation with self-paced reading and language models. In A. Bhatia, K. Evang, M. Garcia, V. Giouli, L. Han & S. Taslimipoor (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on Multiword Expressions (MWE 2023) (pp. 87–98). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rambelli, G. (2024). Constructions and compositionality: Cognitive and computational explorations. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rommers, J., Dijkstra, T., & Bastiaansen, M. (2013). Context-dependent semantic processing in the human brain: Evidence from idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(5), 762–776. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J. (2010). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Schwarzer-Petruck, M., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice [Technical Report]. International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., Baldwin, T., Bond, F., Copestake, A., & Flickinger, D. (2002). Multiword expressions: A pain in the neck for NLP. In A. Gelbukh (Ed.), Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing (pp. 1–15). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sag, I. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 69–200). CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salicchi, L., Chersoni, E., & Lenci, A. (2023). A study on surprisal and semantic relatedness for eye-tracking data prediction. Frontiers in Psychology, 141, 1112365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Santus, E., Chersoni, E., Lenci, A., & Blache, P. (2017). Measuring thematic fit with distributional feature overlap. In M. Palmer, R. Hwa & S. Riedel (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 648–658). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sayeed, A., Greenberg, C., & Demberg, V. (2016). Thematic fit evaluation: An aspect of selectional preferences. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Evaluating Vector-Space Representations for NLP. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shain, C., Meister, C., Pimentel, T., Cotterell, R., & Levy, R. (2024). Large-scale evidence for logarithmic effects of word predictability on reading time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(10), e2307876121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siewierska, A., & Hollmann, W. B. (2007). Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In M. Hannay & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Structural-functional studies in English grammar (pp. 83–102). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, N. J., & Levy, R. (2013). The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition, 128(3), 302–319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5), 701–721. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (2000). The syntactic process. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steels, L., & De Beule, J. (2006). Unify and merge in Fluid Construction Grammar. In P. Vogt, Y. Sugita, E. Tuci, & C. Nehaniv (Eds.), Symbol grounding and beyond (pp. 197–223). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steels, L. (2017). Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 9(2), 178–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2005). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (1999). Acceptability ratings of regular and irregular past-tense forms: Evidence for a dual-system model of language from word frequency and phonological neighbourhood effects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(1), 47–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Trijp, R., Beuls, K., & Van Eecke, P. (2022). The FCG editor: An innovative environment for engineering computational Construction Grammars. PLOS ONE, 17(6), 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Venhuizen, N. J., Hendriks, P., Crocker, M. W., & Brouwer, H. (2022). Distributional formal semantics. Information and Computation, 2871, 104763. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weissweiler, L., Hofmann, V., Köksal, A., & Schütze, H. (2022). The better your syntax, the better your semantics? Probing pretrained language models for the English comparative correlative. In Y. Goldberg, Z. Kozareva, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 10859–10882). Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilcox, E. G., Pimentel, T., Meister, C., Cotterell, R., & Levy, R. P. (2023). Testing the predictions of surprisal theory in 11 languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 111, 1451–1470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willich, A. (2022). Introducing construction semantics (CxS): A frame-semantic extension of Construction Grammar and constructicography. Linguistics Vanguard, 8(1), 139–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R., & Radvansky, G. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue