From construction candidates to constructicon entries

Forsberg, Markus; Johansson, Richard; Bäckström, Linnéa; Borin, Lars; Lyngfelt, Benjamin; Olofsson, Joel; Prentice, Julia C.

doi:10.1075/cf.6.1.07for

Cited by 23 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As mentioned above, one desideratum is to take frequency into account in a more fine-grained way. Various methods are conceivable to achieve this: for instance, a bottom-up pattern mining approach based on n-grams and skip-grams 5 could be used, following, e.g., the 'construction mining' approach pioneered by Forsberg et al (2014) to detect constructions…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The traceback method in child language acquisition research: identifying patterns in early speech

Hartmann

Koch²,

Quick

2021

Lang. cogn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the traceback method, which has been the basis of some influential papers on first language acquisition. The method sets out to demonstrate that many or even all utterances in a test corpus (usually the last two sessions of recording) can be accounted for with the help of recurrent fixed strings (like What’s that?) or frame-and-slot patterns (like [What’s X?]) that can also be identified in the remaining dataset (i.e., the previous sessions of recording). This is taken as evidence that language learning is much more item-based than previously assumed. In the present paper we sketch the development of the method over the last two decades, and discuss its relation to usage-based theory, as well as the cognitive plausibility of its components, and we highlight both its potential and its limitations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The traceback method in child language acquisition research: identifying patterns in early speech

Hartmann

Koch²,

Quick

2021

Lang. cogn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, we turn to the way construction to illustrate what types of English constructions have no clear constructional correspondences in German and can thus be found towards the other end of the 'continuum of constructional correspondences'. In contemporary English, the way-construction, as illustrated in ( 16) and ( 17), is not only an interesting and well-documented type of argument structure construction (Marantz, 1992;Goldberg, , 1997Oya, 1999;van Egmond, 2009;Christie, 2011; among others), its distribution is also constantly expanding over time, as Israel (1996) observes.…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, ( 21) is interpreted in such a way that Paul uses his elbows (as a means) to get through the crowd, whereas in ( 22) the verb to dance describes a manner of moving rather than a means to move along. Interestingly, just like the English reflexive construction (Goldberg, 1997;Egmond, 2009; for an overview: Christie, 2011, pp. 3-4), its German equivalent does not allow for a means interpretation.…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructicography

Ohara¹,

Torrent²,

Lyngfelt³

et al. 2018

Constructional Approaches to Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This book has been long in the making, but now having the result under our eyes, we believe that it was worth the wait. The idea of compiling a volume collecting the experiences of the various constructicon initiatives going on around the world was born in the context of an international collaboration between the universities at Gothenburg in Sweden and Juiz de Fora in Brazil, and the excellent opportunities to interact and learn from each other's experiences afforded by both research visits and the international FrameNet workshops organized jointly by the Swedish and Brazilian teams, together with the FrameNet group in Berkeley, California: IFNW 2013 in Berkeley, IFNW 2016, collocated with ICCG9 in Juiz de Fora, and the upcoming IFNW 2018 with the special theme Multilingual FrameNets and Constructicons, collocated with LREC in Miyazaki, Japan. Moreover, profitable discussions relevant to the works presented in this book took place in the special sessions Cognitively grounded lexica, constructicons, and metaphor repositories, at ICLC12 in Edmonton, Canada, in 2013, and Constructionist resources -a workshop in honor of Charles J. Fillmore, at ICCG8 in Osnabrück, Germany, in 2014.During these events, most -if not all -authors of the chapters in this volume had the chance to share their points of view, positions and questions on the development of constructionist resources. Beyond the group of authors whose contributions make this book, we'd like to thank our -and their -interlocutors.The work on preparing the volume has been funded in part by the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT), by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, Brazil), and by the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences (Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, RJ), but it could not have happened without the long-term support given to both Språkbanken (the Swedish Language Bank) -now well into its fifth decade -by the University of Gothenburg, its Faculty of Arts and its Department of Swedish, and to FrameNet Brasil by the Federal University of Juiz de Fora.The volume editors would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their thorough and insightful comments and suggestions, to the series editor Jan-Ola Östman for his final vetting of the volume, and to Esther Roth and Susan Hendriks at John Benjamins, always helpful and unerringly professional, under whose watchful eyes the volume went from idea to finished product. Last but viii Constructicography not least, we are grateful to the person without whom none of all this would have happened: the late Charles J. Fillmore. For inspiring us all, for being a core element in our research frame(works), for having guided our ways into the development of constructicons, and for being such a great guy, we dedicate this volume to Chuck.

show abstract

“…This paper experiments with the interaction between the amount of exposure (the size of a training corpus) and the number of representations learned (the size of the grammar and lexicon) under perception-based vs production-based grammar induction. The basic idea behind these experiments is to test the degree to which computational construction grammar (Alishahi and Stevenson, 2008;Wible and Tsao, 2010;Forsberg et al, 2014;Dunn, 2017; satisfies the expectations of the usage-based paradigm (Goldberg, 2006(Goldberg, , 2011(Goldberg, , 2016. The input for language learning, exposure, is essential from a usage-based perspective.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Production vs Perception: The Role of Individuality in Usage-Based Grammar Induction

Dunn¹,

Nini²

2021

Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper asks whether a distinction between production-based and perception-based grammar induction influences either (i) the growth curve of grammars and lexicons or (ii) the similarity between representations learned from independent sub-sets of a corpus. A productionbased model is trained on the usage of a single individual, thus simulating the grammatical knowledge of a single speaker. A perception-based model is trained on an aggregation of many individuals, thus simulating grammatical generalizations learned from exposure to many different speakers. To ensure robustness, the experiments are replicated across two registers of written English, with four additional registers reserved as a control. A set of three computational experiments shows that production-based grammars are significantly different from perception-based grammars across all conditions, with a steeper growth curve that can be explained by substantial inter-individual grammatical differences.

show abstract

From construction candidates to constructicon entries

Cited by 23 publications

References 14 publications

The traceback method in child language acquisition research: identifying patterns in early speech

The traceback method in child language acquisition research: identifying patterns in early speech

Constructicography

Production vs Perception: The Role of Individuality in Usage-Based Grammar Induction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About