Fluid Construction Grammar on Real Robots



This chapter introduces very briefly the framework and tools for lexical and grammatical processing that have been used in the evolutionary language game experiments reported in this book. This framework is called Fluid Construction Grammar (FCG) because it rests on a constructional approach to language and emphasizes flexible grammar application. Construction grammar organizes the knowledge needed for parsing or producing utterances in terms of bi-directional mappings between meaning and form. In line with other contemporary linguistic formalisms, FCG uses feature structures and unification and includes several innovations which make the formalism more adapted to implement flexible and robust language processing systems on real robots. This chapter is an introduction to the formalism and how it is used in processing.

Key words

computational linguistics construction grammar Fluid Construction Grammar parsing production grammar design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bergen B, Chang N (2005) Embodied Construction Grammar. In: Ostman JO, Fried M (eds) Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 147–190Google Scholar
  2. Beuls K (2011) Construction sets and unmarked forms: A case study for Hungarian verbal agreement. In: Steels L (ed) Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar, John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. Bleys J, Stadler K, De Beule J (2011) Linguistic processing as search. In: Steels L (ed) Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar, John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Copestake A (2002) Implementing Typed Feature Structure Grammars. CSLI Publications, StanfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Dalrymple M, Kaplan R, Maxwell J, Zaenen A (eds) (1995) Formal issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes 47, CSLI, Stanford CAGoogle Scholar
  6. Fillmore C, Kay P, O’Connor M (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3):501–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fried M (2009) Construction grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames 1(2):261–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldberg A (1995) A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago UP, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldberg A, Suttle L (2010) Construction grammar. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(4):468–477Google Scholar
  10. KayM(1986) Parsing in functional unification grammar. In: Grosz B, Sparck-Jones K,Webber B (eds) Readings in Natural Language Processing, Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  11. Lieven E, Tomasello M (2008) Children’s first language acquistion from a usagebased perspective. In: Robinson P, Ellis N (eds) Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Michaelis L (2009) Sign-based construction grammar. In: Heine B, Narrog H (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 155–176Google Scholar
  13. Ostman JO, Fried M (2004) Historical and intellectual background of construction grammar. In: Fried M, Ostman JO (eds) Construction Grammar in a Cross- Language Perspective, John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  14. Pollard C, Sag I (1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Spranger M, Loetzsch M (2011) Syntactic indeterminacy and semantic ambiguity: A case study for German spatial phrases. In: Steels L (ed) Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar, John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  16. Spranger M, Pauw S, Loetzsch M, Steels L (2012) Open-ended procedural semantics. In: Steels L, Hild M (eds) Language Grounding in Robots, Springer Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Stadler K (2012) Chunking constructions. In: Steels L (ed) Computational Issues inGoogle Scholar
  18. Fluid Construction Grammar, Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. Steels L (1998) The origins of syntax in visually grounded robotic agents. Artificial Intelligence 103:133 156Google Scholar
  20. Steels L (ed) (2011) Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. John Benjamins Pub., AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  21. Steels L (ed) (2012) Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  22. Steels L, De Beule J (2006) Unify and merge in Fluid Construction Grammar. In: Vogt P, Sugita Y, Tuci E, Nehaniv C (eds) Symbol Grounding and Beyond., Springer, Berlin, LNAI 4211, pp 197–223Google Scholar
  23. van Trijp R (2011) Feature matrices and agreement: A case study for German case. In: Steels L (ed) Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar, John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  24. Wellens P (2011) Organizing constructions in networks. In: Steels L (ed) Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar, John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sony Computer Science Laboratory ParisParisFrance
  2. 2.ICREA Institute for Evolutionary Biology (UPF-CSIC)BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Artificial Intelligence LaboratoryVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations