Argument structure constructions in a Natural Language Processing

environment

Alba Luzondo-Oyón

(Corresponding author)Dpto. de Filologías Extranjeras y sus Lingüísticas

Facultad de Filología

Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

c/ Senda del Rey 7

28040, Madrid, Spain

aluzondo@flog.uned.es

Landline: +34 913988699

Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez University of La Rioja

Philology Building

c/San José de Calasanz 33

26004, Logroño, La Rioja, Spain

francisco.ruizdemendoza@unirioja.es

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 subtypes rather than on broad-scale constructions of the Goldbergian kind.

Keywords: Construction Grammar; argument-structure constructions; Natural Language Processing; FunGramKB.

Highlights:

We show how constructions can be handled in a computational environment. We analyze three members of the family of the English resultative. We offer a description of the format of constructional schemata. Lexical-constructional fusion mismatches require a ‘splitting-like’ solution.

1

1. Introduction

Work on Construction Grammar within Cognitive Linguistics is almost three decades

old now. It has given rise to a number of approaches, which are largely compatible

with one another, and whose differences are more often than not a matter of goals and

areas of special focus (for an overview of the different perspectives see Dirven and

Ruiz de Mendoza, 2010; Hoffmann and Trousdale, 2013; and Butler and Gonzálvez,

2014). In the context of this productive research program, the literature has examined

a large number of linguistic constructions (or entrenched form-meaning/function

pairings) of varied nature and complexity. Among them we find the following: ‘Let

alone’ (e.g. Who would like this crap, let alone buy it?; Fillmore, Kay and O’Connor,

1988); ‘What’s X Doing Y?’ (e.g. What’s a physicist doing studying marine life?;

Kay and Fillmore, 1999); ‘contrastive reduplication’ (e.g. My car isn’t MINE-mine,

it’s my parents; Ghomeshi et al., 2004); ‘X is so N(P)’ (e.g. That’s so Monica;

Gonzálvez, 2014). Constructions like these arise from attaching special meaning

implications, of a personal and interpersonal kind, to their basic predication. Thus,

What’s a physicist doing studying marine life? is not an information question, despite

its Wh-interrogative form, but an expression of complaint about a given state of

affairs that the speaker finds to be wrong or odd. A different class of constructional

configurations, known as argument-structure constructions (cf. Goldberg, 1995), is

based on the linguistic expression of predicate-argument relationships. Some of the

members of this latter class are the ditransitive construction (e.g. John gave Mary a

book; cf. Barðdal et al., 2011), the resultative construction (e.g. The boy ate himself

sick; cf. Boas, 2003), the subjective-transitive construction (e.g. I find her so sweet;

cf. Gonzálvez, 2009), and the caused-motion construction (e.g. He pushed the canoe

into the water; cf. Peña, 2009). Argument-structure constructions are the concern of

the present paper.

Clearly, argument-structure constructions only represent a small portion of the

full inventory of form-meaning pairings of a given language or its constructicon (cf.

Boas, 2014, p. 94). However, the amount of work devoted to their analysis —in which

complementary aspects of their complex nature have been emphasized— is

impressive. Many issues have been covered in the literature, such as the universal or

language-specific nature of constructions, how to determine analytical categories and

their grounding in experience, or the challenges that constructions pose for specific

frameworks like Role and Reference Grammar (RRG; cf. Nolan and Diedrichsen,

2

2013; see also Nolan, 2014). A particular area of controversy is the understanding of

the principles that regulate the integration of lexical structure into constructions. In

this respect, three broad analytical perspectives can be distinguished. One, which is

typical of Goldberg’s (1995) work, focuses its attention on capturing broad-scale

generalizations on lexical-constructional behavior. A second one, which arises from

work on the resultative by Boas (2003, 2008, 2011), tips the scale in favor of

including more detailed information in lexical description in order to compensate for

the lack of constraining power of Goldbergian generalizations. A third, more recent

approach, called the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM; cf. Ruiz de Mendoza,

2013; Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera, 2014), has shed light on the constraining role of

some cognitive processes, including metaphor and metonymy, for the integration of

lexical structure into constructional characterizations.

Beyond purely theoretical pursuits, some Construction Grammar accounts

increasingly show greater interest in the formalization and computational

implementation of many of the notions put forward in Construction Grammar and

Cognitive Linguistics. Fluid Construction Grammar (Steels, 2012), Embodied

Construction Grammar (Bergen and Chang, 2005), and Sign-Based Construction

Grammar (Boas and Sag, 2012) share this goal (see also Chang, De Beule and Micelli

2012, and van Trijp, 2013 for comparative descriptions). This paper adds to this

research trend by presenting readers with a linguistically-oriented computational

treatment of argument-structure constructions. More specifically, we study several

members of the resultative family of constructions (cf. Goldberg and Jackendoff,

2004; Luzondo, 2014; Ruiz de Mendoza and Luzondo, 2014).1 This family codes

changes of state or location resulting from verbal action (e.g. He kicked Bob black and

blue, He kicked the ball into the net, etc.). Van Trijp (2011), for example, has

illustrated how argument-structure characterizations can be handled in the context of

Fluid Construction Grammar. In his proposal, van Trijp offers a “design pattern” (see

Steels, 2012, p. 16) that is capable of dealing with many of the complexities of

argument structure and he operationalizes such a pattern within Fluid Construction

Grammar. The design pattern is aimed at capturing the multilayered and indirect

nature of form-meaning mappings (van Trijp, 2011, pp. 2-3). To illustrate, note that

the same syntactic role may appear in a different surface form depending on the

context. Thus, in He saw him crossing the street, the masculine pronouns that function

as Subject of the main clause and as Subject of the subclause are respectively

3

expressed as he and him. To account for this and other cases of variable behavior, van

Trijp proposes a two-stepped solution. In the first step, lexical and phrasal

constructions specify their semantic and combinatorial potential. In the second,

argument-structure constructions select an actual value from this potential and

implement the linking between semantics and syntax, thus yielding specific

realizations (van Trijp, 2011, pp. 8-9). For example, for the verb send, the transitive

construction requires the selection of the following values: (i) at the semantic pole,

‘sender-Agent’ and ‘sent-Patient’ (while the semantic roles ‘Recipient/Goal’ are

discarded); (ii) at the syntactic pole, Subject and Direct Object (DO) (the Indirect

Object (IO) and the Oblique are also left out). This yields utterances like Jill sent a

letter. The ditransitive construction, on the other hand, selects Agent, Patient and

Recipient, which are then mapped onto Subject, IO and DO in John sent Mary a

letter. What this approach does not seem to cover, however, is the fact that when a

given verb fuses with a particular argument-structure construction, the syntactic

pattern may impose different values for each realization. A case in point is that of

sweep and the transitive-resultative construction. In He swept the floor clean, the

construction selects the semantic-syntactic pairs “Agent-Subject” and “Patient-DO”,

which arise from lexical projection (cf. He swept the floor), and adds the result

ingredient (i.e. clean). In He swept the broom to pieces, by contrast, both “the broom”

and “to pieces” are arguments supplied by the construction, as evidenced by the

ungrammaticality of *He swept the broom. Here, the Patient role, which is mapped

onto the object of the causal action, is the instrument employed to perform the goal-

oriented activity of sweeping. This phenomenon cannot be treated computationally by

merely specifying combinatorial potentials in the verbal construction, since there may

not always be a straightforward match between lexical and constructional properties,

even in cases in which the same verb and the same construction interact with each

other (cf. She ate the cob clean2, My youngest brother ate himself sick with the

grapes3). From a linguistic perspective, the mismatch requires a solution based on the

specification of the factors that license the incorporation of “the broom” as an object

into the resultative construction. A plausible linguistic solution is offered by the LCM,

which postulates the generic-level metaphor A GOAL-ORIENTED ACTIVITY IS

AN EFFECTUAL ACTION, whereby the activity of sweeping is seen as if it were an

action with an impact on the object: the instrument employed to perform the activity

(the broom) is conceptualized as the object of a causal action (see Luzondo, 2014 for

4

more details). However, to our knowledge, the computational tractability of the

metaphor-based solution has not been investigated yet, probably due to its highly

generic format. An alternative approach, which is compliant with computational

requirements, requires a finer-grained constructional specification dealing with all

realization possibilities.

One knowledge engineering project that is sufficiently equipped to account for

constructional realization variability of the kind mentioned above is FunGramKB,

which has been described by its proponents as a “user-friendly online environment for

the semiautomatic construction of a multipurpose lexico-conceptual knowledge-base

for NLP systems” (Periñán and Arcas, 2010a, p. 2667; see also Periñán and Arcas,

2005, 2007ab, 2010b). FunGramKB, is grounded in two largely compatible linguistic

theories (see Nolan and Periñán, 2014): (i) RRG (Van Valin and LaPolla, 1997; Van

Valin, 2005), which is a functional model of language; and (ii) the LCM, a

comprehensive model of meaning construction through language in context which

reconciles functionally-oriented projectionist approaches and cognitively-oriented

constructionist accounts (Ruiz de Mendoza, 2013, p. 232; cf. Ruiz de Mendoza and

Mairal, 2008, 2011; Mairal and Ruiz de Mendoza, 2009). Although, as observed in

Periñán (2013, p. 206), “NLP applications which […] work with no foundation in any

linguistic theory” are easier to build, a symbolic approach (cf. Mairal, 2012) like the

one followed by FunGramKB avoids the problem of being “deceptively intelligent,”

thus ensuring natural language understanding.4 It is for this reason that the LCM and

RRG lie at the heart of the linguistic level of FunGramKB (see Mairal, fc.; Periñán

and Arcas, 2014; Van Valin and Mairal, 2014), as will be shown in the following

sections.

In this context, the present article provides a description of the format of

constructional schemata as machine-tractable representations of constructions and

proposes a ‘splitting-like’ solution to account for the intricacies of lexical-

constructional fusion (cf. sweep above).5 In FunGramKB, constructional schemas,

which are depicted through Attribute-Value Matrices (AVMs), are formalized by

means of descriptors and constraints. In this respect the kind of analysis presented

here is closer to the approach adopted by computational Construction Grammars than

to Goldberg’s (1995, 2006) Cognitive Construction Grammar, in which there is a

clear dearth of formalization.

5

With this in mind, the structure of the rest of this paper is as follows. In

section 2 an outline of the architecture of FunGramKB is presented. Section 2.1.

introduces the Grammaticon, which contains constructicons of a number of languages.

This is the FunGramKB component on which we focus our attention. Likewise, this

section briefly discusses the computational suitability of syntactic alternations (Levin,

1993) in light of the design of the grammatical level. In Section 2.1.1 we offer a

necessarily succinct critical revision of the notion of construction in FunGramKB.

Section 3 deals with the computational treatment of three members of the resultative

family, namely, the resultative, the caused-motion, and the way constructions. This

section argues for the need to posit separate, albeit related, sub-types of constructional

schemas of the same general construction; this is an issue that has not been addressed

in the FunGramKB literature as yet. In Section 4, we discuss which of the three

constructionist accounts considered in this paper, i.e. the approaches by Goldberg

(1995), Boas (2003), and Ruiz de Mendoza (2013), is more readily tractable

computationally. Section 5 summarizes the main points made in the paper.

2. FunGramKB: A general introduction

As shown in Figure 1, the architecture of this knowledge base comprises three major

knowledge levels: the lexical and grammatical levels, which are language-dependent,

and the conceptual level, which is language-independent and therefore shared by all

the languages currently supported in the knowledge base (i.e. Spanish, English,

French, and Italian). In turn, each of these knowledge levels consists of several self-

standing, although interconnected, modules.

6

Figure 1: The architecture of FunGramKB (source: www.fungramkb.com).

What follows is a brief description of each of the components specified in Figure 1:

1. The lexical level is made up of a Morphicon and a Lexicon (see Mairal and

Periñán, 2009; Luzondo and Jiménez, 2014, p. 210-212 for more details). While the

former handles cases of inflectional morphology, the latter, which preserves some of

the basic assumptions of RRG, stores information regarding morphosyntactic and

collocational information about lexical units, each of which is linked to a concept in

the Ontology. More concretely, lexical entries in FunGramKB are provided with the

following information: (i) basic (i.e. headword, index and language); (ii)

morphosyntactic features (i.e. graphical variant, abbreviation, phrase constituents,

category, number, gender, countability, degree, adjectival position, verb paradigm

with its constraints, and pronominalization); (iii) miscellaneous (i.e. dialect, style and

example); and (iv) core grammar (i.e. essentially syntactic projection based on the

attribution of roles to argument-structure elements). In the case of verbal predicates,

the most important component is the core grammar, which contains a list of

7

“attributes whose values allow the system to build the basic logical structure of verbs

automatically” (Periñán, 2013, p. 212). The following is an outline of the attributes in

the core grammar:

(a) Aktionsart: the most representative RRG verb class in which a given verb

may occur (e.g. activity, accomplishment, causative accomplishment, etc.).

(b) The lexical template of the verb includes: (i) the number of variables that a

verbal predicate may take (i.e. x, y, z); (ii) the so-called thematic frame

mapping, through which the variables of the predicate are mapped onto one and

only one participant in the thematic frame of the concept to which a given sense

of a lexical unit is connected; (iii) the idiosyncratic features or macroroles

assigned to the verb, namely, actor and undergoer.

(c) Moreover, the core grammar displays a repertoire of constructions in which

a given verb may be embedded. That is, lexical entries contain pointers to the

grammatical constructions in the constructicon, through which the projection

from syntax to semantics takes place (Periñán, 2013, p. 217). Thus, although as

we will see in Section 2.1, knowledge on constructions is not stored in the

Lexicon but in the Grammaticon, knowledge engineers working with a verbal

predicate will specify those syntactic patterns with which the verb may fuse. For

example, if kick is being described in the Lexicon, the following constructions

will be selected on the basis of corpus evidence: the resultative (e.g. Pat kicked

Bob black and blue), the caused-motion construction (e.g. Pat kicked the

football into the stadium), the way construction (e.g. Pat kicked his way out of

the operating room), etc. (cf. Bencini and Goldberg, 2000, p. 641). Similarly,

float in Figure 2 below participates in the intransitive motion construction

(IMOT; e.g. The bottle floated into the cave), the caused-motion construction

(CMOT; e.g. Currents floated the slick onto 162 miles of beaches6), the way

construction (WAY; e.g. The ship floated its way under the bridge), etc.

Furthermore, besides the constructions stored in the Grammaticon, verbs in the

Lexicon are provided with one Kernel construction, which is built on the basis

of the features described in (a) and (b) above. Thus, depending on the variables

in the lexical template, a given verb will typically occur in a Kernel-1

Construction (intransitive, e.g. Pat coughed), a Kernel-2 Construction

(monotransitive, e.g. He boiled the water) or a Kernel-3 Construction

(ditransitive, e.g. Anna sent Peter a letter) (cf. Periñán, 2013, p. 213). These are

8

the only kinds of constructions that are not formalized at the grammatical level

of FunGramKB, but are modeled within the lexical entries of verbs (Periñán and

Arcas, 2014, p. 177). As one of such, float in Figure 2 is automatically provided

with a Kernel-1 construction (i.e. ‘something floats’). Note that in FunGramKB

an input text like The bottle floated into the lock would therefore consist of two

argument-structure constructions: “the bottle floated” (Kernel-1) and “into the

lock” (intransitive motion construction) (cf. section 2.1.1.).

At this point, it is important to emphasize that lexical entries and

constructional schemas make use of the same formal representation system, i.e. both

of them are represented through AVMs which eventually merge via unification

processes following the paradigm of constraint-based grammars (Mairal, fc.; Periñán

and Arcas, 2014, p. 179-181). Consider, by way of example, the AVM of the lexical

unit float, which captures part of the information detailed in (a)-(c) above.

Figure 2: Core grammar of float (English Lexicon).

Although inspired in a different theoretical model, i.e. RRG, it follows that the

Lexicon of FunGramKB is consistent with the proposals made by Boas (2008, 2013),

who rightly claims that it is necessary to include more detailed semantic information

in the lexical entries of verbs. This contrasts with Goldberg’s (1995) account, in

9

which verbs are merely reduced to a set of participant roles (e.g. float <floating

entity>), which fuse with the argument roles of the construction on the basis of a set

of constraints (see Section 4).

2. The grammatical level, or Grammaticon, which is our focus of attention in this

paper, stores constructional schemata helping RRG to build the syntax-to-semantics

linking algorithm. The details of this level are discussed later in section 2.1.

3. At the conceptual level the same formal language (i.e. COREL, see Periñán

and Mairal, 2010) is employed so that information sharing can take place effectively

among its three conceptual sub-modules: (i) the Cognicon, which stores procedural

knowledge by means of scripts; (ii) the Onomasticon, which keeps information about

instances of entities and events; and (iii) the Ontology or the hierarchical catalogue of

concepts that a person has in mind. It should be noted that the Ontology is the pivot

around which the whole architecture of the knowledge base revolves, which is why

FunGramKB proponents claim that their approach is conceptual. In the Ontology,

concepts are provided with semantic properties in the form of ‘thematic frames’ and

‘meaning postulates’. Both are taken to be language-independent semantic knowledge

representations. On the one hand, a thematic frame is defined as “a conceptual

construct stating the number and type of participants involved in the prototypical

cognitive situation codified by the event” (Periñán and Arcas, 2010b, p. 30). For

example, the thematic frame of the concept +FLOAT_00, to which the lexical units

float, flotar (Spanish), flotteur (French), galleggiare (Italian), etc. are connected,

describes a prototypical scenario in which an entity or “(x1)Theme” lies in the water

(i.e. (x2: +WATER_00)Location). On the other hand, meaning postulates are sets of

one or more logically connected predications (e1, e2, e3, etc.), that is, conceptual

constructs carrying the generic features of concepts (Mairal and Periñán, 2009, p.

224). Continuing with our example, the meaning postulate of the concept

+FLOAT_00 is provided in (1) together with a translation:

(1) +(e1: +LIE_00 (x1)Theme (x2: +WATER_00)Location (f1: (e2: n

+SINK_00 (x3)Agent (x1)Theme (x2)Location (x4)Origin

(x5)Goal))Scene) = “Floating means that something (x1) lies in the water

(x2) without sinking in it (f1)”.

10

The COREL metalanguage is also employed to code the semantics of

argument-structure constructions at the grammatical level, to which we turn our

attention now.

2.1. The Grammaticon

The Grammaticon in FunGramKB is the repository of constructional schemata. It

comprises several constructicons (i.e. L1-Constructicon, L2-Constructicon, L3-

Constructicon, and L4-Constructicon), which are inspired in the four constructional

layers of the LCM. For the sake of clarity, we shall briefly discuss the four levels of

description postulated by the LCM. The first is structured around low and high-level

(i.e. abstract) non-situational cognitive models.7 At this level, lexical structure, which

is based on low-level non-situational cognitive models, is integrated into argument-

structure constructions like the resultative, caused-motion, etc. Argument-structure

constructions, which have been created by abstracting away properties that are shared

by lexical predicates, are made up of high-level non-situational cognitive models.

Low-level situational cognitive models are part of the implicational layer, or level 2,

where we find constructions such as ‘What’s X doing Y?’ (Kay and Fillmore, 1999),

which conveys the conventionalized meaning implication that there is a situation that

bothers the speaker (Ruiz de Mendoza, 2001). The X and Y variables receive partial

structure from level 1. In turn, level 3 is grounded in high-level situational models

such as ‘begging’, ‘requesting’, ‘offering’, which abstract common conceptual

material away from low-level situations. Such models underlie illocutionary

constructions, which, like their level-2 counterparts, consist of fixed and variable

elements, as in ‘Can You X?’, ‘You Shall Have X’, ‘Let’s X’. Finally, relations

among non-situational high-level cognitive models are treated at the fourth level. This

layer deals with discourse structure in which level-1 configurations are coupled

through relational patterns like ‘cause-effect’, ‘condition-consequence’, and ‘action-

result’, among others (see Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera, 2014).8

The L1-Constructicon of FunGramKB, which is the object of the present

article, is represented in Figure 3 via the intransitive motion construction:9

11

Figure 3: The interface of the L1-constructicon: the case of the intransitive motion construction.

Before proceeding with an explanation of the L1-Construction, let us first

discuss the computational suitability of syntactic alternations within FunGramKB.

The reader may have noticed the pair of examples located at the top of Figure 3 (cf.

The bottle floated > The bottle floated into the cave). Since, to this day, there has been

no attempt to produce an exhaustive list of argument-structure constructions, the

range of configurations stored in the L1-Constructicon of FunGramKB was first

grounded in Levin’s (1993) seminal compilation of syntactic alternations.

Nevertheless, it should be immediately pointed out that alternations are not useful

computationally, at least in light of the architecture of the L1-Constructicon. There are

two reasons for this. The first relates to the fact that what the machine needs to

recognize and process is the input text but not the capacity of a given verb to

participate in two alternating constructions. In other words, as previously pointed out,

12

constructional information in FunGramKB crucially depends on descriptors and

constraints on the basis of which each constructional schema is defined on its own,

thus allowing the machine to identify an input text as an example of a particular

construction. For that matter, whether the verb of the input text can express its

arguments in different syntactic positions is irrelevant to the machine. Second,

Levin’s alternating pairs are to be viewed as two closely related constructions, which

may not even share the same number of variables and/or whose meaning and

Aktionsart may in fact be different. These are precisely some of the features through

which constructional schemas are defined in FunGramKB. These features allow us to

distinguish one construction from another (see explanation in (a)-(b) below). To

illustrate this point, consider the ‘induced action’ alternation discussed in Levin

(1993, p. 31):

(2) a. The horse jumped over the fence.

b. Sylvia jumped the horse over the fence.

Whereas in (2a) jump is embedded in an intransitive motion configuration in which

only one entity is in motion (i.e. ‘X MOVES Z’, following Goldberg’s (1995)

notation), in (2b) the activity of jumping is seen as part of a causal event, in which the

horse is both the object of the subject’s causal action (cf. somebody causes the horse

to jump) and the actor of the activity (cf. the horse jumps). Thus, (2b) is but a case of

the caused-motion construction (‘X CAUSES Y TO MOVE Z’). From this it follows

that the number of constructional arguments in (2a) and (2b) is clearly not the same,

since the former consists of two, while the latter comprises three. Besides the fact that

each linguistic expression realizes a distinct, but related, construction, the Aktionsart

is different in each example. In (2a) we have an active accomplishment. Conversely,

the Aktionsart of the structure realized by Sylvia jumped the horse over the fence is a

causative active accomplishment. Suffice it to say that the same rationale applies to

the examples in Figure 3. Thus, the need to maintain an individualized analysis of

grammatical configurations leads us to discard alternations from the FunGramKB

Editor in Figure 3. In this way, the machine will be able to match a given input text

(i.e. the linguistic realization) with one construction or the other.10

13

Let us now go into the characterization of constructional schemas, as illustrated

in Figure 3. We mentioned in the introduction that FunGramKB constructional

schemas are defined by means of two elements: (i) descriptors (i.e. Aktionsart,

number and type of variables, the thematic role of the variable(s) contributed by the

grammatical construction, macroroles, and the COREL schema); and (ii) constraints,

which focus on phrase realizations and selection preferences (i.e. ontological concepts

like +WATER_00 in (1) above). We shall illustrate the ensuing description of these

elements through the intransitive motion construction (e.g. The bottle floated into the

cave), represented in Figure 3. This construction is a member of the resultative family

in English:

(a) Following RRG’s classification, constructional schemas, as much as verbs in the

Lexicon, are provided with an Aktionsart type, which, in the case of the intransitive

motion construction, is an active accomplishment (ACA, in Figure 3). Recall that, by

contrast, from the point of view of its Aktionsart characterization, the caused-motion

construction (cf. Sylvia jumped the horse over the fence) is a causative active

accomplishment.

(b) At the right-hand side of the Aktionsart box, we state the number and type of

constructional variables involved (i.e. x = ‘”the bottle” and z = “into the cave”, in the

grammatical pattern at hand). Conversely, caused-motion examples display three

constructional arguments. Thus, an approach based on syntactic alternations of the

type The bottle floated into the cave > The water floated the bottle into the cave

precludes an analysis of argument-structure characterizations as discrete entities with

different formal and semantic properties.

(c) For each new variable contributed by the construction (z, in the case of the

intransitive motion), the following information should be specified:

(c.i) Its thematic role: Agent, Theme, Referent, Result, etc. For example, the

thematic role of z is Goal or the destination of motion (cf. “into the cave”).

(c.ii) The macrorole (if any) assigned to the new variable: either actor or

undergoer. This semantic notion of macrorole, which is taken from RRG (Van

Valin, 2005, p. 60), largely corresponds to what other theories label as ‘logical

subject’ (actor) and ‘logical object’ (undergoer), terms not employed in RRG

since they typically express syntactic instead of semantic relations. In fact, they

are called macroroles because they subsume a number of specific thematic

relations. For example, the actor is the most agent-like argument, whereas the

14

undergoer is the most patient-like argument. In FunGramKB these two

macroroles play a crucial role in the linkage between the lexico-grammatical

modules and the conceptual module. The z variable of the intransitive motion

construction, however, is not assigned any macrorole.

(c.iii) The categorial information of the variable. Here, z functions as a

Prepositional Phrase (PP).

(c.iv) The box labeled ‘syntax’ in Figure 3 accounts for the status of the

variables of the construction as argument or nucleus. Again, these are two key

concepts in the RRG notion of clause structure or the layered structure of the

clause (Van Valin, 2005, pp. 4-5). For RRG all languages semantically

distinguish between predicates, their arguments, and non-argument elements.

Syntactically speaking, the nucleus contains the predicate, and the core includes

the nucleus and its arguments. With respect to the construction variables, they

generally function as new arguments of the main nucleus, as in He laughed Paul

out of the room, which is an example of the caused-motion construction.

However, in some other cases, such as the resultative, the intransitive motion or

the way construction, the variable incorporated by the construction functions as

another nucleus, sharing an argument of the main nucleus and forming with it a

single, complex nucleus or nuclear juncture in the terminology of RRG. For

example, in Tobias licked the bowl clean (Google Books Corpus, 2014), the

nucleus is made up of two nuclei: ‘lick’ and ‘clean’, which, together with the

two arguments ‘Tobias’ and ‘the bowl’, form the core of the clause. “Into the

cave” in the intransitive motion also functions as nucleus.

(c.v) Prepositions: this box records those idiosyncratic prepositions that

introduce a particular variable, e.g. ‘as’ in the “as construction” (e.g. The

president appointed Smith as press secretary), or ‘into’, ‘to’, ‘over’, etc. in the

intransitive motion construction.

(c.vi) As for the constraints, these take the form of what FunGramKB calls

‘selectional preferences’. These are understood as conceptual constraints

prototypically related to cognitive situations (cf. Jiménez and Pérez, 2011).

Therefore, basic concepts from the Ontology are employed to code them. For

instance, +LOCATION_00 appears as the selectional preference of the z

variable in the intransitive motion configuration.

15

(d) Finally, the COREL schema of the construction captures the conceptual or

cognitive content of the configuration through the COREL metalanguage introduced

in Section 2. Such a representation employs ontological concepts together with their

meaning postulates, which contain the thematic frame. The difference from the

meaning postulate in (1) above is that in the COREL schema the variables of the

construction are associated with one participant role. As shown below, the COREL

schema of the intransitive motion construction is repeated in (3a) for the reader’s

convenience. A translation is supplied in (3b):

(3) a. +(e1: <EVENT> (f1: (e2: +MOVE_00 (x1)Agent (x2: x)Theme

(x3)Location (x4)Origin (x5: z)Goal))Result)

b. ‘There is an event and, as a result, x (which is mapped onto the

Theme or entity in motion) moves to another location (z, which is

mapped onto the Goal or destination)’.

The COREL metalanguage in (3a) proves to be fine-grained enough to capture

the semantics of the construction, which authors like Goldberg and Jackendoff (2004,

p. 540) capture through the following skeletal structure, “X1=NP GO Path2=PP. MEANS:

[VERBAL SUBVENT]”. The difference, however, is that an event of motion (cf.

+MOVE_00) in a knowledge base cannot be understood cognitively unless five

participants are borne in mind, i.e. Agent, Theme, Location, Origin and Goal, despite

the fact that only two of them (i.e. “(x2: x)Theme” and “(x5: z)Goal”) are realized

linguistically in the intransitive motion construction.

The AVM for Figure 3 is supplied in Figure 4:

16

Figure 4: AVM of the intransitive motion construction.

To conclude, take again the example The bottle floated into the cave. The

AVM of the predicate float in Figure 2 merges onto the constructional AVM in Figure

4, which inherits monotonically the AVM of the x variable (cf. “the bottle”) from the

Lexicon, while adding the z constructional argument (cf. “into the cave”).

So far we have addressed the structure of the L1-Constructicon and described

the way in which one specific constructional schema is represented in FunGramKB.

However, nothing has been said about what a construction is in FunGramKB. The

following section is devoted to a critical assessment of such a notion.

2.1.1. What is a construction in FunGramKB?

The network of “loosely connected” models known as the family of Construction

Grammars (cf. Östman and Fried, 2004, p. 1) has given rise to concrete views of what

constitutes a construction, their differences being mostly a mere matter of varying

goals and emphasis.11

For the LCM, for example, a construction is:

17

A form-meaning (or function) paring where form affords access to meaning and meaning is

realized by form to the extent that such processes have become entrenched, through sufficient

use, in the speaker’s mind and are generally recognized by competent speakers of the

language in question to be stably associated or at least potentially replicable by other

competent speakers of the same language with immaterial variation in its form and meaning.

(Ruiz de Mendoza, 2013, p. 238)

Authors like Boas (2008, p. 21) contend that in the case of the resultative,

constructions should be better conceived of as ‘mini-constructions’, i.e. form-meaning

pairings representing an individual sense of a verb. For instance, Boas (2011, p. 1288)

claims that the “make-safe” collocation (e.g. He made his pistol safe) is a mini-

construction, that is, a paring of a particular semantics/pragmatics with a very specific

syntactic frame [NP V NP safe]. In turn, Goldberg’s (1995) delineation of

construction was modified and expanded in Goldberg (2006). The original

formulation revolved around the criteria of idiosyncrasy and non-compositionality as

essential requirements for a construction to be recognized as such. This is clearly the

case of What’s X doing Y? (Kay and Fillmore, 1999), which conveys the idea that the

state of affairs referred to by the predication bothers the speaker. This meaning

ingredient is not directly derivable from the components of the construction.

However, owing to the rise of usage-based linguistics (Langacker, 1987; Bybee, 2006,

2013), Goldberg’s 2006 definition no longer considers compositionality to be the sole

requirement for constructional status, and transparent configurations (e.g. Hello) are

listed as constructions as long as they occur with sufficient frequency:

Any linguistic pattern is recognized as a construction as long as some aspect of its form or

function is not strictly predictable from its components parts or form other constructions

recognized to exist. In addition, patterns are stored as constructions even if they are fully

predictable as long as they occur with sufficient frequency.

(Goldberg, 2006, p. 5)

In this statement little is said about what actually counts as “sufficient frequency”, an

issue which the LCM has sorted out by arguing in favor of the replicability criterion

(Ruiz de Mendoza, 2013; Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera, 2014, p. 36-37). Following

upon this logic, an original form-meaning pairing can be regarded as a construction

even if such a pattern is only uttered once by a competent native speaker with the

18

proviso that an equally competent native hearer understands it and perceives it as a

highly natural output. Likewise, some criticisms have been voiced against the lack of

felicity of Goldberg’s (2006) approach on the grounds that virtually almost anything

can be a construction (see Östman and Fried, 2004, p. 1; Bod, 2009, p. 130; Mairal

and Gonzálvez García, 2010, p. 125). FunGramKB joins in with this position and

contends that Goldberg’s (2006, p. 5) view that “all levels of grammatical analysis

involve constructions” (e.g. from morphemes like –ing, going through words,

complex words, to abstract structures such as the passive, etc.) cannot be applied

computationally.12 Consequently, in the computational approach to constructional

meaning pursued in this knowledge-base, a clear-cut distinction is made between

“constructs” and “constructions”. According to Periñán (2013, p. 215; see also

Periñán and Arcas, 2014, p. 172), the former alludes to “any form-meaning pairing

which serves as a building block in the compositionality of sentential semantics”.13 In

turn, the latter is taken to be any linguistic construct where the meaning of the whole

exceeds the sum of the parts.14 It is in this sense that not all levels of grammatical

analysis can be said to include constructions in FunGramKB, since constructional

meaning must be located in one of the constructicons (the four levels of the LCM),

“where constructions are not found below the argumental layer” (Periñán, 2013, p.

217, our emphasis).

Given this claim, the following theoretical issues need to be addressed. First, if

constructions in FunGramKB are to be understood from a holistic perspective à la

Goldberg (1995) and constructions can only exist in the Grammaticon, it seems

somewhat incongruent to provide “Kernel Constructions”, which reside in the

Lexicon (cf. Section 2), with the status of “constructions”. A simple transitive action

like Bob kicked the ball is fully compositional, and yet, it is given the status of a

construction (a Kernel-2 construction, to be more precise). Or consider the following

example taken from Periñán and Arcas (2014, p. 172): John pounded the nail flat into

the wall. According to these authors, such an input text combines three argument-

structure constructions: a Kernel-2 construction (“John pounded the nail”), the

transitive-resultative (“flat”) and the caused-motion configuration (“into the wall”).

Surprisingly, the Kernel-2 is claimed to be an argument-structure construction,

although not only does it reside in the Lexicon, but also its meaning as a whole is

clearly not greater than the sum of the parts involved in the utterance. Second,

ditransitive structures or Kernel-3, in the terminology of FunGramKB, are confined to

19

the Lexicon and, obviously, no ditransitive construction exists in the Grammaticon. If

this is so, how could the machine process an input text like Pat kicked Bob the

football? Evidently, such a non-compositional structure would need to be accounted

for at the argumental layer (the L1-Constructicon), since the AVM of kick consists of

a Kernel-2 and therefore, only selects two participants (i.e. ‘somebody kicks an

object’). Moreover, kick is a semelfactive verb derived from an activity, but, when the

verb is incorporated into the ditransitive, its Aktionsart is converted through coercion

into a causative accomplishment. These problems call for a revision of the status of

the notion of Kernel constructions in FunGramKB (which should probably be labeled

“Kernel-constructs” instead), while the inclusion of the ditransitive in the L1-

Constructicon is imperative.

A final query concerns which of the three linguistic approaches to the notion

of construction, to wit, the LCM’s, Boas’s or Goldberg’s is closer to the

computational account of argument-structure constructions provided in FunGramKB.

Before dealing with this issue, the next section is devoted to a computational

treatment of the resultative, caused-motion and way constructions; these three

patterns, which are related through family resemblance (in the sense of Wittgenstein

1955), express the result of the action denoted by the verb.

3. A formalized analysis of three argument structure constructions in

FunGramKB

The resultative construction has been the object of a considerable number of studies

from different perspectives (e.g. Hoekstra, 1988; Levin, 1993, 2006; Rappaport and

Levin, 2001, inter alios). More recently, this pattern has been investigated in a more

productive way in constructionist approaches such as the ones by Boas (2003, 2008,

2011), Broccias (2003), Goldberg and Jackendoff (2004), Iwata (2006), and Hampe

(2010). Broadly speaking, the resultative phrase designates the endpoint of a change

of state undergone by the patient, as exemplified by He broke the box open (Google

Books Corpus, 2010) and The wind broke the windows to pieces (Google Books

Corpus, 2009). In the former instance, the resultative phrase is realized by an

adjectival phrase (AP). In the latter, it takes the form of a Prepositional Phrase (PP),

whereby the change of state is metaphorical perceived as a change of location on the

grounds of the metaphor A CHANGE OF STATE IS A CHANGE OF LOCATIONS

(cf. Lakoff, 1987, 1993; Lakoff and Johnson, 1999).

20

The formalized representation of this construction in FunGramKB is given in

Figure 5:

Figure 5: AVM of the transitive resultative construction.

As shown in Mairal (2012), the properties of this constructional AVM specify the

Aktionsart characterization of the construction as a causative accomplishment. The

construction comprises three participants, i.e. x, y and z, the latter being the variable

contributed by the configuration, whose thematic role is ‘result’ and whose selectional

preference is the concept +STATE_00. As previously noted, this argument is formally

realized as an AP (ADJP) or a PP, syntactically functioning as a nucleus in the layered

structure of the clause. Finally, the semantics of the construction in the COREL

schema reads as follows: ‘there is an event in which something (x1: x) causes the

affected object (x3: y) to result in (x4: z)’. With an input text like the oft-quoted

example He hammered the metal flat, the constructional AVM in Figure 5 would

straightforwardly merge with the AVM of the predicate ‘hammer’, to which z is

added. That is, hammer has two arguments, one acting as the agent (x) and the other

21

as the object (y), but the result phrase comes from the higher-level structure (i.e. the

constructional AVM) with which this verb is compatible. The same rationale applies

to the example Kelly painted the walls red. Here, Agent-Subject and Patient-DO

(following van Trijp’s (2011) notation) are the values selected or inherited from the

AVM of paint in the Lexicon and, thus, they need not be further specified in the

constructional AVM of the transitive-resultative, which only requires the overt

expression of a result component. However, Mairal’s (2012) operationalization of the

transitive resultative does not to do justice to the actual complexity of lexical-

constructional integration. This is evidenced by the existence of realizations like He

painted the brush to pieces (Broccias, 2003, p. 134), in which once again, it is the

instrument employed to perform the action that is construed as the patient undergoing

a change of state. In this connection, Boas (2003) has shown that the resultative is a

highly irregular pattern, which goes far beyond the rather simplistic “hammering”

example. To begin with, verbal predicates tend to exhibit idiosyncratic behavior when

incorporated into the resultative syntactic frame, and resist subtle lexical or syntactic

changes, as shown in (4):

(4) a. He hammered the metal flat.

b. He hammered the metal into a flat sheet (Culicover, 2009, p. 302).

c. ?He hammered the metal to flatness.

d. *He hammered the metal safe.15

e. *He hammered the metal tubular.

Likewise, more often than not, when the verb collocates with direct objects such as

those in (5a)-(5d), a figurative interpretation of the whole utterance is rendered:

(5) a. The joggers ran the pavement thin (Levin and Rappaport, 1995, p.

75).

b. She cried herself sick (Google Books Corpus, 2010).

c. They drank the pub dry (Broccias, 2003, p. 198).

d. He swept the broom to pieces (Boas, 2003, p. 7).

Clearly, one does not “run the pavement” or “cry oneself” but rather, quite

exaggeratedly, one runs to a point in which the pavement is made thinner, cries so

22

much that ends up sick, etc. In all these realizations, whether the verb is intransitive

(e.g. cry (x)) or transitive (e.g. sweep (x, y)), neither the direct objects in (5), nor the

result ingredient arise from the argument-structure characterization of these verbal

predicates, and must therefore be seen as part of the construction (cf. *She cried

herself, *He ran the pavement, etc.). By contrast in He hammered the metal flat/into a

flat sheet, the construction only supplies the result element (i.e. ‘z = become flat’).

Moreover, note that, as already mentioned, the same construction can equally impose

a result component alone (cf. Tom swept the floor clean, Tom painted the walls red),

or an object plus the outcome event (cf. Tom painted the brush to pieces) upon the

same verbal predicate.

Let us now see how this variable behavior can be handled in FunGramKB. At

this point of our discussion the following query is in order: how many variables

should be left underspecified in the constructional AVM (e.g. x, y in Figure 5) for the

machine to understand that the information contained in such variables (x, y) is to be

retrieved from the lexical entry of the verb? Or, in more simple words, how can the

machine recognize when the argument-structure of a given verb will be augmented

through the addition of one or two constructional arguments? In FunGramKB, the

system understands that a verb can participate in a construction like the transitive-

resultative by means of a default procedure called ‘pattern-matching’, which is based

on the immediate recognition of a constructional pattern when the number and type of

lexical and constructional arguments coincide. For example, in the AVM of Figure 5,

z is the sole argument provided by the construction. However, run, cry, sweep and

drink in the input texts in (5) require that two constructional arguments be specified in

the constructional AVM to account for the fact that neither their objects nor their

results are part of the argument structure of these predicates. Otherwise, the matching

between the construction and the verbs in (5) will not take place. However, if we

further detail the y constructional variable in the AVM of Figure 5, that is, if both y

and z are taken to be the arguments added by the construction, pattern-matching will

again be blocked for cases in which only the result component is contributed, e.g. He

hammered the metal flat, They painted the walls red, She broke the vase to pieces, etc.

Here, “the metal”, “the walls” or “the vase” are retrieved from the Lexicon so that

there is no need to describe a new variable y in the construction.

This situation brings about the creation of two distinct, yet related, sub-

constructions in the Grammaticon of FunGramKB. This is an issue that has thus far

23

gone unnoticed in the FunGramKB literature (cf. Mairal, 2012, fc.; Periñán, 2013;

Mairal and Periñán, 2014; Periñán and Arcas, 2014; Van Valin and Mairal, 2014).

That is, since pattern-matching must be satisfied, the resulting picture is that separate

constructional schemas need to be listed in order for the machine to be able to process

different realizations of the same general construction. On the one hand, Figure 5,

which we shall rename “transitive-resultative construction (type 1)”, will be able to

account for instances such as I froze the cake solid (Google Books, 2011), She fried

the meat black (Google Books, 2008), He smashed the cup to bits16 (Google Books,

2013), etc. In these cases, only the z constructional argument is detailed in the AVM.

On the other, the AVM in Figure 6 (i.e. the transitive-resultative (type 2)) will be

activated when the input text is a realization in which both y and z are arguments of

the construction, as in (5) above.17

Figure 6: AVM of the transitive resultative (type 2).

24

Another case is point is that of the caused-motion construction, a configuration

whose basic semantic layout expresses a caused change of location along a path

designated by the directional phrase (cf. Goldberg, 1995, p. 152; see also Torre, 2012;

Ruiz de Mendoza and Luzondo, 2014). As with the resultative, the caused-motion in

(6a) may contribute the directional phrase (“into the net”), or, in the examples in

(6bc), it can supply both the theme argument (i.e. “the rats/him”) and the destination

of motion (i.e. “into the maze/room”), which are not part of the intransitive verb run

or of the two-place predicate show.

(6) a. He kicked the ball into the net.

b. The scientist ran the rats into the maze (Levin, 1993, p. 31).

c. He showed him into the room (Goldberg, 1995, p. 162).

Once again, if the maximum number of added arguments (i.e. y and z) is detailed

within a single construction schema, the construction will not be triggered for an input

text such as (6a) or for others like He shoved the boat into the water (Google Books

Corpus, 2000), He poured the batter into the pan (Google Books Corpus, 2011), He

drove the car into the parking lot (Google Books Corpus, 2006), etc. Conversely, the

description of the z argument alone is insufficient for The scientist ran the rats into

the maze, He walked the horse to the stables (Google Books Corpus, 2013), among

others. Thus, two caused-motion types must be incorporated into the L1-Construction.

These are respectively reproduced in Figures 7 and 8. In both AVMs, the Aktionsart

specification is a causative active accomplishment, z maintains the same descriptors

and constraints, while the COREL scheme is also shared (i.e. ‘there is an event and as

a result the agent causes the theme to move towards a destination’). The difference

between these AVMs lies in the specification of one constructional argument (Figure

7) or two (Figure 8):

25

Figure 7: AVM of the caused-motion construction (type 1).

26

Figure 8: AVM of the caused-motion construction (type 2).

Now consider the way construction (cf. Kuno and Takami, 2004; Christy,

2011; Luzondo, 2013): He elbowed his way into the lottery room; He gambled his

way to fortune; He sighed his way to sleep again. Goldberg (1995, p. 199) represents

the way construction as [SUBJi [V [POSSi way] OBL]], where V is a non-stative verb,

OBL codes a directional and the noun way is a fixed or non-parameterizable element,

in the terminology of the LCM. In contrast to the caused-motion construction, one

essential characteristic of the way construction, according to Goldberg (1995), relates

to the fact that motion must take place along an either literal or metaphorical self-

created, non pre-established path in which some kind of external obstacle is present.

Moreover, while the resultative and caused-motion constructions can either be literal

(e.g. He painted the wall red, He kicked the ball into the net) or figurative (e.g. She

drank herself silly/into oblivion), the combination of verb and the fixed-element

[POSSi way] always renders a figurative interpretation (e.g. one cannot “elbow a

27

way”, but rather create a way by pushing people aside with one’s elbows). A final

difference among these structures is the following. Recall that in the intransitive

motion and the two types of caused-motion constructions described herein the result is

that of a literal change of location. In the resultative, types 1 and 2, the outcome is a

change of state, whether expressed through and adjective (e.g. He painted the wall

red), or through a PP used metaphorically (e.g. He broke the vase to pieces), as we

noted above. The way construction, however, behaves differently, since it may realize

a result of the action denoted by the verb either in the form of an AP and/or a PP as a

change of state (e.g. (7a)-(7b)), or through a PP expressing a literal change of

location, as in (7c):

(7) a. Jeffrey and Lemondrop chewed their way loose (Google Books

Corpus, 2013).

b. They snored the way into oblivion (Google Books Corpus, 2010).

c. Gilbert Rasher pushed his way into the room (Google Books Corpus,

2004).

This is a problem for the current design of the Grammaticon. If we go back to the

interface of the L1-Constructicon in Figure 3, we notice that each new variable

contributed by the construction must select one and only one descriptor and one and

only one constraint. For instance, in (7a)-(7c), the construction collaborates with the

verb by adding both the fixed element (i.e. “X’s way”) and the result component (z =

“loose”; “into oblivion”; “into the room”). Thus, y and z need to be spelled out in the

interface. In (7ab), however, the thematic role of z would be that of “result” and

+STATE_00 would work as its selectional preference. By contrast, z in (7c) requires

that the descriptor labeled thematic role be “goal” while its selectional preference

must express a change of location (i.e. +LOCATION_00). Since, currently, the

FunGramKB editor does not allow the specification of different

descriptors/constraints for the same constructional variable (i.e. z), we are once again

faced with a situation in which two types of way construction must be posited. Both

sub-AVMS share the following elements: (i) the Aktionsart specification (i.e.

causative active accomplishment); (ii) the y variable; (iii) the COREL schema (see

(10) below). Their differences are shown in (8) and (9):

28

(8) Kowalski fought his way free/to freedom (Google Books Corpus,

2007/2006).

- Constructional variable = z

- Role = Result

- Phrase = ADJP | PP

- Syntax = Nucleus

- Preference = +STATE_00

(9) The crusaders fought their way into the palace (Google Books Corpus,

2000).

- Constructional variable = z

- Role = Goal

- Phrase = PP

- Syntax = Nucleus

- Preference = +LOCATION_00

Even if two constructional schemas are provided, the editor lacks a box in which the

fixed element can be recorded. For this reason, it is still a pending task to determine

how the machine will be able to recognize the existence of this component, which

cannot be explicitly stated anywhere in the L1-Constructicon.

A final issue concerns the meaning of the construction, which is captured in

the COREL schema in (10). Here, we have tried to account for the fact the

construction combines creation expressions (e.g. He made a path) with the

intransitive motion construction (cf. Goldberg, 1995, p. 207):

(10) a. *(e1: +MOVE_00 (x1: x)Agent (x2: x)Theme (x3)Location

(x4)Origin (x5: z)Goal (f1: +DIFFICULT_00)Manner (f2:

<EVENT>)Means (f3: (e2: +CREATE_00 (x1)Theme (x6:

y)Referent))Result)

b. An entity moves towards a destination with difficulty by means of

EVENT (e.g. fighting) and as a result the entity in motion creates y.

Goldberg contends that the way construction “is used to convey that the

subject moves despite some external difficulty, or in some indirect way: the path is not

29

already established, but must be (…) created by the mover” (Goldberg, 1995, p. 204,

our emphasis). On the basis of corpus data, Luzondo (2013) showed that this

statement is true for prototypical examples of the way construction (e.g. He elbowed

her way into the room), but sometimes there is no such impediment. By way of

illustration, consider the following attested realizations:

(11) a. Santas jingled and ho-ho-hoed their way into the home bearing gifts

(Corpus of Contemporary American English, 2008).

b. They giggled their way out of the restaurant sometime around 11

PM (Google Books Corpus, 2008).

c. (…) The four of them ate in a cheap dinner where Annete was so put

off by the food that she left her spaghetti untouched and smoked her

way through the meal (Google Books Corpus, 2005).

d. Her hand went up to my shoulder and her fingers ran their way

around my neck (Google Books Corpus, 1990).

As the examples in (11) demonstrate, the way construction can be employed to

construe activities such as ‘giggling’, ‘smoking’, etc. in terms of unimpeded motion

forward along a path. Thus, in these cases, the function of the fixed element is to

highlight the progressive, continuous aspect of the motion event. In the COREL

representation in (10), the external “difficulty” element described in Goldberg (1995)

has been coded via a Manner satellite (i.e. “(f1: +DIFFICULT_00)Manner”).

Nonetheless, it is necessary to allow for the fact that not all realizations of the way

construction involve an obstacle. In FunGramKB, a predication (e1) can follow two

kinds of reasoning operations, to wit, strict (+) or defeasible (*). According to Periñán

and Arcas (2010a) the former allow no exceptions (e.g. islands are surrounded by

water, a cat is a mammal, etc.), while the latter may be overridden in the light of

contradictory information, as is the case of the impediment element of the way

construction. We thus propose to mark the predication in (10) with an asterisk instead

of a plus symbol (see, by contrast, the COREL scheme in Figure 8).

Finally note that although the level of formalization in computational

linguistics is high, FunGramKB does not suffer from one of the drawbacks pointed

out by Goldberg (2006). For this author, unification-based approaches “are not

sufficiently amenable to capturing detailed lexical semantic properties” (Goldberg,

30

2006, p. 216). In this view, the use of feature-based systems for representing

semantics cannot account for frame-based or encyclopedic knowledge. FunGramKB

does employ unification operations to merge lexical and constructional AVMs, but

since an ontological approach is adopted, both the Grammaticon and the Lexicon

retrieve information from the Ontology. This ensures that encyclopedic knowledge is

in fact captured. For example, through the two reasoning mechanisms employed in

FunGramKB, i.e. inheritance and inference (cf. Periñán and Mairal, 2010), the

concept +MOVE_00 in the COREL scheme of the caused-motion construction is

connected to the meaning postulates (i.e. the semantics) of concepts such as

+PATH_00, +SPEED_00, +DIRECTION_00, +FOLLOW, +RUN_00, +STOP_00,

etc., thus leading to the creation of rich frames of knowledge such as those one can

find in FrameNet (see Luzondo and Jiménez, 2014 for a discussion).

4. Linking linguistic theory with FunGramKB

Having explained how constructions are handled in FunGramKB, we would now like

to close this article by establishing a connection between the way FunGramKB

approaches constructional schemas and the distinct, yet complementary, linguistic

treatment of argument-structure constructions proposed by Goldberg and by Boas, or

in a meaning-construction model like the LCM (cf. Section 2.1.1).

In light of the constraints imposed by the machine, which result in the creation

of constructional subtypes (e.g. way construction type 1, way construction type 2,

etc.), it is interesting to observe that such a procedure brings FunGramKB somewhat

closer to a mini-constructionist approach of the kind propounded by Boas (2003), than

to the Goldbergian (Goldberg 1995, 2006) account. To illustrate, take Goldberg’s

(1995, p. 190) representation of the anatomy of the resultative construction (Figure 9):

31

Figure 9 shows that the construction is associated with the semantics ‘X

CAUSES Y TO BECOME Z’, here represented as CAUSE-BECOME <agt pat

result-goal>, where the elements between brackets are the argument roles of the

construction. PRED, in turn, is the variable that will be filled by a given verb together

with its participant roles (e.g. RUN <runner>). These participants fuse with the

argument roles of the construction in a principled manner.18 Solid lines between the

argument roles and the participant roles of the verb indicate that such roles must be

obligatorily fused, while dashed lines are employed to specify roles that can be

contributed by the construction, in this case, “patient” and “result-goal”. At the

explanatory level, Goldberg (1995, p. 190) contends that the construction can add the

result-goal argument when the construction incorporates a verb like wipe, for

example, He wiped the table clean; alternatively, both the patient and result-goal roles

may be supplied, as in He talked himself blue in the face. Nevertheless, the dashed

lines in Figure 9 show that, at the descriptive level, Goldberg’s schematic

representation accounts for the possibility of contributing both the y and z arguments

(instead of only the latter) under the same general pattern. This skeletal structure

corresponds to the AVM of the resultative-type 2, leaving the resultative-type 1 out of

the picture and, with it, the possibility of matching an input text that only contributes

the result component. Since both general principles (i.e. the ‘Semantic Coherence

Principle’ and the ‘Correspondence Principle’) and construction-specific constraints

regulate fusion mechanisms, Goldberg’s (1995) approach does not need to postulate

sub-types of constructions, thus maintaining a level of generalization that cannot be

32

translated into the Grammaticon of FunGramKB for the reasons specified thus far.

Therefore, in line with scholars like Boas (2003, 2013), Iwata (2008), Nemoto (1998),

inter alios, Goldberg’s abstract meaningful constructions turn out to be too broad-

ranging and, in consequence, for our purposes here, they are not always suitable for

an NLP environment which requires different constructional schemas to process input

texts that linguistically realize the same construction.

A similar situation holds for the LCM. In this model, subsumption, which is a

cognitive process whereby lower-level structure is built into higher-level structure, is

regulated by a number of both ‘internal’ and/or ‘external’ constraints. The former

“work on the basis of the compatibility between the conceptual characterizations of

lexical predicates and argument-structure constructions” (Ruiz de Mendoza, 2013, p.

256). Likewise, cognitive phenomena such as high-level metaphor and metonymy are

treated as external constraining factors whose recurrent presence in many of the

argument-structure constructions discussed in the literature also affect subsumption

processes by either permitting or disallowing them (see Ruiz de Mendoza and Pérez,

2001; Peña, 2009 for examples and details).19 In other words, external constraints are

based on how lexical structure can be re-construed in order to make it fit into a given

construction. For example, the verb stare can be used with the caused-motion

construction in She stared me out of the room if the target of staring is re-construed as

the object of an effectual action (cf. Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal, 2008, p. 378 for a

discussion of related examples). In this sense, the LCM takes sides with Goldberg’s

proposal in that they both aim to provide an economic solution to the task of

delimiting lexical-constructional integration through the postulation of broad

constraints. To better understand this position, take two more instances of the caused-

motion construction: They scared the horses out of the horse lot (Google Books

Corpus, 2012) and He laughed himself into the house (Google Books Corpus, 2011).

In the former example, which would correspond to the AVM in Figure 7, the

construction contributes the goal argument alone, while in the latter, both “himself”

and “into the house” are supplied by the grammatical pattern, thus coinciding with the

AVM in Figure 8. For the LCM, by contrast, there is no need to consider the existence

of separate constructions, but instead each realization is licensed via external

constraints. More concretely, They scared the horses out of the horse lot activates the

high-level metaphor AN EXPERIENTIAL ACTION IS AN EFFECTUAL ACTION,

whereby the horses, which are the targets of non-physical impact, are figuratively

33

understood as if they were the objects of actual physical impact. The grammatical

metaphor AN ACTIVITY IS AN EFFECTUAL ACTION is at work in He laughed

himself into the house. Here, the fake-reflexive is not treated as an affected object but

as the object of change (Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal, 2007, p. 44). In other words,

whereas in The audience laughed the actor off the stage/out of the room, the actor is

both the target of the action and the object of a change, in He laughed himself into the

house, “himself” is not the one being laughed at, but simply the one laughing at

something while moving into the house. As things stand now, even though the

Grammaticon is grounded in the four constructional levels of the LCM, it seems

largely impossible to endow the machine with the apparatus of highly abstract

external constraints put forward by this linguistic model.

In conclusion, the constructionist account that better fits the necessities of the

machine, or the one that is better aligned with the computational analysis carried out

herein, is the one provided by Boas (2003, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011), who proposes

mini-constructions, i.e. parings of a particular semantics/pragmatics with a very

specific syntactic frame. In FunGramKB, mini-constructions translate as follows:

each constructional sub-schema is conceived of as sharing certain properties (e.g. its

Aktionsart adscription, COREL schema, etc.) but also as differing in the number and

nature of the variables contributed by the construction, resulting in bundles of specific

constraints and specific descriptors, through which form and function are codified.

This means that, as is done in Boas (2011), our focus must be on a more concrete

level of analysis (i.e. constructional subtypes) in order for machine-based natural

language processing to be feasible. Note that in an NLP environment, however, form

and function are divided into several components, the form end of the construction

being captured by the boxes labeled “phrase realization” and “syntax”, while the

meaning end is accounted for by the rest of the descriptors and constraints.

5. Conclusions

This article has presented readers with the essentials of the relatively recent NLP

project called FunGramKB and, more concretely, with the architecture of the L1-

Constructicon, the component where constructional schemas are represented by

means of AVMs consisting of a set of highly specific descriptors and constraints. Our

aim was to show how argument-structure constructions are handled in a

computational environment. In order to do so, we have examined in some detail three

34

well-known grammatical patterns, namely, the resultative, the caused-motion and the

way construction. Upon analyzing the complex behavior of such configurations in

light of the restrictions imposed by the machine, we have concluded that it is

necessary to descend to a more concrete level of analysis in which general

constructions are split into more specific sub-types of constructional schemas, much

in line with Boas’s approach to constructional behavior. The study of additional

argument-structure patterns will confirm or discard this proposal.

Finally, although one may argue that the account presented here may lead to

the over-generation of constructional schemas, the ultimate computational goal is not

to find a highly economic solution to lexical-constructional merging, à la Goldberg,

but rather to ensure that natural language understanding is in fact accomplished.

Acknowledgement

The research on which this paper is based has received financial support from the

Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, grants no. FFI2011-29798-C02-

01 and FFI2013-43593-P.

References

Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K., Sveen, A., 2011. West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian V-REFL-NP construction. Linguistics 49(1), 53–104.

Basili, R., Pazienza, M. T., Velardi, P., 1996. An empirical symbolic approach to natural language processing. Artificial Intelligence 85(1996), 59–99.

Bencini, G. M. L., Goldberg, A., 2000. The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43, 640–651.

Bergen, B. K., Chang, N., 2005. Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In: Östman, J. O., Fried, M. (Eds.), Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 147–190.

Boas, H. C., 2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Boas, H. C., 2007. Construction Grammar in the twenty-first century. English Language and Linguistics 11(3), 569–585.

Boas, H. C., 2008. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6, 113–144.

35

Boas, H. C., 2010. Linguistically relevant meaning elements of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24, 54–82.

Boas, H. C., 2011. Coercion and leaking argument structure in Construction Grammar. Linguistics 49(6), 1271–1303.

Boas, H. C., 2013. Cognitive Construction Grammar. In: Hoffmann, T., Trousdale, G., (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 233–254.

Boas, H. C., 2014. Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sidesof the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1-2), 89-112.

Boas, H. C., Sag, I., (Eds.). 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Bod, R., 2009. Constructions at work or at rest? Cognitive Linguistics 20(1), 129-134.Broccias, C., 2003. The English Change Network: Forcing Changes into Schemas.

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Butler, C. S., Gonzálvez-García, F., 2014. Exploring Cognitive-Functional Space.

John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.Bybee, J., 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition.

Language 82(4), 711-733. Bybee, J., 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions.

In: Hoffmann, T., Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 49–69

Chang, N., De Beule, J., Micelli, V., 2012. Computational Construction Grammar: Comparing ECG and FCG. In Steels, L. (Ed.), Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Springer, Berlin, pp. 259–288.

Christy, E., 2011. Investigating the differences between the English Way-construction and the fake reflexive resultative construction. In: Amstrong, L. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, pp. 1-14.

Cimiano, P., Unger, C., McCrae, J., 2014. Ontology-Based Interpretation of Natural Language. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael.

Culicover, P., 2009. Natural Language Syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Diedrichsen, E., 2010. Towards a reconsideration of constructional schemas in RRG:

Are all constructions driven by “constructions”? In: Nakamura, W. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar (RRG 2009), pp. 52–79. <http:// linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/vanvalin/rrg.html>

Diedrichsen, E., 2011. The theoretical importance of constructional schemas in RRG. In: Nakamura, W. (Ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 168–197.

Dirven, R., Ruiz de Mendoza, F., 2010. Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In: Tabakowska, E., Choiński, M., Wiraszka, Ł. (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and Back. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 13-70.

Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., O’Connor, M. C., 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64, 501–538.

Goldberg, A., 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.

Goldberg, A., 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

36

Goldberg, A., Jackendoff, R., 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3), 532–568.

Ghomeshi, J., Jackendoff, R., Rosen, N., Russell, K., 2004. Contrastive Focus Reduplication in English (the salad-salad paper). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 307-357.

Gonzálvez-García, F., 2008. Construction Grammar works: An interview with Adele E. Goldberg. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6, 345-360.

Gonzálvez-García, F., 2009. The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a constructionist, usage-based analysis. Language Sciences 31(5), 663–723.

Gonzálvez-García, F., 2014. “That’s so a construction!”: Some reflections on innovative uses of “so” in Present-day English. In: Gómez González, M. A., Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., Gonzálvez-García, F. (Eds.), Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 271–294.

Hampe, B., 2010. Metaphor, constructional ambiguity and the causative resultatives. In: Handl, S., Schmid, H.-J. (Eds.), Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual Blending. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 185–215.

Heyvaert, L., 2003. A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.

Hoekstra, T., 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74, 101–139.Hoffmann, T., Trousdale, G. (Eds.). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction

Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Iwata, S., 2006. Argument resultatives and adjunct resultatives in a lexical

constructional account: The case of resultatives with adjectival result phrases. Language Sciences 28(5), 449–496.

Iwata, S., 2008. Locative Alternation. A Lexical-Constructional Approach. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Jiménez, R. Luzondo, A., 2013. Constructions in Role and Reference Grammar: The case of the English resultative. In: Nolan, B., Diedrichsen, E. (Eds.); Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics. The Role of Constructions in Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 179-204.

Jiménez, R., Pérez Cabello de Alba, M. B., 2011. An account of selection restrictions in Role and Reference Grammar. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 62, 99-122.

Kay, P., 2013. The limits of Construction Grammar. In: Hoffmann, T., Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 32–48.

Kay, P., Fillmore, C. J., 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1): 1-33.

Kuno, S., Takami, K.-i., 2004. Functional Constraints in Grammar: On the Unergative-Unaccusative Distinction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Lakoff, G., 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.

Lakoff, G., 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 202–251.

37

Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books, New York.

Langacker, R. W., 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Levin, B., 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.

Levin, B., 2006. English object alternations: A unified account. Unpublished ms.. Stanford.

Levin, B., Rappaport Hovav, M., 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Luzondo, A., 2013. Revisiting Goldberg’s semantic constraints on the way construction. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 26(2013), 349-364.

Luzondo, A., 2014. Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12(1), 30-63.

Luzondo, A., Jiménez, R., 2014. FrameNet and FunGramKB: A comparison of two computational resources for semantic knowledge representation. In: Nolan, B., Periñán, C. (Eds.), Language Processing and Grammars. The Role of Functionally Oriented Computational Models. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 197-231.

Mairal, R., 2012. La arquitectura de una base de conocimiento léxico conceptual: Implicaciones lingüísticas. In: Giammatteo, M., Ferrari, L., Albano, H. (Eds.), Léxico y Sintaxis. FFyL, UNCuyo, pp. 183-210.

Mairal, R., fc. Constructional meaning representation within a knowledge engineering framework. Review of Cognitive Linguistics.

Mairal, R., Gonzálvez-García, F., 2010. Verbos y construcciones en el espacio cognitivo-funcional del siglo XXI. In: Val Álvaro, J. F., Horno Chéliz, M. C. (Eds.), La Gramática del Sentido: Léxico y Sintaxis en la Encrucijada. Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, pp. 123-152.

Mairal, R., Periñán, P., 2009. The anatomy of the lexicon component within the framework of a conceptual knowledge base. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 22, 217–244.

Mairal, R., Periñán, C., 2014. Representing constructional schemata in FunGramKB Grammaticon. In: Fleischhauer, J., Latrouite, A., Osswald, R. (Eds.), Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Düsseldorf University Press.

Mairal, R., Ruiz de Mendoza, F., 2009. Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Butler, C. S., Martín Arista, J. (Eds.), Deconstructing Constructions. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 153–198.

Nemoto, N., 1998. On the polysemy of ditransitive save: The role of frame semantics in Construction Grammar. English Lingusitics 15, 219–242.

Nolan, B., 2011a. Meaning construction and grammatical inflection in the layered structure of the Irish word: An RRG account of morphological constructions. In: Nakamura, W. (Ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 64–101.

Nolan, B., 2011b. Constructions as grammatical objects: A new perspective on constructions in RRG. Paper read at the 11th International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago de Chile, August 11–13.

Nolan, B., 2014. Theoretical and computational considerations of linking constructions in Role and Reference Grammar. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12(2), 410-442.

38

Nolan, B., Diedrichsen, E. (Eds.), 2013. Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics. The Role of Constructions in Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Nolan, B., Periñán, C. (Eds.), 2014. Language Processing and Grammars. The Role of Functionally Oriented Computational Models. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Östman, J.-O., Fried, M., 2004. Historical and intellectual background of Construction grammar. In: Fried, M., Östman, J.-O. (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 1-10.

Peña, S., 2009. Constraints on subsumption in the caused-motion construction. Language Sciences 31(6), 740–765.

Periñán, C., 2013. Towards a model of constructional meaning for natural language understanding. In: Nolan, B., Diedrichsen, E. (Eds.), Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 205–230

Periñán, C., Arcas, F., 2005. Microconceptual-Knowledge Spreading in FunGramKB. Proceedings of the 9th IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing. ACTA Press, pp. 239–244.

Periñán, C., Arcas, F., 2007a. Cognitive modules of an NLP knowledge base for language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 39, 197–204.

Periñán, C., Arcas, F., 2007b. Deep semantics in an NLP knowledge base. Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the Spanish Association for Artificial Intelligence. Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 279–288.

Periñán, C., Arcas, F., 2010a. Ontological commitments in FunGramKB. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 44, 27–34.

Periñán, C., Arcas, F., 2010b. The architecture of FunGramKB. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. European Language Resources Association, pp. 2667–2674.

Periñán, C., Arcas, F., 2014. The implementation of the CLS constructor in ARTEMIS. In: Nolan, B., Periñán, C. (Eds.), Language Processing and Grammars. The Role of Functionally Oriented Computational Models. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 165-196.

Periñán, C., Mairal, R., 2010. La gramática de COREL: Un lenguaje de representación conceptual. Onomázein 21, 11–45.

Rappaport Hovav, M., Levin, B.. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77, 766-797.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., 2001. Lingüística cognitiva: Semántica, pragmática y construcciones. Clac 8 [online]. Available at: http://www.ucm.es/info/circulo/no8/ruiz.htm.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., 2007. High-level cognitive models: In search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In: Kosecki, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on Metonymy. Peter Lang, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 11–30.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., 2013. Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In: Nolan, B., Diedrichsen, E. (Eds.), Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 231–270.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., 2014. Low-level situational cognitive models within the Lexical Constructional Model and their computational implementation in

39

FunGramKB. In: Nolan, B., Periñán, C. (Eds.), Language Processing and Grammars: The Role of Functionally Oriented Computational Models. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 367–390.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., Galera, A., 2014. Cognitive modeling. A Linguistic Perspective. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., Luzondo, A., 2014. Figurative and non-figurative motion in the expression of result in English. Language and Cognition, in press.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., Mairal, R., 2007. High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In: Radden, G., Köpcke, K. M., Berg, Th., Siemund, P. (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction in Lexicon and Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 33–49.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., Mairal, R., 2008. Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica 42(2), 355–400.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., Mairal, R., 2011. Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model. In: Guerrero, P. (Ed.), Morphosyntactic Alternations in English: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. Equinox, pp. 62–82.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., Pérez, L., 2001. Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication 21, 321–357.

Steels, L., 2012. Design methods for Fluid Construction Grammar. In: Steels, L. (Ed.), Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Springer, Berlin, pp. 3–36.

Torre, E., 2012. Symmetry and asymmetry in Italian caused-motion constructions. An Embodied Construction Grammar approach. Constructions 1, 1–38.

Van Trijp, R., 2011. A design pattern for argument structure constructions. In: Steels, L. (Ed.), Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 115–145.

Van Trijp, R., 2013. A Comparison between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 5(1), 88-116.

Van Valin, R., 2005. The Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface: An Introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Van Valin, R., LaPolla, R., 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Van Valin, R., Mairal, R., 2014. Interfacing the lexicon and an ontology in a linking system. In: Gómez González, M. A., Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., Gonzálvez-García, F. (Eds.), Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 205-228.

Wechsler, S., 2005. Resultatives under the 'event-argument homomorphism' model of telicity. In: Erteschik-Shir, N., Rapoport, T. (Eds.), The Syntax of Aspect. Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 255-273.

Wittgenstein, L. 1955. Philosophical Investigations. Basil Blackwell, Oxfrod.

40

41

1 The interested reader is further referred to Jiménez and Luzondo (2013) for an RRG account of the English resultative. Departing from Van Valin’s (2005, p. 239) description of the resultative pattern, the article offers a finer-grained analysis of such a configuration by drawing on the work on constructional schemas carried out in Diedrichsen (2010, 2011), and Nolan (2011ab). 2 Google Books. Grow Fruits & Vegetables the Way They Used to Taste. John Festus Adams. 1988. Accessed on Oct. 16, 2014.3 Google Books. White Turtle. Merlinda Bobis. 1999. Accessed on Oct. 18, 2014.4 In the field of NLP, probabilistic techniques have been successfully applied to a variety of natural language processing problems (e.g. automatic translation, semantic disambiguation, etc.) and, as far as coverage is concerned, they clearly outperform rationalist or symbolic methods. However, as noted in Basili et al. (1996, p. 59), probabilistic models are “intrinsically unable to provide insights into the mechanisms of human communication” and “eventually a human analyst is to make sense of the data” (see also Cimiano et al., 2014, p. 6). 5 In FunGramKB, by a splitting approach (see Gonzálvez, 2008, p. 35; Boas, 2010) we specifically refer to the need to generate finer-grained constructional schemas in order to adequately capture the various ways in which verbs and constructions interact to yield specific input texts. 6 http://www.vivaveracruz.com/blog/?m=201010. Accessed on Oct. 18, 2014.7 While low-level cognitive models consist in non-generic semantic structures that result from the principled connection of elements from our encyclopedic knowledge, high-level cognitive models arise by abstracting away conceptual material shared by low-level cognitive models. For example, such disparate notions as ‘kill’ , ‘hit’, and ‘cut’ are envisaged as ‘actions’ performed with the help of instruments and having visible effects (all these are high-level constructs). Non-situational or propositional cognitive models are those that designate entities and their relations. In turn, situational cognitive models are conventional, coherently connected series of events such as ‘cooking a meal’, ‘going to the dentist’ or ‘taking a bath’ (cf. Ruiz de Mendoza, 2007, 2014).8 There are three broad relation types at this level: logical (e.g. cause-effect, evidence-conclusion), temporal (e.g. precedence, simultaneity), and conceptual (similarity, contrast, conditioning, concession).9 For a discussion of constructions belonging to levels 2, 3 and 4, we refer the reader to Mairal and Periñán (2014) and Mairal (fc.). 10 Interestingly, this decision is fully consonant with Goldberg’s (2006, p. 25) claim that “each argument structure pattern is best analyzed on its own terms, without relying on explicit or implicit reference to possible alternative paraphrases” and with Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal’s (2011) view of the notion of alternation as epiphenomenal, i.e. an unsystematic side-effect of deeper processes licensing or blocking lexical-constructional integration. For example, the causative/inchoative alternation is grounded in the presence versus the absence of a ‘causal’ element (cf. The wind opened the door ‘The wind caused the door to be opened’/The door opened ‘The door happened to open’). But there are verbs that can be used in the alternation where the causal element is irrelevant. Take the verb handle, which can be employed in the inchoative construction (This car won’t handle without the proper shock package) but does not really have a causative alternate (People like to handle this car can hardly be paraphrased as ‘People like to cause this car to be handled’). In its transitive use, the object handle is not an affected object, but a relevant part of the scope of a controlled action. On a deeper level of analysis, the inchoative use does not depend on the presence of a causative alternate, but on whether it is possible to think of the object as allowing the agent to perform the action. This “enabling” ability of the object, which has been frequently cited in the literature (cf. Heyvaert, 2003, p. 132), is an act of conceptual re-construal of what actually happens (i.e. we see a car as willfully allowing the action of which it is the object to be performed). In the LCM re-construal (usually in the form of high-level metaphor and metonymy) is seen as a licensing factor for some cases of lexical-constructional integration (see Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal, 2008; Ruiz de Mendoza, 2013; and Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera, 2014). The interested reader is further referred to Barðdal et al. (2011) who claim that double object sentences and their corresponding to-variants (e.g. He gave her a sweater > He gave a sweater to her) show differences in interpretation and are therefore not mutually exchangeable.11 The interested reader is referred to van Trijp (2013) for a discussion of how approaches like Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar understand the notion of construction. 12 Note that in Kay’s (2013) approach, for example, many configurations do not qualify as constructions. Thus, a sharp distinction is sanctioned between constructions and ‘patterns of coinage’ (e.g. He sneezed the napkin off the table) on the grounds that the latter do not meet the condition of productivity. 13 FunGramKB constructs can be found in the linguistic realization or input text and in the conceptual representation (i.e. the COREL schema); the minimal constructs respectively being lexical units and ontological concepts. For instance, Periñán (2013, p. 215) argues that He fried the egg in the pan only consists of a Kernel-2 construction (“He fried the egg”), while the remaining components are constructs. This, for example, contrasts with the Golderbgian (2006) approach to the notion of construction according to which each of the words making up the above-mentioned sentence are constructions (i.e. “egg”, “pan”, etc.). In FunGramKB, the meaning of these constructs is directly derived from the meaning postulates of the concepts to which each of these lexical units is connected. For instance, pan is related to the ontological concept +PAN_00, whose meaning postulate is given in (i) together with a translation:

(i) +(e1: +BE_00 (x1: +PAN_00)Theme (x2: +UTENSIL_00 & +CONTAINER_00)Referent)

+(e2: +BE_01 (x1)Theme (x3: +ROUND_00)Attribute) *(e3: +BE_01 (x1)Theme (x4: +METAL_00)Attribute)*(e4: +COMPRISE_00 (x1)Theme (x5: +HANDLE_00)Referent)*(e5: +USE_00 (x6: +HUMAN_00)Theme (x1)Referent (f1: (e6: +COOK_00 (x6)Theme (x7)Referent))Purpose) = ‘A pan is a round metal container which usually has a handle. Generally, humans use pans to cook

something’.14 Periñán (2013, p. 215) further notes that “any construction is a construct itself, but not all constructs can be deemed to be constructions”. This means that in order to attain constructional status, the meaning of the whole sentence must exceed the sum of the parts, as in Anna ran the pavement thin (i.e. ‘Anna ran a lot and as a result, she caused the pavement to become thin’). 15 Asterisked examples inspired in the more exhaustive list provided by Wechsler (2005). See Boas (2011) for an in-depth investigation of the factors that may influence language users to produce and interpret unacceptable sentences like (4d) as acceptable, provided that the proper context is supplied. 16 As noted in Ruiz de Mendoza and Luzondo (2014), the origin of the resultative value of “to bits” is to be found in the metaphor CHANGES OF STATE ARE CHANGES OF LOCATION (Lakoff, 1993). This metaphor captures our tendency to correlate locations with how we feel in them (e.g. we feel cool in the shade, warm under the sun, etc.). Expressing result by means of a PP is useful when there is no clear adjectival form that captures the same meaning. Thus, in English the resultative element in The blacksmith hammered the metal into different shapes would be impossible to express by means of an adjective. 17 The intransitive resultative (e.g. The river froze solid) is also listed as a different construction. However, this pattern will not be accounted for in the present proposal. 18 In Goldberg’s work, fusion processes are regulated by means of two broad constraints: (i) the ‘Semantic Coherence Principle’ (i.e. “only roles which are semantically compatible can be fused”), and (ii) ‘Correspondence Principle’ (i.e. “each participant role that is lexically profiled and expressed must be fused with a profiled argument role of the construction”) (see Goldberg, 1995, p. 50). Note that the profiled participant roles of the verb and the profiled argument roles of the construction appear in bold letters. Lexically profiled participants are those entities that are obligatorily accessed and thus function as focal points. In turn, constructional profiling occurs as follows: “every argument role linked to a direct grammatical relation (SUBJ, OBJ or OBJ2) is constructionally profiled” (Goldberg, 1995, p. 48).19 These cognitive operations are termed high-level since they involve generic cognitive models thus working at higher levels of abstraction (e.g. the notions of ‘action’, ‘process’, ‘effect’, ‘cause’, etc.).