A. Goldberg (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....the percentage of questions with a valid answer; the dashed curve shows the percentage of correct answers. 4 Concluding remarks The ADIOS model incrementally learns the (morpho)syntax of English from raw input by distilling structural regularities (which can be thought of as constructions [16, 4]) from the accrued statistical co occurrence and contextual cues. The resulting pattern based representations are more powerful than finite automata because of their potential for recursion. Their depth, however, is not unbounded (rather, it is driven by the demands of the training data) a ....

....probabilistic learning, and subsequent judicious use, of linguistic knowledge. The ultimate goal of this project is to address the entire spectrum of English syntax related phenomena (and, eventually, semantics, which, as the construction grammarians hold, is intimately connected to syntax [16, 4]) With respect to some of these, the ADIOS model is already known to behave reasonably: for example, subject verb agreement (even longrange) is captured properly, due to the conservative structured pattern abstraction. While providing empirical evidence that can be brought to bear on the poverty ....

A. E. Goldberg. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1995.

.... tokens that function similarly in some sense (phonological, morphological, syntactic or semantic) but represent systematic rather than free variation will form complementary distributions or classes (e.g. 3, 4] In thinking about emergent regularities [2] or syntactic semantic constructions [5], we adopt Langacker s vision: particular statements (specific forms) coexist with general statements (rules accounting for those forms) in a speaker s representation of linguistic convention, which incorporates a huge inventory of specific forms learned as units (conventional ....

.... highly relevant to psycholinguistic explorations of productivity, e.g. 13] Concluding remarks The ADIOS model learns (morpho)syntax on the basis of distributional information in the raw input, and supports the distillation of structural regularities (which can be thought of as constructions [5]) out of the accrued statistical knowledge. Although our pattern based representations may look like collections of finite automata, the information they contain is much richer, because of the recursive invocation of one pattern by another, and because of the context sensitivity implied by ....

A. E. Goldberg. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1995.

....of the real frequencies within alternations. Sentence structures in the model are not just formal patterns. They also convey meaning. This pairing of form and meaning, called a construction, has been argued to be the basis for how Symbolically Speaking 9 people generalize sentence structures (Goldberg, 1995). In the model, each sentence construction had a particular set of relational features that were used. These features, which I refer to as construction features (Table 2) identify similarities among constructions and thus helped the models generalize from one construction to a related ....

....to the transfer construction (i.e. the man gives the dog to the girl ) because they shared both the features CAUSE and MOTION. It is thought that children and adults are able to generalize their use of word order based on abstract features such as these (Fisher, Gleitman, Gleitman, 1991; Goldberg, 1995; Gropen, Pinker, Hollander, Goldberg, 1991; Gropen, Pinker, Hollander, Goldberg, Wilson, 1989) In generating the training and testing sentences, the construction features were used to determine which constructions could alternate. In order to alternate, the construction had to be related to ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Goldberg, A. (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

....particular ARGST features (Davis and Koenig 2000) To explain why L to L rules affect CON TENT features but not ARGST features we propose that CONTENT features are appropriate for lexemes, but ARGST features are not. ARGST features, we 5. Green 1974, Oehrle 1976, Pinker 1989, Jackendoff 1990, Goldberg 1995, among others, use these facts to argue that there is a change in thematic role assignment between the two alternants in DS. More specifically, they argue that in the shifted construction the first NP is more affected than the corresponding dative PP in the unshifted alternant. This change in ....

Goldberg, A. (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

....auditory signals, will not be discussed here; discovering these regularities requires the same ability to detect intra and interdomain regularities assumed in the previous section. Grammatical Constructions We base our representations of grammatical knowledge on ideas from Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995) and Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1991) In these approaches, larger phrasal and clausal units are, like lexical constructions, pairings of form and meaning. A key observation in the Construction Grammar tradition is that the meaning of a sentence may not be strictly predictable from the meaning ....

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

.... of models (see Foley and Van Valin (1984) Kiparsky (1987) Bresnan and Kanerva (1989) Jackendo (1990) Grimshaw (1990) among others) By contrast, many recent theories rely on the notion of verb class and the semantic structure associated with sets of verbs (see Pinker (1989) Levin (1993) Goldberg (1995), Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) In this paper, we argue in favor of this second kind of theory and against the use of a thematic hierarchy in linking semantic arguments onto syntactic functions. We demonstrate that the generalizations a linking theory needs to capture can be modeled via the ....

....of adjacent roles. Note, though, that there are other ways of deriving this grouping of semantic roles. In particular, several scholars have grouped together goals and bene ciaries on the basis of metaphors relating causal actor undergoer structure to spatial structure (Croft (1991) Lako (1993) Goldberg (1995), Wechsler (1991) Wechsler (1995) There thus seem to be good semantic reasons for assuming goal and beneficiary arguments form a natural class independent of the thematic hierarchy. 8 Garrett (1992) suggests that bene ciary is too broad a class and should be broken down into bene ciaries ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

....are uttered immediately preceding the action, and for early verbs, the actions are usually short in duration. Many other simpli#cations have been made to render the task manageable. Linguistic context is not modelled, even though it could contribute to learning individual lexical items. #But see Goldberg #1995# for arguments on the separation of verb meaning and grammatical meaning, and the di#erent nature of verb meaning from grammatical meaning.# The social domain is absent, restricting the vocabulary we can address. Weavoid using objects with functional signi#cance beyond their simple spatial ....

....#i.e. to put the object down#. Narayanan #1996# and Jonathan Segal have done work in this vein. 7.4 Thoughts on Construction Grammar and Learning All these limitations conspire to suggest the need to account for how grammatical constructions might be learned. The Construction Grammar framework #Goldberg 1995# has been chosen because it is compatible with the assumptions made in this model and mighteven support learning using techniques similar to those used here for lexical learning. Verb acquisition has long been associated with grammar acquisition. Indeed, some might #nd it strange for this thesis ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.

.... conclusions without the support of a concrete situation (e.g. Cheng Holyoak, 1985; Gick Holyoak, 1980; Johnson Laird, 1983) In linguistics, the importance of situations has motivated the theory of construction grammar, where syntactic structures evolve out of familiar situations (e.g. Goldberg, 1995). In philosophy, the importance of situations has motivated the theory of situation semantics, where logical inference is optimized when performed in the context of specific situations (e.g. Barwise Perry, 1983) At a more general level, arguments about the central role of situations in ....

Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

....behave fairly consistently with respect to the binding between the Trajector role of the SPG and the grammatical subject or object, many verbs allow both possibilities. The choice of binding thus depends on the interaction between the verb and the larger clausal construction in which it appears (Goldberg 1995). The exact form of these constructions and how they fit together with verbs is beyond the scope of the present paper (but cf. Chang and Bergen To appear) All that is presently relevant is that clausal constructions may also have image schematic content that must cohere with that of its ....

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.

....we describe uses elements of both of the above approaches. 3 Idioms as constructions in a simulation based framework Besides the psycholinguistic evidence just described, the approach to modeling idioms adopted here draws primarily on recent work on construction based approaches to grammar [11, 1], which proposes that linguistic knowledge of all kinds consists of pairings of form and meaning constituents and constraints. Lexical and grammatical knowledge are represented uniformly in this framework: words and morphemes are simple constructions pairing particular form and meaning patterns, ....

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

....with lexical predicates in complex ways; and standard semantic analyses do factor these parts of meaning out. There are a number of other cases where special syntactic circumstances take us beyond an intuitive notion of word senses. Special constructions that add argument structure, discussed in Goldberg (1995), among others, are an obvious case: 8 (17) a. My father frowned away the compliment and the insult. b. Sharon was exactly the sort of person who d intimidate him into a panic. c. I cannot inhabit his mind nor even imagine my way through the dark labyrinth of its distortion. d. Pauline smiled ....

....beyond the basic word senses of the verbs involved. Examples (a) and (b) are basically resultative: The father causes the insult 7 Compare the Katz Fodor notion of distinguisher. Nirenberg (1988) provides a fairly careful discussion of the lexical choice problem for an interlingua system. 8 Goldberg (1995), p. 55. 14 to go away by frowning, Sharon causes the narrator to go into a panic by intimidation. Example (c) is a complex blend of metaphorical motion and the basic verb sense. To imagine one s way into something is to proceed toward conceiving understanding it by imagination. Examples (d) and ....

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

....that takes into account the varying sources of syntactic information by exploiting HPSG s fine grained categorial representations and thus calls into question the assumption underlying analyses involving categorial change over. 4 Theoretical preliminaries Recent work in Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995, Fillmore and Kay in press) and Head driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Pollard and Sag 1994) provide the basis for an analysis of mixed categories which can account for their hybrid properties without the addition of otherwise unmotivated mechanisms. In this section, I will outline the theoretical ....

....Grammar, default inheritance is used to give a formal characterization of such system internal motivation: A given construction is motivated to the degree that its structure is inherited from other constructions in the language. An optimal system is a system that maximizes motivation. (Goldberg 1995:70) Thus, the type hierarchy reflects the way in which constructions are influenced by their relationships with other constructions with the language and allows what Lako: 1987) calls the ecological niche of a construction within a language to be captured as part of the formal system. ....

Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: a Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.

..... Miss Kitty Perkins, who talked seven warts o my hands when I was fourteen . M. Maron, Home Fires, Mysterious Press, New York, 1998, p. 153) c. She winked us past . D.H. Murray, School of Hard Knocks, St. Martin s, New York, 1997, p. 185) d. Frank sneezed the tissue o the table. (Goldberg 1995:152, 2) e. Elena coughed the foam o the cappuccino. adapted from Goldberg 1997:384, 2b) 1 This explanation is implemented di erently by Bresnan and Zaenan (1990) who formulate their analysis within LFG s Lexical Mapping Theory (Bresnan and Kanerva 1989) In place of assigning the ....

....push can be used both as what Pinker would call a verb of instantaneous causation of ballistic motion and a verb of exerting force, citing relevant examples. 13 c. There is no intervening event in the causal chain between the causing subevent and the result subevent; that is, causation is direct (Goldberg 1995). Given these parallels, we propose that re exive resultatives and lexical causative have the same causative event structure, as in (37) 9 (37) causing event CAUSE result event 3.3 The Mapping to Syntax: Accounting for the Appearance of the Re exive The causative analysis of the re exive ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Goldberg, A.E. (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

....some way to the meanings of their constituent words and which demand a lexical representation independent of those constituents. Another type of phrasal construct abstracts away from individual words entirely: particular syntactic configurations can be associated with a specific interpretation. Goldberg (1995), for example, argues that constructions such as ditransitives ( NP subj VNP obj1 NP obj2 ] Pat faxed Bill the letter) are instances of fixed form meaning correspondences which have syntactic and semantic characteristics not entirely derivable from composition of the individual words. It ....

Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. The University of Chicago Press.

No context found.

A. Goldberg (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.

No context found.

Adele E. Goldberg. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.

No context found.

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago University Press.

No context found.

Goldberg, A.: Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press, (1995)

No context found.

Goldberg, A.E. (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

No context found.

Goldberg, A.: Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press, (1995)

No context found.

Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

No context found.

Goldberg, A.E. (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, University of Chicago Press

No context found.

Goldberg, A.: Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press, (1995)

No context found.

Goldberg, A., (1994), Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, University of Chicago Press.

No context found.

A.E. Goldberg. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC