Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Fluid construction grammar as a biological system

Luc Steels / Eörs Szathmáry
Published Online: 2016-03-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0022


Mapping insights and frameworks from one scientific domain to another is often useful because it encourages communication between different scientific fields and acts as a conduit for the exchange of mathematical and computational tools. This paper introduces analogies between concepts and mechanisms from molecular biology and language processing. The main purpose is to find ways for understanding language as a ‘living’, dynamically evolving, self-organizing system. The analogies have been the main source of inspiration for a computational implementation of construction grammar, called Fluid Construction Grammar (FCG). The paper describes briefly the biological analogies underlying FCG and discusses the opportunities for further research that these analogies open up.

Keywords: language processing; construction grammar; constructional processing; fluid construction grammar


  • Baronchelli, A., M. Felici, V. Loreto, E. Caglioti & L. Steels. 2006. Sharp transition towards shared vocabularies in multi-agent systems. Journal of Statistical Mechanics 06014.Google Scholar

  • Barres, V. & J. Lee. 2013. Template construction grammar: From visual scene description to language comprehension and a grammatism. Neuroinformatics 12(1). 181–208.Google Scholar

  • Bergen, B. K. & N. C. Chang. 2003. Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J. O. Ostman & M. Fried (eds.), Construction grammar(s): Cognitive and cross-language dimensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publ Co.Google Scholar

  • Beuls, K. 2011. Construction sets and unmarked forms: A case study for Hungarian verb agreement. In L. Steels (eds.), Design patterns in fluid construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ. Co.Google Scholar

  • Bryant, J. 2008. Best-fit constructional analysis, Ph.D. Dissertation. Berkeley, CA: Computer Science Department.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, W. 2000. Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

  • Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dawkins, R. 1982. Replicators and vehicles. In R. Brandon & R. Burian (eds.), Genes, organisms, populations, 161–180. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Diessel, H. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, C. 1988. The mechanisms of construction grammar. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA, 35–55.

  • Garcia-Casademont, E. & L. Steels. 2015. Usage-based grammar learning as insight problem solving, 258–263. CEUR, AACMEN: European-Asia-Pacific Cognitive Science Conference.

  • Givón, T. 2002. Bio-linguistics. The Santa Barbara lectures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

  • Goldberg, A. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–224.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, A. & R. Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 532–568.Google Scholar

  • Hockett, C. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. Toronto: Macmillian.Google Scholar

  • Jaeger, G., T. Gong, L. Shuai & M. Tamariz. 2012. Studying language change using Price equation and Polya-urn dynamics. PLoS ONE 7. 3.Google Scholar

  • Jurafsky, D. & J. H. Martin. 2008. Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics and speech recognition, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

  • Wei-Chun Kao, Y-R. Chen, E. Yi, H. Lee, Q. Tian, K. Ming Wu, S. Feng Tsai, Steve, S-F. Yu, Yu-Ju. Chen, Ruedi, A & S. I. Chan. 2004. Quantitative proteomic analysis of metabolic regulation by copper ions in Methylococcus capsulatus (Bath). The Journal of Biological Chemistry 279. 51554–51560.Google Scholar

  • Kirby, S., H. Cornish & K Smith. 2008. Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. PNAS 105(31). 10681–10686.Google Scholar

  • Knight, K. 1989. Unification: A multidisciplinary survey. ACM Computing Surveys 21(1). 93–124.Google Scholar

  • Levelt, W. J. M. 1983. Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 14. 41–104.Google Scholar

  • Maynard Smith, J. 1986. The problems of biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Michaelis, L. 2013. Sign-based construction grammar. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 133–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mufwene, S. 2001. Competition and selection in language evolution. Selection 3. 1.Google Scholar

  • Pigliucci, M. & G. Mueller. 2010. Evolution. The extended synthesis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Sag, I., T. Wasow & E. Bender. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Schleicher, A. 1863. Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar: H. Boehlau.Google Scholar

  • Steels, L. (ed.). 2011a. Design patterns in fluid construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Steels, L. (ed.). 2012a. Experiments in cultural language evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Steels, L. (ed.). 2012b. Computational issues in fluid construction grammar (LNAI 7249). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Steels, L. 2013. Fluid construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), Handbook of construction grammar, chapter 9, 153–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Steels, L. 2016. Basics of fluid construction grammar. Constructions and frames, in press.

  • Steels, L. & J. De Beule. 2006. Unify and merge in fluid construction grammar. In P. Vogt, Y. Sugita, E. Tuci & C. Nehaniv (eds.), Symbol grounding and beyond: Proceedings of the Third international workshop on the emergence and evolution of linguistic communication, LNAI 4211, 197–223. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Steels, L. & E. Garcia Casademont. 2015. Ambiguity and the origins of syntax. The Linguistic Review 32(1). 37–60.Google Scholar

  • Van Petten, C. & B. Luka. 2011. Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology 83(2). 176–190.Google Scholar

  • van Trijp, Remi & Luc Steels. 2012. Multilevel alignment maintains language systematicity. Advances in Complex Systems 15(3/4). 39–1, 39–27.Google Scholar

  • De Vylder, B. & K. Tuyls. 2006. How to reach linguistic consensus: A proof of convergence for the naming game. Journal of Theoretical Biology 242(4). 818–831.Google Scholar

  • Wagner, A. 2005. Robustness and evolvability in living systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wellens, P. & J. De Beule. 2010. Priming through constructional dependencies a case study in fluid construction grammar. In Andrew D. M. Smith, Marieke Schouwstra, Bart de Boer & Kenny Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on the evolution of language, 344–351. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-11-13

Accepted: 2015-12-14

Published Online: 2016-03-18

Published in Print: 2016-12-01

Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 2, Issue 1, 20150022, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0022.

Export Citation

© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Luc Steels and Eörs Szathmáry
Biosystems, 2017
Katrien Beuls and Remi van Trijp
Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 2016, Volume 30, Page 1
Luc Steels
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2017, Volume 24, Number 1, Page 190
Luc Steels
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2016, Volume 371, Number 1701, Page 20150447

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in