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

Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik

A Quarterly of Language, Literature and Culture

[Journal of English and American Studies]

Ed. by Butter, Michael / Eckstein, Lars / Frenk, Joachim / Georgi-Findlay, Brigitte / Herbst, Thomas / Korte, Barbara / Leypoldt, Günter / Reinfandt, Christoph / Stefanowitsch, Anatol

CiteScore 2018: 0.14

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.148
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.497

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 66, Issue 3


Exploring the Creative Potential of Computational Construction Grammar

Paul Van Eecke
  • Corresponding author
  • Artificial Intelligence Laboratory – Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Katrien Beuls
Published Online: 2018-09-04 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0029


Computational construction grammar aims to provide concrete processing models that operationalise construction grammar accounts of the different aspects of language. This paper discusses the computational mechanisms that allow construction grammar models to exhibit, to a certain extent, the creativity and inventiveness that is observed in human language use. It addresses two main types of language-related creativity. The first type concerns the ‘free combination of constructions,’ which gives rise to the open-endedness of language. The second type concerns the ‘appropriate violation of usual constraints’ that permits language users to go beyond what is possible when adhering to the usual constraints of the language, and be truly creative by relaxing these constraints and by introducing novel constructions. All mechanisms and examples discussed in this paper are fully operationalised and implemented in Fluid Construction Grammar.

Works Cited

  • Bergen, Benjamin and Nancy Chang (2005). “Embodied Construction Grammar in Simulation-Based Language Understanding.” Mirjam Fried and Jan-Ola Östman, eds. Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147–190.Google Scholar

  • Beuls, Katrien, Remi van Trijp, and Pieter Wellens (2012). “Diagnostics and Repairs in Fluid Construction Grammar.” Luc Steels and Manfred Hild, eds. Language Grounding in Robots. Berlin: Springer, 215–234.Google Scholar

  • Boas, Hans C. and Ivan. A. Sag (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications/Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects and the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Feldman, Jerome, Ellen Dodge, and John Bryant (2009). “Embodied Construction Grammar.” Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 121–146.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin (1999). “Why Is Grammaticalization Irreversible?” Linguistics 37.6, 1043–1068.Google Scholar

  • Hoffmann, Thomas (2018). “Grammar and Creativity: Cognitive and Psychological Issues.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66.3, 259–276.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Keller, Rudi (1994). On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Steels, Luc, ed. (2011). Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Constructional Approaches to Language 11.Google Scholar

  • Steels, Luc, ed. (2012). Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Advances in Interaction Studies 3.Google Scholar

  • Steels, Luc (2017). “Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar.” Constructions and Frames 9.2, 178–225.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Steels, Luc and Remi van Trijp (2011). “How to Make Construction Grammars Fluid and Robust.” Luc Steels, ed. Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 301–330.Google Scholar

  • Stickles, Elise, David Oana, Ellen K. Dodge, and Jisup Hong (2016). “Formalizing Contemporary Conceptual Metaphor Theory.” Constructions and Frames 8.2, 166–213.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Van Eecke, Paul and Katrien Beuls (2017). “Meta-Layer Problem Solving for Computational Construction Grammar.” The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding Technical Report SS-17-02. Stanford: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 258–265.Google Scholar

  • Van Trijp, Remi (2012). “A Reflective Architecture for Robust Language Processing and Learning.” L. Steels, ed. Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Berlin: Springer, 51–74.Google Scholar

  • Wiggins, Geraint, Peter Tyack, Constance Scharff, and Martin Rohrmeier (2015). “The Evolutionary Roots of Creativity: Mechanisms and Motivations.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 370, 20140099.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-09-04

Published in Print: 2018-09-25

Citation Information: Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Volume 66, Issue 3, Pages 341–355, ISSN (Online) 2196-4726, ISSN (Print) 0044-2305, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0029.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in