Fluid construction grammar as a biological system

Luc Steels 1  and Eörs Szathmáry 2
  • 1 ICREA @ Institut de Biologia Evolutiva (UPF-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain
  • 2 Parmenides Foundation for the Study of Thinking, Muenchen, Germany
Luc Steels and Eörs Szathmáry

Abstract

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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


Journal + Issues

Linguistics Vanguard is a new channel for high-quality articles in all major fields of linguistics. Published solely online, the multimodal journal provides an accessible platform supporting both traditional contributions as well as innovative publications featuring interactive content. Linguistics Vanguard publishes concise and up-to-date reports on the state of the art in linguistics as well as cutting-edge research papers.

Search