Inferential Partitioning in Embodied Construction Grammar

Posted: 21 Nov 2008

See all articles by Joshua Marker

Joshua Marker

University of California, Berkeley

Date Written: November 20, 2008

Abstract

Discourse is underspecified for meaning and understanding thus requires constant inference. Construction Grammar approaches (Kay & Fillmore, 1999; Goldberg, 1995) consist of conventionalized mappings between form and meaning. In Embodied Construction Grammar, a unification-grammar based formalism (Bergen & Chang, 2005), meaning is represented in schematizations (Fillmore 1982; Lakoff 1987) that characterize mental representations based on perceptual and motor systems. ECG thus provides a computational model of inference that is cognitively grounded and proceeds from an embodied cognition perspective to support inference via simulation. This model has demonstrated success at inferring otherwise unavailable meaning from utterances (Bryant & Mok, 2006).

Partitioning of inferential spaces and structuring of inference relationships between them is necessary for larger discourses or complex metaphorical blending. As currently implemented, ECG generates all meaning in a single inferential space; it thus cannot model hypotheticals, counterfactuals, or temporally disjoint discourse, or any inference resulting from them, something necessary for comprehension of complex language.

I extend ECG to incorporate the model of mental spaces by Fauconnier (Fauconnier, 1997), allowing partitioning of inference spaces. New primitives are added to the ECG system to represent discourse pointers, and new constructions to perform discourse management operations such as constructing mental spaces and directing the accumulation of new meaning appropriately. Multiple partitioned inference sequences allow inference from non-base spaces such as hypothetical apodosis to 'float' to a parent space and direct further inference. Explicit space builders, such as hypothetical (if....then...), temporal ("yesterday, . . . ", or conceptual (". . . thinks that. . . ") will be addressed. The proposal also treats implicit discourse management without explicit markers, via a best-fit approach to assignment of inference.

References Bergen, Benjamin. K., and Nancy Chang. 2005. Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In Construction Grammars: Cognitive Groundings and Theoretical Extensions, edited by J.-O. ?stman and M. Fried. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Bryant, John and Mok, Eva. 2006. A best-fit approach to productive elision of arguments. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society Fauconnier, Gilles (1997), Mappings in thought and language, (Cambridge, U.K. ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press) ix, 205 p. Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kay, Paul, and Charles Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75 (1):1-33. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Keywords: construction grammar

Suggested Citation

Marker, Joshua, Inferential Partitioning in Embodied Construction Grammar (November 20, 2008). 9th Conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse, & Language (CSDL9), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1304763

Joshua Marker (Contact Author)

University of California, Berkeley ( email )

310 Barrows Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
837
PlumX Metrics