* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *

LINGUIST List 25.154

Fri Jan 10 2014

Confs: Computational Linguistics/Germany

Editor for this issue: Xiyan Wang <xiyanlinguistlist.org>

Date: 09-Jan-2014
From: Remi van Trijp <remicsl.sony.fr>
Subject: Computational Construction Grammar
E-mail this message to a friend

Computational Construction Grammar

Date: 03-Sep-2014 - 06-Sep-2014
Location: Osnabrück, Germany
Contact: Remi van Trijp
Contact Email: < click here to access email >

Linguistic Field(s): Computational Linguistics

Meeting Description:

Construction grammar is a family of linguistic theories that is rapidly gaining importance in all subfields of linguistics. Construction grammar has also enthused computational linguists, who see in construction grammar the potential to re-establish the lost connection between linguistic theory and natural language processing. Indeed, as argued by Schneider and Tsarfaty (2013: 451), the construction grammar 'perspective presents a formidable challenge to the computational linguistics/natural language processing community', and it may lead to 'a more comprehensive account of language processing than our field is able to offer today.'

This workshop aims to identify the challenges of computational construction grammar and to bring together researchers who have been working on concrete solutions and operationalizations. In order to achieve this, an open call will be launched for research on three main themes:

(a) How to implement construction grammar? Construction grammar features some unique characteristics that distinguish it from other linguistic theories, such as its syntax-lexicon continuum, its free combination of constructions (including the possibility of coercion) and its handling of long-distance dependencies. To what extent can we reuse tools that have already been developed in the CL/NLP community, and which tools are missing? Some researchers have proposed extensions of well‐established probabilistic methods (e.g. Jurafsky, 1996; Bod, 2009; Chen et al., 2011) and/or typed feature logics (e.g. Bryant, 2004; Boas and Sag, 2012), whereas others have opted for a more radical recombination of language technologies (e.g. Steels, 2004; van Trijp, 2013).

(b) Case studies: The workshop also welcomes submissions focusing on specific case studies (ranging from a specific construction to a family of constructions). Case study submissions should focus on concrete solutions. Submissions that are accompanied by a demonstration are preferred.

(c) Experiments: Construction grammar has become popular in many fields of linguistics, ranging from language acquisition to corpus linguistics. In each subfield, computational models have emerged that argue for a construction grammar account, such as language learning (Chang, 2008), psycholinguistic modeling (Bryant, 2004), language evolution (Steels, 2012) and language grounding on robots (Steels and Hild, 2012).

For more information contact:

Remi van Trijp (Sony CSL Paris)

Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Page Updated: 10-Jan-2014

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT Logo
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.