Probing Lexical Ambiguity: Word Vectors Encode Number and Relatedness of Senses

被引:13
作者
Beekhuizen, Barend [1 ]
Armstrong, Blair C. [2 ,3 ]
Stevenson, Suzanne [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Dept Language Studies, Mississauga, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Basque Ctr Cognit Brain & Language, Dept Psychol, Scarborough, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Toronto, Basque Ctr Cognit Brain & Language, Dept Language Studies, Scarborough, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Toronto, Dept Comp Sci, Scarborough, ON, Canada
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
Lexical ambiguity; Semantic ambiguity; Homonymy; Polysemy; Distributional semantic models; Vector space models; SEMANTIC AMBIGUITY; FREQUENCY; NORMS; ACQUISITION; DIVERSITY; REPRESENTATION; IMAGEABILITY; RECOGNITION; INFORMATION; SOFTWARE;
D O I
10.1111/cogs.12943
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Lexical ambiguity-the phenomenon of a single word having multiple, distinguishable senses-is pervasive in language. Both the degree of ambiguity of a word (roughly, its number of senses) and the relatedness of those senses have been found to have widespread effects on language acquisition and processing. Recently, distributional approaches to semantics, in which a word's meaning is determined by its contexts, have led to successful research quantifying the degree of ambiguity, but these measures have not distinguished between the ambiguity of words with multiple related senses versus multiple unrelated meanings. In this work, we present the first assessment of whether distributional meaning representations can capture the ambiguity structure of a word, including both the number and relatedness of senses. On a very large sample of English words, we find that some, but not all, distributional semantic representations that we test exhibit detectable differences between sets of monosemes (unambiguous words; N = 964), polysemes (with multiple related senses; N = 4,096), and homonyms (with multiple unrelated senses; N = 355). Our findings begin to answer open questions from earlier work regarding whether distributional semantic representations of words, which successfully capture various semantic relationships, also reflect fine-grained aspects of meaning structure that influence human behavior. Our findings emphasize the importance of measuring whether proposed lexical representations capture such distinctions: In addition to standard benchmarks that test the similarity structure of distributional semantic models, we need to also consider whether they have cognitively plausible ambiguity structure.
引用
收藏
页数:37
相关论文
共 70 条
[1]   Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times [J].
Adelman, James S. ;
Brown, Gordon D. A. ;
Quesada, Jose F. .
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2006, 17 (09) :814-823
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2014, P 2014 C EMP METH NA
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1998, CMU PRONOUNCING DICT
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2015, P 2015 C EMP METH NA, DOI DOI 10.18653/V1/D15-1036
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2009, Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit
[6]   Disparate semantic ambiguity effects from semantic processing dynamics rather than qualitative task differences [J].
Armstrong, Blair C. ;
Plaut, David C. .
LANGUAGE COGNITION AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2016, 31 (07) :940-966
[7]   eDom: Norming software and relative meaning frequencies for 544 English homonyms [J].
Armstrong, Blair C. ;
Tokowicz, Natasha ;
Plaut, David C. .
BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2012, 44 (04) :1015-1027
[8]   SOS! An algorithm and software for the stochastic optimization of stimuli [J].
Armstrong, Blair C. ;
Watson, Christine E. ;
Plaut, David C. .
BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2012, 44 (03) :675-705
[9]  
Arora S., 2018, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, V6, P483, DOI [10.1162/tacl_a_00034, DOI 10.1162/TACL_A_00034]
[10]   Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words [J].
Baayen, R. H. ;
Feldman, L. B. ;
Schreuder, R. .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 2006, 55 (02) :290-313