Probing Lexical Ambiguity: Word Vectors Encode Number and Relatedness of Senses
Date
2021Author
Beekhuizen, Barend
Armstrong, Blair C.
Stevenson, Suzanne
Metadata
Show full item record
Beekhuizen, B., Armstrong, B.C. and Stevenson, S. (2021), Probing Lexical Ambiguity: Word Vectors Encode Number and Relatedness of Senses. Cogn Sci, 45: e12943. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12943
Abstract
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.