Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBeekhuizen, Barend
dc.contributor.authorArmstrong, Blair C.
dc.contributor.authorStevenson, Suzanne
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-11T08:30:35Z
dc.date.available2021-06-11T08:30:35Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationBeekhuizen, 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.12943es_ES
dc.identifier.issn0364-0213
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/51836
dc.descriptionFirst published: 21 May 2021es_ES
dc.description.abstractLexical 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.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research was supported by NSERC grant RGPIN-2019-06917 to Barend Beekhuizen, NSERC grant RGPIN-2017-06310 to Blair Armstrong, and by NSERC grant RGPIN-2017-06506 to Suzanne Stevensones_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherCognitive Sciencees_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.subjectLexical ambiguityes_ES
dc.subjectSemantic ambiguityes_ES
dc.subjectHomonymyes_ES
dc.subjectPolysemyes_ES
dc.subjectDistributional semantic modelses_ES
dc.subjectVector space modelses_ES
dc.titleProbing Lexical Ambiguity: Word Vectors Encode Number and Relatedness of Senseses_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.holder© 2021 Cognitive Science Society. All rights reserved.es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15516709es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cogs.12943


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record