Using statistical smoothing to estimate the psycholinguistic acceptability of novel phrases

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 84-93

  Roberts, Matthew A J ^a   Chater, Nick ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

ADULT; ALGORITHMS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 43249101395     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BRM.40.1.84     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. ADELMAN, J. S., & BROWN, G. D. A. (2008). Modeling lexical decision: The form of frequency and diversity effects. Psychological Review, 115, 214-229.
2. BOWERMAN, M. (1982). Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: Implications of developmental errors with causative verbs. Quaderni di Semantica, 3, 5-66.
3. BOWERMAN, M. (1996). Argument structure and leamability: Is a solution in sight? Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 22, 454-468.
4. BURNARD, L. (1995). User's reference guide for the British National Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Service.
5. CHEN, S. F., & GOODMAN, J. (1998). An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling (Tech. Rep. No. TR-10-98). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Center for Research in Computing Technology.
6. COWART, W. (1997). Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
7. DAGAN, I., LEE, L., & PEREIRA, F. C. N. (1999). Similarity-based models of word cooccurrence probabilities. Machine Learning, 34, 43-69.
8. HAHN, U., CHATER, N., & RICHARDSON, L. B. (2003). Similarity as transformation. Cognition, 87, 1-32.
9. HAYES, B. P. (2000). Gradient well-formedness in optimality theory. In J. Dekkers, F. van der Leeuw, & J. van de Weijer (Eds.), Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax, and acquisition (pp. 88-120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. KATZ, S. M. (1987). Estimation of probabilities from sparse data for the language model component of a speech recognizer. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, & Signal Processing, 35, 400-401.
11. KELLER, F. (2001). Experimental evidence for constraint competition in gapping constructions. In G. Müller & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Competition in syntax (pp. 211-248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
12. KELLER, F., & ALEXOPOULOU, T. (2001). Phonology competes with syntax: Experimental evidence for the interaction of word order and accent placement in the realization of information structure. Cognition, 79, 301-372.
13. LAPATA, M., KELLER, F., & MCDONALD, S. (2001, July). Evaluating smoothing algorithms against plausibility judgements. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 354-361). Toulouse, France.
14. LAPATA, M., MCDONALD, S., & KELLER, F. (1999). Determinants of adjective-noun plausibility. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 30-36). Bergen, Norway.
15. LEE, L. (1999). Measures of distributional similarity. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 25-32). College Park, MD.
16. LORD, C. (1979). "Don't you fall me down": Children's generalizations regarding cause and transitivity. Papers & Reports on Child Language Development, 17, 81-89.
17. MILLER, G. A., BECKWITH, R., FELLBAUM, C., GROSS, D., & MILLER, K. J. (1990). Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3, 235-244.
18. ROBERTS, M. (2005). Lexical constraint learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick, Coventry, U.K.
19. SCHÜTZE, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. SHEPARD, R. N. (1957). Stimulus and response generalization: A stochastic model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Psychometrika, 22, 325-345.
21. SORACE, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76, 859-890.
22. SORACE, A., & KELLER, F. (2005). Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua, 115, 1497-1524.
23. TVERSKY, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.