Concreteness and Corpora: A Theoretical and Practical Analysis

CMCL 2013 - Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Workshop

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 75-83

  Hill, Felix ^a   Kiela, Douwe ^a   Korhonen, Anna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONCRETES; SEMANTICS; STATISTICS;

ABSTRACT WORD; ALLOCATION MODEL; CONCRETE CONCEPTS; LATENT DIRICHLET ALLOCATION; MODEL SEMANTICS; PROPERTIES OF CONCRETES; SEMANTIC DOMAINS; SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION; TRAINING DATA; VECTOR SPACE MODELS;

VECTOR SPACES;

EID: 85122065792     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Agirre, E., Alfonseca, E., Hall, K., Kravalova, J. Pasca, K,. & Soroa,A. 2009. A Study on Similarity and Relatedness Using Distributional and WordNet-based Approaches. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2009.
2. Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G. & Vinson, D. 2009. Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic represenations. Psychological Review, 116(3), 463-498.
3. Barsalou, L. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-609.
4. Binder, J., Westbury, C., McKiernan, K., Possing, E., & Medler, D. 2005. Distinct brain systems for processing concrete and abstract concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17(6), 905-917.
5. Chaudhari, D., Damani, O., & Laxman, S. 2011. Lexical Co-occurrence, Statistical Significance, and Word Association. EMNLP 2011, 1058-1068.
6. Crutch, S., Connell, S., & Warrington, E. 2009. The different representational frameworks underpinning abstract and concrete knowledge: evidence from odd-one-out judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(7), 1377-1388.
7. Felbaum, C. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Finkelstein, L., Gabrilovich, Matias, Rivlin, Solan, Wolfman & Ruppin. 2002. Placing Search in Context: The Concept Revisited. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 20(1):116-131.
9. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. 1997. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52. 45-56.
10. Griffiths, T., Steyvers, M., & Tenembaum, J. 2007. Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review, 114 (2), 211-244.
11. Hill, F., Korhonen, A., & Bentz, C. A quantitative empricial analysis of the abstract/concrete distinction. Cognitive Science. In press.
12. Kullback, S., & Leibler, R.A. 1951. On Information and Sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22 (1): 79-86.
13. Kwong, O, Y. 2008. A Preliminary study on inducing lexical concreteness from dictionary definitions. 22nd Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, 235-244.
14. Leech, G., Garside, R. & Bryant, R. 1994. Claws4: The tagging of the British National Corpus. COL-ING 94, Lancaster: UK.
15. Markman, A, & Stilwell, C. 2001. Role-governed categories. Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Artificial Intelligence, 13, 329-358.
16. McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. 2005. Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547-559
17. Miller, G., & Charles, W. 1991. Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(1).
18. Nelson, D., & McEvoy, C. 2012. The University of South Florida Word Association, Rhyme and Word Fragment Norms. Retrieved online from: http://web.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/Intro.html.
19. Paivio, A., Yuille, J., & Madigan, S. 1968. Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 76(1, Pt. 2).
20. Peirsman, y., Heylen, K. & Geeraerts, D. 2008. Size Matters. Tight and Loose Context Definitions in English Word Space Models. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI Workshop on Distributional Lexical Semantics, Hamburg, Germany
21. Resnik, P. 1995. Using Information Content to Evaluate Semantic Similarity in a Taxonomy. Proceedings of IJCAI-95.
22. Rogers, T., & McLelland, J. 2003. Semantic Cognition. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
23. Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), (September 1975), pp. 192-233.
24. Rubenstein, H., & Goodenough, J. 1965. Contextual correlates of synonymy. Communications of the ACM 8(10), 627-633.
25. Sahlgren, M. 2006. The Word-Space Model: Using distributional analysis to represent syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between words in high-dimensional vector spaces. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.
26. Schwanenflugel, P. 1991. Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In P. Schwanenflugel. The psychology of word meanings (pp. 223-250). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Toglia, M., & Battig, W. 1978. Handbook of semantic word norms. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.
28. Turney, P, & Pantel, P. 2010. From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 37, 141-188.
29. Turney,P., Neuman, Y., Assaf,.D, Cohen, Y. 2011. Literal and Metaphorical Sense Identification through Concrete and Abstract Context. EMNLP 2011: 680-690
30. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. 2004. Reprssenting the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422-488.
31. Warrington, E. (1975). The selective impairment of semantic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 27(4), 635-657.
32. Wu, Z., Palmer, M. 1994. Verb semantics and lexical selection. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Associations for Computational Linguistics. 133-138.