Probing Lexical Ambiguity: Word Vectors Encode Number and Relatedness of Senses
- PMID: 34018227
- DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12943
Probing Lexical Ambiguity: Word Vectors Encode Number and Relatedness of Senses
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.
Keywords: Distributional semantic models; Homonymy; Lexical ambiguity; Polysemy; Semantic ambiguity; Vector space models.
© 2021 Cognitive Science Society.
References
-
- Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17, 814-823.
-
- Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2016). Disparate semantic ambiguity effects from semantic processing dynamics rather than qualitative task differences. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 31, 940-966.
-
- Armstrong, B. C., Tokowicz, N., & Plaut, D. C. (2012). eDom: Norming software and relative meaning frequencies for 544 English homonyms. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1015-1027.
-
- Armstrong, B. C., Watson, C. E., & Plaut, D. C. (2012). SOS: An algorithm and software for the stochastic optimization of stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 675-705.
-
- Arora, S., Li, Y., Liang, Y., Ma, T., & Risteski, A. (2018). Linear algebraic structure of word senses, with applications to polysemy. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6, 483-495.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources