emnlp emnlp2012 emnlp2012-61 emnlp2012-61-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Carina Silberer ; Mirella Lapata
Abstract: A popular tradition of studying semantic representation has been driven by the assumption that word meaning can be learned from the linguistic environment, despite ample evidence suggesting that language is grounded in perception and action. In this paper we present a comparative study of models that represent word meaning based on linguistic and perceptual data. Linguistic information is approximated by naturally occurring corpora and sensorimotor experience by feature norms (i.e., attributes native speakers consider important in describing the meaning of a word). The models differ in terms of the mechanisms by which they integrate the two modalities. Experimental results show that a closer correspondence to human data can be obtained by uncovering latent information shared among the textual and perceptual modalities rather than arriving at semantic knowledge by concatenating the two.
M. Andrews, G. Vigliocco, and D. Vinson. 2009. Integrating Experiential and Distributional Data to Learn Semantic Representations. Psychological Review, 116(3):463–498. Lawrence Barsalou. 1999. Perceptual Symbol Systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22:577–609. Lawrence W. Barsalou. 2008. Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59:617–845. David M. Blei, Andrew Y. Ng, and Michael I. Jordan. 2003. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3:993–1022, March. Magnus Borga. 2001. Canonical Correlation - a Tutorial, January. M. H. Bornstein, L. R. Cote, S. Maital, K. Painter, S.-Y. Park, and L. Pascual. 2004. Cross-linguistic Analysis of Vocabulary in Young Children: Spanish, Dutch, French, Hebrew, Italian, Korean, and American English. Child Development, 75(4): 1115–1 139. 1432 Elia Bruni, Giang Binh Tran, and Marco Baroni. 2011. Distributional Semantics from Text and Images. In Proceedings of the GEMS 2011 Workshop on GEometrical Models of Natural Language Semantics, pages 22–32, Edinburgh, UK, July. Association for Computational Linguistics. Freddy Choi, Peter Wiemer-Hastings, and Johanna Moore. 2001. Latent Semantic Analysis for Text Segmentation. In Proceedings of the 6th EMNLP, pages 109–1 17, Seattle, WA. J Cohen and P Cohen. 1983. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Yansong Feng and Mirella Lapata. 2010. Visual Information in Semantic Representation. In Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 91–99, Los Angeles, California, June. Association for Computational Linguistics. Lev Finkelstein, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Yossi Matias, Ehud Rivlin, Zach Solan, Gadi Wolfman, and Eytan Ruppin. 2002. Placing Search in Context: The Concept Revisited. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 20(1): 116–13 1, January. Arthur M. Glenberg and Michael P. Kaschak. 2002. Grounding Language in Action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(3):558–565. Gregory Grefenstette. 1994. Explorations in Automatic Thesaurus Discovery. Kluwer Academic Publishers. T. L. Griffiths, M. Steyvers, and J. B. Tenenbaum. 2007. Topics in Semantic Representation. Psychological Review, 114(2):21 1–244. David R. Hardoon, Sandor R. Szedmak, and John R. Shawe-Taylor. 2004. Canonical Correlation Analysis: An Overview with Application to Learning Methods. Neural Computation, 16(12):2639–2664. H Hotelling. 1936. Relations between Two Sets of Variates. Biometrika, 28:312–377. Steve R. Howell, Damian Jankowicz, and Suzanna Becker. 2005. A Model of Grounded Language Acquisition: Sensorimotor Features Improve Lexical and Grammatical Learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(2), 258-276, 53(2):258–276. Brendan T. Johns and Michael N. Jones. 2012. Perceptual Inference through Global Lexical Similarity. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(1): 103–120. B. Landau, L. Smith, and S. Jones. 1998. Object Perception and Object Naming in Early Development. Trends in Cognitive Science, 27: 19–24. T. Landauer and S. T. Dumais. 1997. A Solution to Plato’s Problem: the Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2):21 1–240. Dekang Lin. 1998. of Similar Words. Automatic Retrieval and Clustering In Proceedings of the joint Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and International Linguistics, pages Conference on Computational 768–774, Montr ´eal, Canada. and C. McNor2005. Semantic Feature Production Norms for a Large Set of Living and Nonliving Things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4):547–559, November. D. L. Nelson, C. L. McEvoy, and T. A. Schreiber. 1998. K. McRae, G. S. Cree, M. S. Seidenberg, gan. The University of South Florida Word Association, Rhyme, and Word Fragment Norms. C. Perfetti. 1998. The Limits of Co-occurrence: Tools and Theories in Language Research. Discourse Processes, (25):363–377. Terry Regier. 1996. The Human Semantic Potential. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. T. T. Rogers, M. A. Lambon Ralph, P. Garrard, S. Bozeat, J. L. McClelland, J. R. Hodges, and K. Patterson. 2004. Structure and Deterioration of Semantic Memory: A Neuropsychological and Computational Investigation. Psychological Review, 111(1):205–235. G Salton, A Wang, and C Yang. 1975. A Vector-space Model for Information Retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 18:613–620. Hinrich Sch u¨tze. 1998. Automatic Word Sense Discrimination. Computational Linguistics, 24(1):97–124. Mark Steyvers. 2010. Combining Feature Norms and Text Data with Topic Models. Acta Psychologica, 133(3):234–342. Wouter Voorspoels, Wolf Vanpaemel, and Gert Storms. 2008. Exemplars and Prototypes in Natural Language Concepts: A Typicality-based Evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15:630–637. 1433