Meaning creation in novel noun-noun compounds: humans and language models

References

• Altmann, G. T. M. (1999). Thematic role assignment in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(1), 124–145. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, S. (1986). Morphological influences on lexical access: Lexical or nonlexical effects? Journal of Memory and Language, 25(6), 726–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90046-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aurnhammer, C., & Frank, S. L. (2019). Evaluating information-theoretic measures of word prediction in naturalistic sentence Reading. Neuropsychologia, 134, Article 107198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107198
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banarescu, L., Bonial, C., Cai, S., Georgescu, M., Griffitt, K., Hermjakob, U., Knight, K., Koehn, P., Palmer, M., & Schneider, N. (2013). Abstract meaning representation for sembanking. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse (pp. 178–186).
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, L. (2019). Compounds and compounding. Folia Linguistica, 53(1), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2019-2010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, L. M. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bedny, M., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2006). Neuroanatomically separable effects of imageability and grammatical class during single-word comprehension. Brain and Language, 98(2), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertram, R., & Hyönä, J. (2003). The length of a complex word modifies the role of morphological structure: Evidence from eye movements when reading short and long Finnish compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 615–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00539-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bever, T. G., & Poeppel, D. (2010). Analysis by synthesis: A (re-)emerging program of research for language and vision. Biolinguistics, 4(2–3), 174–200. https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.8783
   Google Scholar
• Bird, H., Howard, D., & Franklin, S. (2003). Verbs and nouns: The importance of being imageable. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16(2–3), 113–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0911-6044(02)00016-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with python (1st ed.). O’Reilly Media.
   Google Scholar
• Bisetto, A., & Scalise, S. (2005). The classification of compounds. Lingue e Linguaggio, 4(2), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1418/20728
   Google Scholar
• Bock, K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99(1), 150–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boylan, C., Trueswell, J. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2017). Relational vs. attributive interpretation of nominal compounds differentially engages angular gyrus and anterior temporal lobe. Brain and Language, 169, 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2017.01.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118(2), 172–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892998563752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassidy, F. G., & Algeo, J. (1993). Fifty years among the new words: A dictionary of neologisms, 1941–1991. Language, 69(2), 397. https://doi.org/10.2307/416548
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, J. P., Chiam, C., Fu, L., Wang, A. Z., Zhang, J., & Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C. (2020). ConvoKit: A toolkit for the analysis of conversations (arXiv:2005.04246). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.04246
   Google Scholar
• Chen, P., Poeppel, D., & Zuanazzi, A. (2023). A dataset of 108 novel noun-noun compound words with active and passive interpretation. Journal of Open Psychology Data, 11(14), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5334/jopd.93
   Google Scholar
• Chen, X., Hartsuiker, R. J., Muylle, M., Sarah Slim, M., & Zhang, C. (2022). The effect of animacy on structural priming: A replication of Bock, Loebell and Morey (1992). Journal of Memory and Language, 127, Article 104354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104354
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In Eye movements (pp. 341–371). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50017-3
   Google Scholar
• Davies, M. (2010). The corpus of contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25(4), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqq018
   Google Scholar
• De Leeuw, J. R. (2015). jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53(4), 810. https://doi.org/10.2307/412913
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dressler, W. U. (2007). The representation and processing of compound words. Etica e Politica, 15, 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228911.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Erk, K. (2012). Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10), 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnco.362
   Google Scholar
• Ettinger, A. (2020). What BERT is not: Lessons from a new suite of psycholinguistic diagnostics for language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00298
   Google Scholar
• Feng, S., Legault, J., Yang, L., Zhu, J., Shao, K., & Yang, Y. (2015). Differences in grammatical processing strategies for active and passive sentences: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 33, 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2014.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(6), 715–736. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferretti, T. R., & Gagné, C. L. (2006). The recovery of thematic role structure during noun-noun interpretation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 423–428. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193864
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finocchiaro, C., Capasso, R., Cattaneo, L., Zuanazzi, A., & Miceli, G. (2015). Thematic role assignment in the posterior parietal cortex: A TMS study. Neuropsychologia, 77, 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.08.025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2007). Compound words and structure in the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(7), 953–1000. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701190215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischler, I. (1977). Semantic facilitation without association in a lexical decision task. Memory & Cognition, 5(3), 335–339. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197580
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flick, G., Abdullah, O., & Pylkkänen, L. (2021). From letters to composed concepts: A magnetoencephalography study of reading. Human Brain Mapping, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L. (2000). Relation-based combinations versus property-based combinations: A test of the CARIN theory and the dual-process theory of conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(3), 365–389. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2683
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L. (2001). Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27(1), 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.236
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.23.1.71
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (2002). Priming relations in ambiguous noun-noun combinations. Memory and Cognition, 30(4), 637–646. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194965
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2007). Conceptual combination: Implications for the mental lexicon. In The representation and processing of compound words (pp. 145–168). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228911.003.0007
   Google Scholar
• Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L., & Schmidtke, D. (2019). LADEC: The large database of English compounds. Behavior Research Methods, 51(5), 2152–2179. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01282-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gennari, S., & Poeppel, D. (2003). Processing correlates of lexical semantic complexity. Cognition, 89(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00069-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gobbini, M. I., Gentili, C., Ricciardi, E., Bellucci, C., Salvini, P., Laschi, C., Guazzelli, M., & Pietrini, P. (2011). Distinct neural systems involved in agency and animacy detection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(8), 1911–1920. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21574
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goh, W. D., Yap, M. J., & Chee, Q. W. (2020). The auditory English lexicon project: A multi-talker, multi-region psycholinguistic database of 10,170 spoken words and nonwords. Behavior Research Methods, 52(5), 2202–2231. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01352-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodkind, A., & Bicknell, K. (2018). Predictive power of word surprisal for reading times is a linear function of language model quality. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL 2018) (pp. 10–18). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-0102
   Google Scholar
• Günther, F., & Marelli, M. (2016). Understanding karma police: The perceived plausibility of noun compounds as predicted by distributional models of semantic representation. PLoS One, 11(10), e0163200. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Günther, F., & Marelli, M. (2020). Trying to make it work: Compositional effects in the processing of compound “nonwords”. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(7), 1082–1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820902019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Günther, F., & Marelli, M. (2021). CAOSS and transcendence: Modeling role-dependent constituent meanings in compounds. Morphology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-021-09386-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Günther, F., & Marelli, M. (2022). Patterns in CAOSS: Distributed representations predict variation in relational interpretations for familiar and novel compound words. Cognitive Psychology, 134, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2022.101471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauk, O., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Effects of word length and frequency on the human event-related potential. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115(5), 1090–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2003.12.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmann, M. J., Remus, S., Biemann, C., Radach, R., & Kuchinke, L. (2022). Language models explain word reading times better than empirical predictability. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 4, Article 730570. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.730570
   Google Scholar
• Hu, J., Gauthier, J., Qian, P., Wilcox, E., & Levy, R. (2020). A systematic assessment of syntactic generalization in neural language models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 1725–1744). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.158
   Google Scholar
• Jawahar, G., Sagot, B., & Seddah, D. (2019). What does BERT learn about the structure of language? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 3651–3657). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1356
   Google Scholar
• Juhasz, B. J., Lai, Y. H., & Woodcock, M. L. (2015). A database of 629 English compound words: Ratings of familiarity, lexeme meaning dominance, semantic transparency, age of acquisition, imageability, and sensory experience. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1004–1019. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0523-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juhasz, B. J., Starr, M. S., Inhoff, A. W., & Placke, L. (2003). The effects of morphology on the processing of compound words: Evidence from naming, lexical decisions and eye fixations. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661903
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kauf, C., Ivanova, A. A., Rambelli, G., Chersoni, E., She, J. S., Chowdhury, Z., Fedorenko, E., & Lenci, A. (2022). Event knowledge in large language models: The gap between the impossible and the unlikely (arXiv:2212.01488). arXiv.
   Google Scholar
• Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., & Engbert, R. (2004). Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1–2), 262–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leminen, A., Smolka, E., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Pliatsikas, C. (2019). Morphological processing in the brain: The good (inflection), the bad (derivation) and the ugly (compounding). Cortex, 116, 4–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.08.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi, J. N. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Libben, G. (2014). The nature of compounds: A psychocentric perspective. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 31(1–2), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2013.874994
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieber, R.. (2011). A lexical semantic approach to compounding. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 78–104). Oxford University Presshttps://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199695720.013.0005.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, Y., Tan, Y. C., & Frank, R. (2019). Open sesame: Getting inside BERT’s linguistic knowledge (arXiv:1906.01698). arXiv.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Stoyanov, V. (2019). RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach (arXiv:1907.11692). arXiv.
   Google Scholar
• Lowder, M. W., & Gordon, P. C. (2014). Effects of animacy and noun-phrase relatedness on the processing of complex sentences. Memory & Cognition, 42(5), 794–805. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0393-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mack, J., Meltzer-Asscher, A., Barbieri, E., & Thompson, C. (2013). Neural correlates of processing passive sentences. Brain Sciences, 3(4), 1198–1214. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci3031198
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maguire, P., Devereux, B., Costello, F., & Cater, A. (2007). A reanalysis of the CARIN theory of conceptual combination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 811–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.811
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marelli, M., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2017). Compounding as abstract operation in semantic space: Investigating relational effects through a large-scale, data-driven computational model. Cognition, 166, 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, J. L., Bock, K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 188–230. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meara, P. (1992). EFL vocabulary tests. ERIC Clearinghouse.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, A. M., Mack, J. E., & Thompson, C. K. (2012). Tracking passive sentence comprehension in agrammatic aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 25(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2011.08.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikolov, T., Yih, W. T., & Zweig, G. (2013). Linguistic regularities in continuous spaceword representations. In NAACL HLT 2013 – 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Proceedings of the Main Conference (pp. 746–751).
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, J., & Lapata, M. (2010). Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science, 34(8), 1388–1429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01106.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science, 12(4), 529–562. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1204_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, G. L. (1990). Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(3), 259–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90001-G
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 402–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195588
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Onnis, L., Lim, A., Cheung, S., & Huettig, F. (2022). Is the mind inherently predicting? Exploring forward and backward looking in language processing. Cognitive Science, 46(10). https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer, M., Gildea, D., & Kingsbury, P. (2005). The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31(1), 71–106. https://doi.org/10.1162/0891201053630264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadimitriou, I., Futrell, R., & Mahowald, K. (2022). When classifying grammatical role, BERT doesn’t care about word order … except when it matters (arXiv:2203.06204). arXiv.
   Google Scholar
• Papoutsaki, A. (2015). Scalable webcam eye tracking by learning from user interactions. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 219–222). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2702627
   Google Scholar
• Pezzelle, S., & Marelli, M. (2020). Do semantic features capture a syntactic classification of compounds? Insights from compositional distributional semantics. In S. S. im Walde & E. Smolka (Eds.), The role of constituents in multiword expressions: An interdisciplinary, crosslingual perspective (pp. 33–60). Language Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ponkiya, G., Patel, K., Bhattacharyya, P., & Palshikar, G. K. (2018). Treat us like the sequences we are: Prepositional paraphrasing of noun compounds using LSTM. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 1827–1836).
   Google Scholar
• Primus, B. (2011). Animacy and telicity: Semantic constraints on impersonal passives. Lingua, 121(1), 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., & Sutskever, I. (2019). Language models are unsupervised multitask learners.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, A., Kovaleva, O., & Rumshisky, A. (2020). A primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT works. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8, 842–866. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00349
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer, M., & Bell, M. J. (2020). Constituent polysemy and interpretational diversity in attested English novel compounds. The Mental Lexicon, 15(1), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.00013.sch
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, G. G., Keitel, A., Becirspahic, M., Yao, B., & Sereno, S. C. (2019). The Glasgow norms: Ratings of 5,500 words on nine scales. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 1258–1270. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1099-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoben, E. J. (1991). Predicating and nonpredicating combinations. In P. J. Schwanenflugal (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 117–135). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Shoben, E. J., & Gagné, C. L. (1997). Thematic relations and the creation of combined concepts. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 31–50). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10227-002.
   Google Scholar
• Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Blackwell Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Stockall, L., & Marantz, A. (2006). A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon, 1(1), 85–123. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.1.1.07sto
   Google Scholar
• Sturt, P., Pickering, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (1999). Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swaab, T. Y., Baynes, K., & Knight, R. T. (2002). Separable effects of priming and imageability on word processing: An ERP study. Cognitive Brain Research, 15(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00219-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taft, M. (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 57(4), 745–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000477
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tagalakis, G., & Keane, M. T. (2019). Modelling the understanding of noun-noun compounds: The role of familiarity. In F. Schmalhofer, R. Young, & G. Katz (Eds.), Proceedings of EuroCogSci 03 (1st ed., pp. 319–324). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tratz, S., & Hovy, E. (2010). A taxonomy, dataset, and classifier for automatic noun compound interpretation. In ACL 2010 – 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference, July (pp. 678–687). https://doi.org/10.1418/20728
   Google Scholar
• Turner, E. A., & Rommetveit, R. (1967). The acquisition of sentence voice and reversibility. Child Development, 38(3), 649–660. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, A., & Cho, K. (2019). BERT has a mouth, and it must speak: BERT as a Markov random field language model (arXiv:1902.04094). arXiv.
   Google Scholar
• Warstadt, A., & Bowman, S. R. (2022). What artificial neural networks can tell us about human language acquisition (arXiv:2208.07998). arXiv.
   Google Scholar
• Warstadt, A., Parrish, A., Liu, H., Mohananey, A., Peng, W., Wang, S.-F., & Bowman, S. R. (2020). BLiMP: The benchmark of linguistic minimal pairs for English (arXiv:1912.00582). arXiv.
   Google Scholar
• Weischedel, R., Hovy, E., Marcus, M., Palmer, M., Belvin, R., Pradhan, S., Ramshaw, L., & Xue, N. (2011). OntoNotes: A large training corpus for enhanced processing.
   Google Scholar
• Wilcox, E. G., Gauthier, J., Hu, J., Qian, P., & Levy, R. (2020). On the predictive power of neural language models for human real-time comprehension behavior (arXiv:2006.01912). arXiv.
   Google Scholar
• Wisniewski, E. J. (1996). Construal and similarity in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 434–453. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisniewski, E. J., & Love, B. C. (1998). Relations versus properties in conceptual combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(2), 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf, T., Debut, L., Sanh, V., Chaumond, J., Delangue, C., Moi, A., Cistac, P., Rault, T., Louf, R., Funtowicz, M., Davison, J., Shleifer, S., von Platen, P., Ma, C., Jernite, Y., Plu, J., Xu, C., Scao, T. L., Gugger, S., … Rush, A. M. (2020). HuggingFace’s transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing (arXiv:1910.03771). arXiv.
   Google Scholar