The role of corpus size and syntax in deriving lexico-semantic representations for a wide range of concepts

References

• Aitchison, J. (2003). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. P. (2005). The role of attributional and distributional information in representing meaning. In B. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 127–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Aston, G., & Burnard, L. (1997). The BNC handbook exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baronchelli, A., Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., Pastor-Satorras, R., Chater, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2013). Networks in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 348–360. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. De Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 129–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bouma, G., van Noord, G., & Malouf, R. (2000). Alpino: Wide coverage computational analysis of Dutch. In W. Daelemans, K. Sima'an, J. Veenstra, & J. Zavrel (Eds.), Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 2000 (pp. 45–59). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
   Google Scholar
• Bruni, E., Uijlings, J., Baroni, M., & Sebe, N. (2012). Distributional semantics with eyes: Using image analysis to improve computational representations of word meaning. In N. Babaguchi, K. Aizawa, J. R. Smith, S. Satoh, T. Plagemann, X.-S. Hua, & R. Yan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20 th ACM Multimedia Conference, MM ’12, Nara, Japan, October 29–November 2, 2012 (pp. 1219–1228). New York, NY: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., Keuleers, E., Mandera, P., & Stevens, M. (2014). Woordenkennis van Nederlanders en Vlamingen anno 2013: Resultaten van het Groot Nationaal Onderzoek Taal (Tech Rep.). Ghent: University of Ghent.
   Google Scholar
• Bullinaria, J. A., & Levy, J. P. (2007). Extracting semantic representations from word co-occurrence statistics: A computational study. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 510–526. doi: 10.3758/BF03193020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceulemans, E., & Storms, G. (2010). Detecting intra- and inter-categorical structure in semantic concepts using HICLAS. Acta Psychologica, 133, 296–304. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.11.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Church, K., Gale, W., Hanks, P., & Hindle, D. (1991). Using statistics in lexical analysis. In U. Zernik (Ed.), Lexical acquisition: Exploiting on-line resources to build a lexicon (pp. 115–164). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Crutch, S., & Warrington, E. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128, 615–627. doi: 10.1093/brain/awh349
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Deyne, S., Navarro, D. J., Perfors, A., & Storms, G. (2012). Strong structure in weak semantic similarity: A graph based account. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Sapporo, Japan, August 1–4, 2012 (pp. 1464–1469). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• De Deyne, S., Navarro, D. J., & Storms, G. (2013). Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single word associations. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 480–498. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0260-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Deyne, S., & Storms, G. (2008). Word associations: Network and semantic properties. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 213–231. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.1.213
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Deyne, S., Verheyen, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Dry, M., Voorspoels, W., & Storms, G. (2008). Exemplar by feature applicability matrices and other Dutch normative data for semantic concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1030–1048. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.4.1030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deese, J. (1965). The structure of associations in language and thought. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Denhiere, G., & Lemaire, B. (2004). A computational model of children's semantic memory. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, August 4–7, 2004, Chicago, Illinois, USA (pp. 297–302). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Elvevåg, B., Foltz, P. W., Rosenstein, M., & DeLisi, L. E. (2010). An automated method to analyze language use in patients with schizophrenia and their first-degree relatives. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23, 270–284. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.05.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., & Kurtz, K. (2005). Relational categories. In W. K. Ahn, R. L. Goldstone, B. C. Love, A. B. Markman, & P. W. Wolff (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside the lab (pp. 151–175). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
   Google Scholar
• Gleitman, L. R., Cassidy, K., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C. (2005). Hard words. Language Learning and Development, 1, 23–64. doi: 10.1207/s15473341lld0101_4
   Google Scholar
• Goldstone, R. L. (1996). Isolated and interrelated concepts. Memory & Cognition, 24, 608–628. doi: 10.3758/BF03201087
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). Similarity. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 13–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., Blei, D. M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2004). Integrating topics and syntax. In L. K. Saul, Y. Weiss, & L. Bottou (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 17 (NIPS 2004) (pp. 537–544). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review, 114, 211–244. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.211
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. A. (1981). An investigation of the nature of abstract concepts. Memory & Cognition, 9, 149–156. doi: 10.3758/BF03202329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heylen, K., Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2008). Automatic synonymy extraction. In S. Verberne, H. van Halteren, & P.-A. Coppen (Eds.), A comparison of syntactic context models: LOT computational linguistics in the Netherlands 2007 (pp. 101–116). Utrecht: Netherlands National Graduate School of Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Hoyer, P. O. (2004). Non-negative matrix factorization with sparseness constraints. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5, 1457–1469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, T., & Ramage, D. (2007). Lexical semantic relatedness with random graph walks. In J. Eisner (Ed.), EMNLP-CoNLL: Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, June 28–30, 2007, Prague, Czech Republic (pp. 581–589). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchison, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 785–813. doi: 10.3758/BF03196544
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchison, K. A., Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., & Watson, J. M. (2008). Predicting semantic priming at the item level. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1036–1066. doi: 10.1080/17470210701438111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2007). Beyond common features: The role of roles in determining similarity. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 196–231. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.09.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M. N., Kintsch, W., & Mewhort, D. J. (2006). High-dimensional semantic space accounts of priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 534–552. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M. N., & Mewhort, D. J. (2007). Representing word meaning and order information in a composite holographic lexicon. Psychological Review, 114, 1–37. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2010). SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 643–650. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.3.643
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's Problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapata, M., McDonald, S., & Keller, F. (1999). Determinants of adjective-noun plausibility. In H. S. Thompson & A. Lascarides (Eds.), EACL ‘99: Proceedings of the ninth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 30–36). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (2001). The poverty of the stimulus argument. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52, 217–276. doi: 10.1093/bjps/52.2.217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, E. L., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). Thematic relations in adults’ concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 3–28. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.1.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louwerse, M. M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: Linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. Cognitive Science, 35, 381–398. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01157.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louwerse, M. M., Hu, X., Cai, Z., Ventura, M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2005). The embodiment of amodal symbolic knowledge representations. In I. Russell & Z. Markov (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 542–547). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 203–208. doi: 10.3758/BF03204766
   Google Scholar
• Maki, W. S. (2007). Judgments of associative memory. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 319–353. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.08.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McRae, K., Khalkhali, S., & Hare, M. (2011). Semantic and associative relations: Examining a tenuous dichotomy. In V Reyna, S. Chapman, M. Dougherty, & J. Confrey (Eds.), The adolescent brain: Learning, reasoning, and decision making (pp. 39–66). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Ramirez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2007). Are women really more talkative than men?. Science, 317, 82.
   Google Scholar
• Michel, J.-B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., The Google Books Team, … Aiden, E. L. (2011). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331, 176–182. doi: 10.1126/science.1199644
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A., & Charles, W. G. (1991). Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 1–28. doi: 10.1080/01690969108406936
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mollin, S. (2009). Combining corpus linguistics and psychological data on word co-occurrence: Corpus collocates versus word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5, 175–200. doi: 10.1515/CLLT.2009.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monaghan, P., Chater, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). The differential role of phonological and distributional cues in grammatical categorisation. Cognition, 96, 143–182. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison, C. M., Chappell, T. D., & Ellis, A. W. (1997). Age of acquisition norms for a large set of object names and their relation to adult estimates and other variables. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 50, 528–559. doi: 10.1080/027249897392017
   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, and Computers, 36, 402–407. doi: 10.3758/BF03195588
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oostdijk, N. (2000). The Spoken Dutch Corpus: Overview and first evaluation. In S. Piperidis & G. Stainhaouer (Eds.), Proceedings of Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (Vol. 2, pp. 887–894). Paris: ELRA.
   Google Scholar
• Ordelman, R. J. (2002). Twente nieuws corpus (TWNC) (Tech Rep.). Enschede: Parlevink Language Technology Group, University of Twente.
   Google Scholar
• Padó, S., & Lapata, M. (2007). Dependency-based construction of semantic space models. Computational Linguistics, 33, 161–199. doi: 10.1162/coli.2007.33.2.161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peirsman, Y., Heylen, K., & Speelman, D. (2007). Finding semantically related words in Dutch: Co-occurrences versus syntactic contexts. Paper presented at the Sixth International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context, Roskilde University, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Pereira, F., Tishby, N., & Lee, L. (1993). Distributional clustering of English words. In L. Schubert (Ed.), ACL ’93: Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 183–190). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1994). Retrieving information from memory: Spreading-activation theories versus compound-cue theories. Psychological Review, 101, 177–184. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recchia, G., & Jones, M. N. (2009). More data trumps smarter algorithms: Comparing pointwise mutual information with latent semantic analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 647–656. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.3.647
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Grey, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruts, W., De Deyne, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Verbeemen, T., & Storms, G. (2004). Dutch norm data for 13 semantic categories and 338 exemplars. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 506–515. doi: 10.3758/BF03195597
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sahlgren, M. (2005). The Word-Space Model: Using distributional analysis to represent syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between words in high-dimensional vector spaces. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons, W., Hamann, S., Harenski, C., Hu, X., & Barsalou, L. (2008). fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing. Journal of Physiology – Paris, 102, 106–119. doi: 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steels, L., & Hild, M. (2012). Language grounding in robots. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Steyvers, M., Shiffrin, R. M., & Nelson, D. L. (2004). Word association spaces for predicting semantic similarity effects in episodic memory. In A. F. Healy (Ed.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications (pp. 237–249). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Szalay, L. B., & Deese, J. (1978). Subjective meaning and culture: An assessment through word associations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, B., & Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 113, 169–193. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.169
   Google Scholar
• Van Rensbergen, B., De Deyne, S., & Storms, G. (2014). Examining assortivity in the mental lexicon: Evidence from word association data.. (Manuscript submitted for publication).
   Google Scholar
• Verheyen, S., De Deyne, S., Dry, M. J., & Storms, G. (2011). Uncovering contrast categories in categorization with a probabilistic threshold model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1515–1531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verheyen, S., Stukken, L., De Deyne, S., Dry, M. J., & Storms, G. (2011). The generalized polymorphous concept account of graded structure in abstract categories. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1117–1132. doi: 10.3758/s13421-011-0083-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. P. (2007). Semantic representation. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 195–215). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422–488. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinson, D. P., Vigliocco, G., Cappa, S., & Siri, S. (2003). The breakdown of semantic knowledge: Insights from a statistical model of meaning representation. Brain and Language, 86, 347–365. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00144-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science, 29, 719–736. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisniewski, E. J., & Bassok, M. (1999). What makes a man similar to a tie?. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 208–238. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0723
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zou, G. Y. (2007). Toward using confidence intervals to compare correlations. Psychological Methods, 12, 399–413. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.4.399
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar