A comparison of homonym meaning frequency estimates derived from movie and television subtitles, free association, and explicit ratings
暂无分享,去创建一个
Suzanne Stevenson | Barend Beekhuizen | Blair C. Armstrong | Vladimir Dubrovsky | Caitlin A. Rice | Barend Beekhuizen | S. Stevenson | V. Dubrovsky
[1] K I Forster,et al. The potential for experimenter bias effects in word recognition experiments , 2000, Memory & cognition.
[2] Karsten Steinhauer,et al. Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy , 2012, Brain and Language.
[3] David C. Plaut,et al. Settling dynamics in distributed networks explain task differences in semantic ambiguity effects: Computational and behavioral evidence , 2008 .
[4] D. Balota,et al. Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.
[5] Hwee Tou Ng,et al. One Million Sense-Tagged Instances for Word Sense Disambiguation and Induction , 2015, CoNLL.
[6] P. Dixon,et al. University of Alberta norms of relative meaning frequency for 566 homographs , 1994, Memory & cognition.
[7] Olga Babko-Malaya,et al. Different Sense Granularities for Different Applications , 2004, HLT-NAACL 2004.
[8] Trevor Hastie,et al. An Introduction to Statistical Learning , 2013, Springer Texts in Statistics.
[9] S. Joordens,et al. Turning an advantage into a disadvantage: Ambiguity effects in lexical decision versus reading tasks , 2000, Memory & cognition.
[10] Libby Barak,et al. Comparing Computational Cognitive Models of Generalization in a Language Acquisition Task , 2016, EMNLP.
[11] Blair C Armstrong,et al. eDom: Norming software and relative meaning frequencies for 544 English homonyms , 2012, Behavior Research Methods.
[12] A. Tversky. Utility theory and additivity analysis of risky choices. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.
[13] James L. McClelland,et al. A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. , 1989, Psychological review.
[14] Max Coltheart,et al. Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .
[15] T. Landauer,et al. A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .
[16] Francis Bond,et al. A Survey of WordNet Annotated Corpora , 2014, GWC.
[17] William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al. Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition , 2004, Cogn. Sci..
[18] David C. Plaut,et al. Disparate semantic ambiguity effects from semantic processing dynamics rather than qualitative task differences , 2016 .
[19] George A. Miller,et al. Annotating WordNet , 2004, FCP@NAACL-HLT.
[20] N. Chater,et al. Are Probabilities Overweighted or Underweighted When Rare Outcomes Are Experienced (Rarely)? , 2009, Psychological science.
[21] David C. Plaut,et al. Connectionist Modeling of Neuropsychological Deficits in Semantics, Language, and Reading , 2012 .
[22] G. Murphy,et al. The Representation of Polysemous Words , 2001 .
[23] James L. McClelland,et al. An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .
[24] Melvin J Yap,et al. The Calgary semantic decision project: concrete/abstract decision data for 10,000 English words , 2016, Behavior Research Methods.
[25] Endel Tulving,et al. The effects of presentation and recall of material in free-recall learning , 1967 .
[26] Shari R. Baum,et al. Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words , 2007, Journal of Neurolinguistics.
[27] Hwee Tou Ng,et al. Integrating Multiple Knowledge Sources to Disambiguate Word Sense: An Exemplar-Based Approach , 1996, ACL.
[28] James S. Magnuson,et al. Effect of Representational Distance Between Meanings on Recognition of Ambiguous Spoken Words , 2009, Cogn. Sci..
[29] Jordan Zlatev,et al. Polysemy or generality ? , 2003 .
[30] James L. McClelland,et al. The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. , 2001, Psychological review.
[31] Roger Ratcliff,et al. A Theory of Memory Retrieval. , 1978 .
[32] Yasushi Hino,et al. The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.
[33] Ram Frost,et al. A universal approach to modeling visual word recognition and reading: Not only possible, but also inevitable , 2012, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
[34] Blair C Armstrong,et al. SOS! An algorithm and software for the stochastic optimization of stimuli , 2012, Behavior research methods.
[35] D. Swinney,et al. Effects of prior context upon lexical access during sentence comprehension. , 1976 .
[36] Marc Brysbaert,et al. The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words , 2011, Behavior Research Methods.
[37] David E. Rumelhart,et al. An Interactive Activation Model of the Effect of Context in Perception. Part 2 , 1980 .
[38] Michael N. Jones,et al. Perceptual Inference Through Global Lexical Similarity , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..
[39] G. Murphy,et al. Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses , 2002 .
[40] D. Titone,et al. Making sense of word senses: the comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.
[41] Ekaterini Klepousniotou. The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon , 2002, Brain and Language.
[42] M Coltheart,et al. DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. , 2001, Psychological review.
[43] Christiane Fellbaum,et al. The MASC Word Sense Corpus , 2012, LREC.
[44] Andreas Eisele,et al. MultiUN: A Multilingual Corpus from United Nation Documents , 2010, LREC.
[45] Ron Kohavi,et al. A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection , 1995, IJCAI.
[46] P. Tabossi. Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential contexts , 1988 .
[47] Daniel Jurafsky,et al. Do Multi-Sense Embeddings Improve Natural Language Understanding? , 2015, EMNLP.
[48] Timothy Baldwin,et al. LexSemTm: A Semantic Dataset Based on All-words Unsupervised Sense Distribution Learning , 2016, ACL.
[49] Rebecca Treiman,et al. The English Lexicon Project , 2007, Behavior research methods.
[50] Daniela M. Witten,et al. An Introduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R , 2013 .
[51] Zhenguang G Cai,et al. The impact of recent and long-term experience on access to word meanings: Evidence from large-scale internet-based experiments , 2016 .
[52] Ekaterini Klepousniotou,et al. Relative Meaning Frequencies for 100 Homonyms: British eDom Norms , 2016 .
[53] Bartunov Sergey,et al. Breaking Sticks and Ambiguities with Adaptive Skip-gram , 2016 .
[54] Diana McCarthy,et al. Domain-Speci(cid:12)c Sense Distributions and Predominant Sense Acquisition , 2022 .
[55] W. T. Farrar,et al. When Two Meanings Are Better Than One : Modeling the Ambiguity Advantage Using a Recurrent Distributed Network , 1994 .
[56] Trevor Hastie,et al. The Elements of Statistical Learning , 2001 .
[57] Blair C Armstrong,et al. Relative meaning frequencies for 578 homonyms in two Spanish dialects: A cross-linguistic extension of the English eDom norms , 2016, Behavior research methods.
[58] D. Nelson,et al. The University of South Florida homograph norms , 1980 .
[59] R. Duncan Luce,et al. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis , 1979 .
[60] Morten H. Christiansen,et al. Domain generality versus modality specificity: the paradox of statistical learning , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
[61] Yasushi Hino,et al. The relatedness-of-meaning effect for ambiguous words in lexical-decision tasks: when does relatedness matter? , 2010, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.
[62] Ellen M. Voorhees,et al. Corpus-Based Statistical Sense Resolution , 1993, HLT.
[63] Lyn Frazier,et al. Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses ☆ , 1990 .
[64] W. Marslen-Wilson,et al. Making Sense of Semantic Ambiguity: Semantic Competition in Lexical Access , 2002 .
[65] S. Lupker,et al. Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? , 2006 .
[66] Timothy Baldwin,et al. Learning Word Sense Distributions, Detecting Unattested Senses and Identifying Novel Senses Using Topic Models , 2014, ACL.
[67] George A. Miller,et al. Using Corpus Statistics and WordNet Relations for Sense Identification , 1998, CL.
[68] Mark Steyvers,et al. Topics in semantic representation. , 2007, Psychological review.
[69] Mark Stevenson,et al. The Reuters Corpus Volume 1 -from Yesterday’s News to Tomorrow’s Language Resources , 2002, LREC.
[70] Thierry Poibeau,et al. Gestalt compositionality and instruction-based meaning construction , 2011, Cognitive Processing.
[71] A. Caramazza,et al. Lexical organization of nouns and verbs in the brain , 1991, Nature.
[72] D. Swinney. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects , 1979 .
[73] John N. Williams. Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence for interrelated meanings , 1992 .
[74] Véronique Hoste,et al. SemEval-2010 Task 3: Cross-Lingual Word Sense Disambiguation , 2010, SemEval@ACL.
[75] Thomas A. Schreiber,et al. The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.
[76] Eneko Agirre,et al. Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications , 2007 .
[77] A. H. Kawamoto. Nonlinear dynamics in the resolution of lexical ambiguity: A parallel distributed processing account. , 1993 .
[78] M. Gernsbacher. Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.
[79] Marc Brys,et al. Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English , 2009 .
[80] David Yarowsky,et al. One Sense Per Discourse , 1992, HLT.