A comparison of homonym meaning frequency estimates derived from movie and television subtitles, free association, and explicit ratings

Most words are ambiguous, with interpretation dependent on context. Advancing theories of ambiguity resolution is important for any general theory of language processing, and for resolving inconsistencies in observed ambiguity effects across experimental tasks. Focusing on homonyms (words such as bank with unrelated meanings EDGE OF A RIVER vs. FINANCIAL INSTITUTION), the present work advances theories and methods for estimating the relative frequency of their meanings, a factor that shapes observed ambiguity effects. We develop a new method for estimating meaning frequency based on the meaning of a homonym evoked in lines of movie and television subtitles according to human raters. We also replicate and extend a measure of meaning frequency derived from the classification of free associates. We evaluate the internal consistency of these measures, compare them to published estimates based on explicit ratings of each meaning’s frequency, and compare each set of norms in predicting performance in lexical and semantic decision mega-studies. All measures have high internal consistency and show agreement, but each is also associated with unique variance, which may be explained by integrating cognitive theories of memory with the demands of different experimental methodologies. To derive frequency estimates, we collected manual classifications of 533 homonyms over 50,000 lines of subtitles, and of 357 homonyms across over 5000 homonym–associate pairs. This database—publicly available at: www.blairarmstrong.net/homonymnorms/—constitutes a novel resource for computational cognitive modeling and computational linguistics, and we offer suggestions around good practices for its use in training and testing models on labeled data.

[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.