Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T06:27:35.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - A Distributional Model of Verb-Specific Semantic Roles Inferences

from Part III - Data Driven Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2017

By
Gianluca E. Lebani  and
Alessandro Lenci
Edited by
Thierry Poibeau  and
Aline Villavicencio
Gianluca E. Lebani
Affiliation:
Department of Philology, Literature, and Linguistics, University of Pisa, Italy
Alessandro Lenci
Affiliation:
Department of Philology, Literature, and Linguistics, University of Pisa, Italy
Thierry Poibeau
Affiliation:
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris
Aline Villavicencio
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Get access

Summary

Abstract

In a standard view, commonly adopted in psycholinguistics and computational linguistics, thematic roles are approached as primitive entities able to represent the roles played by the arguments of a predicate. In theoretical linguistics, however, the inability to reach a consensus on a primitive set of semantic roles led to the proposal of new approaches in which thematic roles are better described as a bundle of more primitive entities (e.g., Dowty, 1991; Van Valin, 1999) or as structural configurations (e.g., Jackendoff, 1987). In a complementary way, psycholinguistic evidence supports the idea that thematic roles and nominal concepts are represented in similar ways (McRae et al., 1997b; Ferretti et al., 2001), thus suggesting that the former can be accounted for as predicate-specific bundles of inferences activated by the semantics of the verb (e.g., the patient of kill is typically alive before the event and dead afterward). Such inferences can take the form of either presuppositions or entailment relations activated when a filler saturates a specific argument position for a given predicate.

Our aim in this chapter is twofold. First, we report behavioral data collected to obtain a more fine-grained characterization of the thematic role properties activated by a subset of English verbs. To this end, we employed the modified version of the McRae et al. (1997b) elicitation paradigm proposed by Lebani et al. (2015) to describe which semantic properties of the participants are more relevant in each phase of the action described by the predicate. Next, we test the possibility to model such verb-specific inference patterns by exploiting corpus-based distributional data, thus proposing a novel approach to represent the same level of semantic knowledge that is currently described by means of a finite set of thematic roles.

Representing and Acquiring Thematic Roles

The concept of thematic role is one of the most vaguely defined, yet appealing, technical tools in the linguist's toolkit. Since its settlement in the circle of relevant modern theoretical issues, thanks to investigations by Tesnière (1959), Gruber (1965), Fillmore (1968), and Jackendoff (1972), this concept has been approached with what Dowty (1989) called the I-can't-define-it-but-I-know-itwhen- I-see-it stance; that is, by using it without offering a proper definition.

Type
Chapter
Information
Language, Cognition, and Computational Models , pp. 118 - 158
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almuhareb, Abdulrahman, and Poesio, Massimo. 2004. Attribute-Based and Value-Based Clustering: An Evaluation. Pages 158–165.of: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2004).
Almuhareb, Abdulrahman, and Poesio, Massimo. 2005. Concept Learning and Categorization from the Web. Pages 103–108.of: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
Altmann, Gerry T.M., and Kamide, Yuki. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, Gerry T.M., and Kamide, Yuki. 2007. The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 502–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Mark, Vigliocco, Gabriella, and Vinson, David P. 2009. Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116, 463–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashcraft, Mark H. 1978. Property norms for typical and atypical items from 17 categories: A description and discussion. Memory & Cognition, 6, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aston, Guy, and Burnard, Lou. 1998. The BNC handbook. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Collin F., Fillmore, Charles J., and Lowe, John B. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet Project. Pages 86–90.of: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.
Balasubramanian, Niranjan, Soderland, Stephen, Mausam, and Etzioni, Oren. 2013. Generating Coherent Event Schemas at Scale. Pages 1721–1731.of: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2013).
Barbu, Eduard. 2008. Combining methods to learn feature-norm-like concept descriptions. Pages 9–16.of: Bridging the Gap between Semantic Theory and Computational Simulations: Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2008 Workshop on Distributional Semantics.
Barbu, Eduard, and Poesio, Massimo. 2008. A Comparison of WordNet and Feature Norms. Pages 56–73.of: Proceedings of the 4th Global Wordnet Conference (GWC 2008).
Baroni, Marco, and Lenci, Alessandro. 2010. Distributional Memory: A General Framework for Corpus-based Semantics. Computational Linguistics, 36(4), 673–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, Marco, Evert, Stefan, and Lenci, Alessandro (eds). 2008. Bridging the Gap between Semantic Theory and Computational Simulations: Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2008 Workshop on Distributional Semantics.
Baroni, Marco, Murphy, Brian, Barbu, Eduard, and Poesio, Massimo. 2010. Strudel: A Corpus-Based Semantic Model Based on Properties and Types. Cognitive Science, 34, 222–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bicknell, Klinton, Elman, Jeffrey L., Hare, Mary, McRae, Ken, and Kutas, Marta. 2010. Effects of event knowledge in processing verbal arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 489–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bullinaria, John A., and Levy, Joseph P. 2007. Extracting semantic representations from word co-occurrence statistics: a computational study. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 510–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bullinaria, John A., and Levy, Joseph P. 2012. Extracting semantic representations from word co-occurrence statistics: Stop-lists, stemming, and SVD. Behavior Research Methods, 44(3), 890–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chambers, Nathanael. 2013. Event Schema Induction with a Probabilistic Entity-Driven Model. Pages 1797–1807.of: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2013).
Chambers, Nathanael, and Jurafsky, Daniel. 2008. Unsupervised Learning of Narrative Event Chains. Pages 789–797.of: Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Chambers, Nathanael, and Jurafsky, Daniel. 2009. Unsupervised Learning of Narrative Schemas and Their Participants. Pages 602–610.of: Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP.
Cheung, Jackie Chi Kit, Poon, Hoifung, and Vanderwende, Lucy. 2013. Probabilistic frame induction. Pages 837–846.of: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies.
Church, Kenneth Ward, and Hanks, Patrick. 1991. Word Association Norms, Mutual Information, and Lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 16(1), 22–29.Google Scholar
Collins, Allan M., and Loftus, Elizabeth F. 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collobert, Ronan, Weston, Jason, Bottou, Léon, Karlen, Michael, Kuksa, Pavel, and Kavukcuoglu, Koray. 2011. Natural Language Processing (Almost) from Scratch. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2493–2537.Google Scholar
Cree, George S., McRae, Ken, and McNorgan, Chris. 1999. An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: simulating semantic priming. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 371–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Deyne, Simon, Verheyen, Steven, Ameel, Eef, Vanpaemel, Wolf, Dry, Matthew J., Voorspoels, Wouter, and Storms, Gert. 2008. Exemplar by feature applicability matrices and other Dutch normative data for semantic concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 1030–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Deyne, Simon, Verheyen, Steven, and Storms, Gert. 2015. The role of corpus size and syntax in deriving lexico-semantic representations for a wide range of concepts. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1643–1664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devereux, Barry J., Pilkington, Nicholas, Poibeau, Thierry, and Korhonen, Anna. 2009. Towards Unrestricted, Large-Scale Acquisition of Feature-Based Conceptual Representations from Corpus Data. Research on Language and Computation, 7(2-4), 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devereux, Barry J., Tyler, Lorraine K., Geertzen, Jeroen, and Randall, Billi. 2014. The Centre for Speech, Language and the Brain (CSLB) concept property norms. Behavior Research Methods, 46(5), 1119–1127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dowty, David. 1989. On the Semantic Content of the Notion of Thematic Role. Pages 69–130 of: Chierchia, Gennaro, Partee, Barbara H., and Turner, Raymond (eds), Properties Types and Meaning, Vol. II, Semantic Issues. Dordrecht; Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erk, Katrin. 2007. A Simple, Similarity-based Model for Selectional Preferences. Pages 216–223 of: Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics.
Erk, Katrin, Padó, Sebastian, and Padó, Ulrike. 2010. A Flexible, Corpus-DrivenModel of Regular and Inverse Selectional Preferences. Computational Linguistics, 36(4), 723–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evert, Stefan. 2009. Corpora and Collocations. Chap. 58, pages 1212–1248.of: Lüdeling, Anke, and Kytö, Merja (eds), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fagarasan, Luana, Vecchi, Eva Maria and Clark, Stephen. 2015. From distributional semantics to feature norms: Grounding semantic models in human perceptual data. Pages 52–57.of: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computational Semantics.
Fellbaum, Christiane. 1998. Word Net - An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ferretti, Todd R., McRae, Ken, and Hatherell, Andrea. 2001. Integrating Verbs, Situation Schemas, and Thematic Role Concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(4), 516–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferretti, Todd R., Kutas, Marta, and McRae, Ken. 2007. Verb Aspect and the Activation of Event Knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning,Memory, and Cognition, 33(1), 182–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The Case for Case. Pages 0–88.of: Bach, Emmon, and Harms, Robert T. (eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Fort, Karën, Adda, Gilles, and Cohen, K. Bretonnel. 2011. Amazon Mechanical Turk: Gold Mine or Coal Mine? Computational Linguistics, 37(2), 413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frermann, Lea, Titov, Ivan, and Pinkal, Manfred. 2014. A Hierarchical Bayesian Model for Unsupervised Induction of Script Knowledge. Pages 49–57.of: Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Garrard, Peter, Ralph, Matthew. A., Lambon, Hodges, John R., and Patterson, Karalyn. 2001. Prototypicality, distinctiveness, and intercorrelation: Analyses of the semantic attributes of living and nonliving concepts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18(2), 125–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gildea, Daniel, and Jurafsky, Daniel. 2002. Automatic Labeling of Semantic Roles. Computational Linguistics, 28(3), 245–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Clayton, Sayeed, Asad B., and Demberg, Vera. 2015. Improving unsupervised vector-space thematic fit evaluation via role-filler prototype clustering. Pages 21–31 of: Human Language Technologies: The 2015 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL.
Grefenstette, Gregory. 1994. Explorations in Automatic Thesaurus Discovery. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. PhD thesis,Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hampton, James A. 1979. Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(4), 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, Mary, Elman, Jeffrey L., Tabaczynski, Tracy, and McRae, Ken. 2009. The Wind Chilled the Spectators, but the Wine Just Chilled: Sense, Structure, and Sentence Comprehension. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 610–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, Zellig S. 1954. Distributional structure. Word, 10, 146–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, Karl Moritz, Das, Dipanjan, Weston, Jason, and Ganchev, Kuzman. 2014. Semantic Frame Identification with Distributed Word Representations. Pages 1448–1458 of: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Hinton, Geoffrey E., and Shallice, Tim. 1991. Lesioning an attractor network: Investigations of acquired dyslexia. Psychological Review, 98, 74–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3), 369–411.Google Scholar
Kamide, Yuki, Altmann, Gerry T.M., and Haywood, Sarah L. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Colin, Devereux, Barry, and Korhonen, Anna. 2010. Acquiring Human-like Feature-based Conceptual Representations from Corpora. Pages 61–69.of: Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 First Workshop on Computational Neurolinguistics.
Kelly, Colin, Devereux, Barry J., and Korhonen, Anna. 2013. Automatic Extraction of Property Norm-Like Data From Large Text Corpora. Cognitive Science, 38(4), 638–682.Google ScholarPubMed
Keuleers, Emmanuel, and Balota, David A. 2015. Megastudies, Crowdsourcing, and Large Datasets in Psycholinguistics: An Overview Of Recent Developments. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1457–1468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kingsbury, Paul, and Palmer, Martha. 2003. PropBank: the Next Level of TreeBank. In: Proceedings of Treebanks and Lexical Theories.
Kipper, K., Korhonen, A., Ryant, N., and Palmer, M. 2008. A large-scale classification of English verbs. Language Resources and Evaluation, 42(1), 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kipper-Schuler, K. 2005. Verbnet: A broad-coverage, comprehensive verb lexicon. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Kittur, Aniket, Nickerson, Jeffrey V., Bernstein, Michael, Gerber, Elizabeth, Shaw, Aaron, Zimmerman, John, Lease, Matt, and Horton, John. 2013. The Future of Crowd Work. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW –13).
Kremer, Gerhard, and Baroni, Marco. 2011. A Set of Semantic Norms for German and Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lapesa, Gabriella, and Evert, Stefan. 2014. A Large Scale Evaluation of Distributional Semantic Models: Parameters, Interactions and Model Selection. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2, 531–545.Google Scholar
Lebani, Gianluca E. 2012. STaRS.sys: designing and building a commonsenseknowledge enriched wordnet for therapeutic purposes. PhD thesis, University of Trento.
Lebani, Gianluca E., Bondielli, Alessandro, and Lenci, Alessandro. 2015. You Are What You Do. An Empirical Characterization of the Semantic Content of the Thematic Roles for a Group of Italian Verbs. Journal of Cognitive Science, 16(4), 401–430.Google Scholar
Lenci, Alessandro. 2008. Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. A foreword. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 20(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Lenci, Alessandro. 2011. Composing and Updating Verb Argument Expectations: A Distributional Semantic Model. Pages 58–66.of: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL).
Lenci, Alessandro, Baroni, Marco, Cazzolli, Giulia, and Marotta, Giovanna. 2013. BLIND: A set of semantic feature norms from the congenitally blind. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1218–1233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1218–1233.
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lin, Dekang. 1998. Automatic Retrieval and Clustering of Similar Words. Pages 768–774 of: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.
Liu, Ding, and Gildea, Daniel. 2010. Semantic Role Features for Machine Translation. Pages 716–724.of: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics.
Manning, Christopher D., Raghavan, Prabhakar, and Schütze, Hinrich. 2008. An Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Màrquez, Lluís, Carreras, Xavier, Litkowski, Kenneth C., Stevenson, Suzanne (eds). 2008. Computational Linguistics: Special Issue on Semantic Role Labeling, 34(2).CrossRef
Matsuki, Kazunaga, Chow, Tracy, Hare, Mary, Elman, Jeffrey L., Scheepers, Christoph, and McRae, Ken. 2011. Event-Based Plausibility Immediately Influences On-Line Language Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 913–934.Google ScholarPubMed
McRae, Ken, and Cree, George S. 2001. Factors underlying category-specific semantic deficits. In: Forde, E. M. E., and Humphreys, G. (eds), Category Specificity in Mind and Brain. Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
McRae, Ken, and Matsuki, Kazunaga. 2009. People use their knowledge of common events to understand language, and do so as quickly as possible. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(6), 1417–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, Ken, De Sa, Virginia R., and Seidenberg, Mark S. 1997a. On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(2), 99–130.Google ScholarPubMed
McRae, Ken, Ferretti, Todd R., and Amyote, Liane. 1997b. Thematic Roles as Verbspecific Concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2/3), 137–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, Ken, Spivey-Knowlton, Michael J., and Tanenhaus, Michael K. 1998. Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-line Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(3), 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, Ken, Hare, Mary, Elman, Jeffrey L., and Ferretti, Todd R. 2005a. A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns. Memory & Cognition, 33(7), 1174–1184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McRae, Ken, Cree, George S., Seidenberg, Mark S., and McNorgan, Chris. 2005b. Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 547–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, George A., and Charles,Walter G. 1991. Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montefinese, Maria, Ambrosini, Ettore, Fairfield, Beth, and Mammarella, Nicola. 2013. Semantic memory: A feature-based analysis and new norms for Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 440–461.Google ScholarPubMed
Nivre, Joakim, Hall, Johan, Nilsson, Jens, Chanev, Atanas, Eryigit, Gülsen, Kübler, Sandrs, Marinov, Svetoslav, and Marsi, Erwin. 2007. MaltParser: A languageindependent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering, 13(6), 95–135.Google Scholar
Padó, Sebastian, and Lapata, Mirella. 2007. Dependency-Based Construction of Semantic Space Models. Computational Linguistics, 33(2), 161–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padó, Ulrike. 2007. The integration of syntax and semantic plausibility in a wide-coverage model of human sentence processing. PhD thesis, Saarland University.
Palmer, Martha, Gildea, Daniel, and Xue, Nianwen. 2010. Semantic Role Labeling. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 3(1), 1–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poesio, Massimo, Barbu, Eduard, Giuliano, Claudio, and Romano, Lorenza. 2008. Supervised relation extraction for ontology learning from text based on a cognitively plausible model of relations. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Ontology Learning and Population.
Pradhan, Sameer, Moschitti, Alessandro, Xue, Nianwen, Uryupina, Olga, and Zhang, Yuchen. 2012. CoNLL-2012 Shared Task: Modeling Multilingual Unrestricted Coreference in OntoNotes. Pages 1–40.of: Joint Conference on EMNLP and CoNLL - Shared Task.
Preiss, Judita, Briscoe, Ted, and Korhonen, Anna. 2007. A System for Large-Scale Acquisition of Verbal, Nominal and Adjectival Subcategorization Frames from Corpora. Pages 912–919.of: Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL 2007).
Recasens, Marta, Màrquez, Lluís, Sapena, Emili, Martí, M Antònia, Taulé, Mariona, Hoste, Véronique, Poesio, Massimo, and Versley, Yannick. 2010. Semeval-2010 task 1: Coreference resolution in multiple languages. Pages 1–8.of: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, ACL 2010.
Regneri, Michaela, Koller, Alexander, and Pinkal, Manfred. 2010. Learning Script Knowledge with Web Experiments. Pages 979–988.of: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Reisinger, Drew, Rudinger, Rachel, Ferraro, Francis, Harman, Craig, Rawlins, Kyle, and van Durme, Benjamin. 2015. Semantic Proto-Roles. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3, 475–488.Google Scholar
Roller, Stephen, and Schulte im Walde, Sabine. 2014. Feature Norms of German Noun Compounds. Pages 104–108.of: Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Multiword Expressions (MWE 2014).
Rosch, Eleanor, and Mervis, Carolyn B. 1975. Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, Michael, and Frank, Anette. 2013. Automatically Identifying Implicit Arguments to Improve Argument Linking and Coherence Modeling. Pages 306–316.of: Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM).
Roth, Michael, and Lapata, Mirella. 2015. Context-aware Frame-Semantic Role Labeling. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3, 449–460.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Gorinski, Philip, and Sporleder, Caroline. 2011. In Search of Missing Arguments: A Linguistic Approach. Pages 331–338.of: Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing.
Sahlgren, Magnus. 2006. The word-space model: Using distributional analysis to represent syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between words in highdimensional vector spaces. PhD thesis, Stockholm University.
Sahlgren, Magnus. 2008. The distributional hypothesis. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 20(1), 33–53.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giuseppe, and Lombardi, Luigi. 2004. Semantic relevance and semantic disorders. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(3), 439–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmid, Helmut. 1994. Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. Pages 44–49 of: Proceedings of the international conference on new methods in language processing.
Schulte im Walde, Sabine, and Melinger, Alissa. 2008. An in-depth look into the co-occurrence distribution of semantic associates. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 20(1), 87–123.Google Scholar
Shen, Dan, and Lapata, Mirella. 2007. Using Semantic Roles to Improve Question Answering. Pages 12–21.of: Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning.
Smith, Edward E., Shoben, Edward J., and Rips, Lance J. 1974. Structure and Process in Semantic Memory: A Featural Model for Semantic Decisions. Psychological Review, 81(3), 18–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, Rion, O'Connor, Brendan, Jurafsky, Daniel, and Ng, Andrew Y. 2008. Cheap and Fast-but is It Good? Evaluating Non-expert Annotations for Natural Language Tasks. Pages 254–263.of: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
Steyvers, Mark, Smyth, Padhraic, and Chemuduganta, Chaitanya. 2011. Combining Background Knowledge and Learned Topics. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(1), 18–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storms, Gert, Navarro, Daniel J., and Lee, Michael D. (eds). 2010. Acta Psychologica Special Issue on Formal Modeling of Semantic Concepts. Vol. 133 (3).PubMed
Acta Psychologica Special Issue on Formal Modeling of Semantic Concepts. Vol. 133 (3).
Taylor, Wilson. 1953. Cloze Procedure: A New Tool for Measuring Readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415–433.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Eléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Traxler, Matthew J., Foss, Donald J., Seely, Rachel E., Kaup, Barbara, and Morris, Robin K. 2001. Priming in Sentence Processing: Intralexical Spreading Activation, Schemas, and SituationModels. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 581–595.Google Scholar
Turney, Peter D., and Pantel, Patrick. 2010. From Frequency to Meaning: Vector Space Models of Semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37, 141–188.Google Scholar
van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1999. Generalized semantic roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Pages 373–389.of: Corblin, F., Dobrovie-Sorin, C., and Marandin, J.-M. (eds), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics. The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar
Versley, Yannick, Ponzetto, Simone Paolo, Poesio, Massimo, Eidelman, Vladimir, Jern, Alan, Smith, Jason, Yang, Xiaofeng, and Moschitti, Alessandro. 2008. BART: A Modular Toolkit for Coreference Resolution. Pages 9–12.of: Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technologies: Demo Session.
Vigliocco, Gabriella, Vinson, David P., Lewis,William D., and Garrett, Merrill F. 2004. Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48(4), 422–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigliocco, Gabriella, Warren, Jane, Siri, Simona, Arciuli, Joanne, Scott, Sophie, and Wise, Richard. 2006. The role of semantics and grammatical class in the neural representation of words. Cerebral Cortex, 16(12), 1790–1796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinson, David P., and Vigliocco, Gabriella. 2008. Semantic feature production norms for a large set of objects and events. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 183–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vinson, David P., Vigliocco, Gabriella, Cappa, Stefano F., and Siri, Simona. 2003. The breakdown of semantic knowledge: Insights from a statistical model of meaning representation. Brain and Language, 86, 347–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, Shumin, and Palmer, Martha. 2011. Semantic Mapping Using Automatic Word Alignment and Semantic Role Labeling. Pages 21–30.of: Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Syntax, Semantics and Structure in Statistical Translation.
Zapirain, Benat, Agirre, Eneko, Màrquez, Lluís, and Surdeanu, Mihai. 2013. Selectional preferences for semantic role classification. Computational Linguistics, 39(3), 631–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×