Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
From Distributional Semantics to Conceptual Spaces: A Novel Computational Method for Concept Creation Cover

From Distributional Semantics to Conceptual Spaces: A Novel Computational Method for Concept Creation

Open Access
|Dec 2015

References

  1. Allott, N., and Textor, M. 2012. Lexical Pragmatic Adjustment and the Nature of Ad Hoc Concepts.4(2).
  2. Arora, S.; Li, Y.; Liang, Y.; Ma, T.; and Risteski, A. 2015. Random Walks on Context Spaces: Towards an Explanation of the Mysteries of Semantic Word Embeddings.abs/1502.03520.
  3. Baroni, M., and Lenci, A. 2010. Distributional Memory: A General Framework for Corpus Based Semantics.36(4):673–721.
  4. Baroni, M.; Dinu, G.; and Kruszewski, G. 2014. Don’t count, predict! A systematic comparison of context-counting vs. context-predicting semantic vectors. In, 238–247. Baltimore, Maryland: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  5. Barsalou, L. W. 1993. Flexibility, Structure, and Linguistic Vagary in Concepts: Manifestations of Compositional System of Perceptual Symbols. In Collins, A. F.; Gathercole, S. E.; Conway, M. A.; and Morris, P. E., eds.,. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 29–101.
  6. Bengio, Y.; Ducharme, R.; Vincent, P.; and Jauvin, C. 2003. A Neural Probabilistic Language Model.3:1137–1155.
  7. Blei, D. M.; Ng, A. Y.; and Jordan, M. I. 2003. Latent Dirichlet Allocation.3:993–1022.
  8. Boden, M. A. 1990.. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
  9. Brown, P. F.; deSouza, P. V.; Mercer, R. L.; Della Pietra, V. J.; and Lai, J. C. 1992. Class-Based n-gram Models of Natural Language.18(4):467–479.
  10. Carston, R. 2010. Lexical Pragmatics, Ad Hoc Concepts and Metaphor.22(1):153–180.
  11. Cimiano, P.; Staab, S.; and Tane, J. 2003. Automatic acquisition of taxonomies from text: FCA meets NLP. In.
  12. Clark, A. 2006. Language, Embodiment, and the Cognitive Niche.10(8).
  13. Clark, S. 2015. Vector Space Models of Lexical Meaning. In Lappin, S., and Fox, C., eds.,. Wiley-Blackwell.
  14. Collobert, R., and Weston, J. 2008. A Unified Architecture for Natural Language Processing: Deep Neural Networks with Multitask Learning. In.
  15. Davidson, D. 1974. On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme. In, volume 47, 5–20.
  16. Deerwester, S.; Dumais, S. T.; Furnas, G. W.; Landauer, T. K.; and Harshman, R. 1990. Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis.41(6):391–407.
  17. Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks.22(4):133–187.
  18. Fellbaum, C., ed. 1998.. MIT Press.
  19. Gärdenfors, P. 2000.. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  20. Gibson, J. J. 1979.. Boston: Houghton Miffline.
  21. Grefenstette, E., and Sadrzadeh, M. 2011. Experimental Support for a Categorical Compositional Distributional Model of Meaning..
  22. Harris, Z. 1957. Co-Occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure.33(3):283–340.
  23. Hassan, S., and Mihalcea, R. 2011. Semantic Relatedness Using Salient Semantic Analysis. In.
  24. Hill, F.; Korhonen, A.; and Bentz, C. 2014. A Quantitative Empirical Analysis of the Abstract/Concrete Distinction.38:162–177.
  25. Huang, E. H.; Socher, R.; Manning, C. D.; and Ng, A. Y. 2012. Improving Word Representations via Global Context and Multiple Word Prototypes. In, volume Long Papers: Volume 1, 873–882.
  26. Kanejiya, D.; Kumar, A.; and Prasad, S. 2003. Automatic Evaluation of Students Answers using Syntactically Enhanced LSA. In, 53–60.
  27. Koestler, A. 1964.. London, UK: Hutchinson.
  28. Lapesa, G., and Evert, S. 2013. Evaluating Neighbor Rank and Distance Measures as Predictors of Semantic Priming. In.
  29. Levy, O.; Goldberg, Y.; and Dagan, I. 2015. Improving Distributional Similarity with Lessons Learned from Word Embeddings.3
  30. Lund, K., and Burgess, K. 1996. Producing High-Dimensional Semantic Spaces from Lexical Co-Occurrence.28(2):203–208.
  31. Manning, C., and Schütze, H. 1999.. MIT Press.
  32. Mikolov, T.; Chen, K.; Corrado, G.; and Dean, J. 2013. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. In.
  33. Mikolov, T.; Yih, W.-T.; and Zweig, G. 2013. Linguistic Regularities in Continuous Space Word Representations. In, 246–251.
  34. Milajevs, D.; Kartsaklis, D.; Sadrzadeh, M.; and Purver, M. 2014. Evaluating Neural Word Representations in Tensor-Based Compositional Settings. In, 708–719. Doha, Qatar: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  35. Moffat, D., and Kelly, M. 2006. An investigation into people’s bias against computational creativity in music composition. In.
  36. Padó, S., and Lapata, M. 2007. Dependency-Based Construction of Semantic Space Models.33(2):161–199.
  37. Pearce, M. T.; Müllensiefen, D.; and Wiggins, G. A. 2010. The role of expectation and probabilistic learning in auditory boundary perception: A model comparison.39(10):1367–1391.
  38. Pennington, J.; Socher, R.; and Manning, C. D. 2014. GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. In.
  39. Ritchie, G. 2007. Some empirical criteria for attributing creativity to a computer program.17(1):67–99.
  40. Rychlý, P., and Kilgarriff, A. 2007. An efficient algorithm for building a distributional thesaurus (and other Sketch Engine developments). In, 41–44. Prague, Czech Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  41. Schütze, H. 1992. Dimensions of Meaning. In, 787–796.
  42. Snow, R.; Jurafsky, D.; and Ng, A. Y. 2006. Semantic Taxonomy Induction from Heterogenous Evidence. In, 801–808. Sydney, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  43. Socher, R.; Huval, B.; Manning, C. D.; and Ng, A. Y. 2012. Semantic Compositionality Through Recursive Matrix-vector Spaces. In, EMNLP-CoNLL ’12, 1201–1211. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  44. Turney, P. D., and Pantel, P. 2010. From Frequency to Meaning: Vector Space Models of Semantics.(37):141–188.
  45. Widdows, D. 2004.. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  46. Wiggins, G. A. 2006. A Preliminary Framework for Description, Analysis and Comparison of Creative Systems.19(7):449–458.
  47. Yogatama, D.; Faruqui, M.; Dyer, C.; and Smith, N. A. 2015. Learning Word Representations with Hierarchical Sparse Coding. In.
Language: English
Page range: 55 - 86
Submitted on: May 24, 2015
Accepted on: Nov 19, 2015
Published on: Dec 30, 2015
Published by: Artificial General Intelligence Society
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2015 Stephen McGregor, Kat Agres, Matthew Purver, Geraint A. Wiggins, published by Artificial General Intelligence Society
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.