Interpretation of Copredicative Sentences: A Rich Underspecification Account of Polysemy

Ortega-Andrés, Marina

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-56437-7_9

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These relations are of a distinctly different nature, therefore, the activation patterns are expected to be different in each case. The idea matches the results of some neural activities that suggest that different neurological areas are activated when the words lunch and book are interpreted (Ortega-Andrés 2021;Tao, 2015). In the case of lunch, for example, there is an specific ontological relation between the object food that is eaten and the even-lunch, such that the food has to be identified as the particular food that is eaten in the particular event.…”

Section: Classical Mereological Theories Of Dot Objectssupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Moreover, copredication has been used as a diagnostic test for polysemy (Copestake & Briscoe, 1995;Cruse, 1986;Jezek & Vieu, 2014), which means that the availability of copredication is taken to reflect straight-forward access to the different related senses, while failed copredication tests indicate that one of the senses is currently not available. However, recent work (Moldovan, 2021;Ortega-Andrés, 2020;Schumacher, 2013) suggests that the incompatibility of the two apparently polysemous senses is heavily context-bound, which means that copredication should not be used as a test for determining whether a word is polysemous or not. Some polysemous words form stable copredicative patters, while others do not.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…other theories that give a tentative answer to the question of why some polysemous words copredicate and others do not. For instance, Arapinis and Vieu (2015)despite the ontological issues-and the Activation Package Theory (Ortega-Andrés, 2021;Ortega-Andrés & Vicente, 2019;Vicente, 2021) give some general criteria for distinguishing copredicative words that typically copredicate from those polysemous words that do not typically allow copredication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Denotation of Copredicative Nouns

Ortega-Andrés

2022

Erkenn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Copredication is the phenomenon whereby two or more predicates seem to require that their argument denotes different things. The denotation of words that copredicate has been broadly discussed. In this paper, I investigate the metaphysics behind this question. Thus, mereological theories of dot objects claim that these nouns denote complex entities; Asher (Lexical meaning in context, Cambridge University Press, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511793936) thinks that they denote bare particulars; and the Activation Package Theory contends that they stand for multiple denotations. According to the Activation Package Theory, copredicative nouns stand for complex knowledge structures that offer a range of multiple potential denotations. In this paper, I claim that the Activation Package Theory contributes to solve some of the metaphysical questions that arise from copredication.

show abstract

Section: Classical Mereological Theories Of Dot Objectssupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Denotation of Copredicative Nouns

Ortega-Andrés

2022

Erkenn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They associate knowledge structures with lexical meanings of words. Senses that are part of the structure form an activation package in which the activation of one of the senses causes the activation other senses (see also Ortega-Andrés, 2021). Hogeweg and Vicente (2020: 867) argue that some semantic phenomena can be explained only if we assume a rich lexical representation.…”

Section: Psycholinguistic and Theoretical Approaches To Polysemy Repr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Spectrum of Sense Remoteness in Polysemy: Bridging Computational and Theoretical Lexicography with Psycholinguistics (Part 1)

Klimek-Jankowska

Hwaszcz

Wieczorek

2022

Stud. Pol. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ten dwuczęściowy artykuł konsoliduje fakty dotyczące polisemii z zakresu psycholingwistyki oraz leksykografii teoretycznej i obliczeniowej oraz prezentuje wyniki badań ilościowych i jakościowych przeprowadzonych na dużym zbiorze danych polisemicznych w języku polskim, na podstawie których proponujemy uszczegółowioną klasyfikację polisemii oraz opracowujemy poszerzone spektrum podobieństwa sensów słów wieloznacznych. W pierwszej części publikacji omówiono psycholingwistyczne modele reprezentacji polisemii w mentalnym leksykonie oraz wprowadzono podstawowe spektrum podobieństwa sensów, zaproponowane w literaturze przedmiotu. Przedstawiono też metodologię oraz wyniki badań ilościowych przeprowadzonych dla par sensów wyrazów polisemicznych losowo wybranych ze Słowosieci i pozyskanych dzięki wsparciu Centrum Technologii Językowych CLARIN-PL (polskiej sekcji europejskiej infrastruktury badawczej CLARIN ERIC). Wyniki naszego badania pokazują, że najczęściej reprezentowaną polisemią są następujące typy: polisemia gniazdowa, polisemia przez metaforę i polisemia przez metonimię. W drugiej części publikacji poszerzamy spektrum podobieństwa sensów i uszczegóławiamy klasyfikację polisemii na podstawie badania jakościowego. Przedstawiamy także nowe obserwacje na temat różnych typów polisemii wchodzących w skład tego spektrum, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem polisemii gniazdowej. This two-part paper bridges insights from psycholinguistics and from theoretical and computational lexicography to develop a fine-grained classification of polysemy organized along a wider spectrum of sense remoteness of ambiguous words in Polish based on the investigation of a large collection of linguistic data.1 In the first part, we equip readers with background knowledge on different psycholinguistic views on polysemy and we introduce the basic spectrum of sense remoteness proposed in earlier literature. We also present the methodology of our research and we report the results of our quantitative study based on a large sample of sense pairs randomly extracted from plWordNet This two-part paper bridges insights from psycholinguistics and from theoretical and computational lexicography to develop a fine-grained classification of polysemy organized along a wider spectrum of sense remoteness of ambiguous words in Polish based on the investigation of a large collection of linguistic data.1 In the first part, we equip readers with background knowledge on different psycholinguistic views on polysemy and we introduce the basic spectrum of sense remoteness proposed in earlier literature. We also present the methodology of our research and we report the results of our quantitative study based on a large sample of sense pairs randomly extracted from plWordNet (Słowosieć) thanks to the resources received from the CLARIN-PL Language Technology Center (the Polish section of the European research infrastructure CLARIN ERIC). We show that the most widely represented polysemy types are nested polysemy, polysemy by metaphor and polysemy by metonymy. The second part proposes an extended spectrum of sense remoteness and presents insights on different types of polysemy included in this spectrum with a special attention paid to nested polysemy.

show abstract

Polysemy—Evidence from Linguistics, Behavioral Science, and Contextualized Language Models

Haber,

Poesio

2024

Computational Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polysemy is the type of lexical ambiguity where a word has multiple distinct but related interpretations. In the past decade, it has been the subject of a great many studies across multiple disciplines including linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, and computational linguistics, which have made it increasingly clear that the complexity of polysemy precludes simple, universal answers, especially concerning the representation and processing of polysemous words. But fuelled by the growing availability of large, crowdsourced datasets providing substantial empirical evidence; improved behavioral methodology; and the development of contextualised language models capable of encoding the fine-grained meaning of a word within a given context, the literature on polysemy recently has developed more complex theoretical analyses. In this survey we discuss these recent contributions to the investigation of polysemy against the backdrop of a long legacy of research across multiple decades and disciplines. Our aim is to bring together different perspectives to achieve a more complete picture of the heterogeneity and complexity of the phenomenon of polysemy. Specifically, we highlight evidence supporting a range of hybrid models of the mental processing of polysemes. These hybrid models combine elements from different previous theoretical approaches to explain patterns and idiosyncrasies in the processing of polysemous that the best known models so far have failed to account for. Our literature review finds that i) traditional analyses of polysemy can be limited in their generalisability by loose definitions and selective materials; ii) linguistic tests provide useful evidence on individual cases, but fail to capture the full range of factors involved in the processing of polysemous sense extensions; and iii) recent behavioural (psycho) linguistics studies, largescale annotation efforts and investigations leveraging contextualised language models provide accumulating evidence suggesting that polysemous sense similarity covers a wide spectrum between identity of sense and homonymy-like unrelatedness of meaning. We hope that the interdisciplinary account of polysemy provided in this survey inspires further fundamental research on the nature of polysemy and better equips applied research to deal with the complexity surrounding the phenomenon, e.g. by enabling the development of benchmarks and testing paradigms for large language models informed by a greater portion of the rich evidence on the phenomenon currently available.

show abstract

Interpretation of Copredicative Sentences: A Rich Underspecification Account of Polysemy

Cited by 3 publications

References 32 publications

The Denotation of Copredicative Nouns

The Denotation of Copredicative Nouns

The Spectrum of Sense Remoteness in Polysemy: Bridging Computational and Theoretical Lexicography with Psycholinguistics (Part 1)

Polysemy—Evidence from Linguistics, Behavioral Science, and Contextualized Language Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About