top of page

Garden Club Tour Group

Public·429 members

New Amsterdam(2018)349 Available Subtitles


Click Here - https://urlin.us/2tli52





With the set of goals outlined in the previous paragraphs in mind, we embarked upon the empirical studies of relative meaning frequency that we describe next. As a guiding assumption, we reasoned that there should be a broad alignment between how often people encounter a homonym in each of its meanings in their linguistic experience, and how these meanings are relatively activated in an experimental task (whether an indirect experimental assessment such as a free association norming task, or an explicit meaning frequency rating task). We therefore collected two extensive sets of ratings, one of the meanings a given homonym elicits in the natural language context of lines of movie and television subtitles, and another of the meanings that appear to have been activated to generate particular associates in a free association task.


To preview our results, there was general agreement but also a number of important and potentially theoretically informative differences between the norms collected using each method. These results therefore have both practical implications for how to measure and evaluate estimates of meaning frequency, as well as theoretical implications regarding how knowledge of meaning frequency is stored and retrieved in different contexts. In service of facilitating related and complementary research into these issues, we have made all of our rated data and meaning frequency estimates available for download at: www.blairarmstrong.net/homonymnorms/.


Second, as noted earlier, previous work has found a surprisingly low correlation between one set of meaning frequencies estimated from free association norms (Twilley et al., 1994) and explicit ratings of meaning frequency (Armstrong et al., 2012). Here, we evaluate the robustness of this finding in a dataset that contains approximately 50% more homonyms. Moreover, in contrast to the free association task of Twilley, Dixon, Taylor, and Clark (1994), the Nelson et al., (2004) data also includes non-homonyms as cues; this enables us to evaluate if the previous findings were particular to that set of homonyms and specific set of methods. Proceeding from our simple assumption regarding how meanings are represented and how these representations are tapped in either indirect tasks (e.g., classification of free associates) or direct tasks (e.g., explicit meaning frequency estimates), we predict a higher correlation between explicit ratings and the subtitles measure than between explicit ratings and the free association norms. This is because explicit ratings and free association both aim to hone in on frequency effects, whereas indirect measures based on free association may be less sensitive to meaning frequency because they are influenced by other cue-associate relationships. For example, these relationships include whether two words rhyme, can combine to make a new word (e.g., wrist-watch), are category coordinates (e.g., robin-sparrow), and so on (Armstrong et al., 2012).


Because the methods were very similar for the classification of free associates and for the film and television subtitles, we report all of the methods for both tasks before proceeding to the results from both datasets. We begin by describing the methods for the free associate classification task; for the subtitles classification task, we only report the ways in which that task differed from the first task.


The second norming task was analogous to the first, except that instead of classifying which homonym meaning was evoked by a particular free associate, raters classified which homonym meaning was evoked by a line of dialog extracted from a corpus of movie and television subtitles. Except as described below, all methods for the second task were identical to those used in the first task.


Stimuli consisted of individual lines of subtitles extracted from the same corpus of movie and television subtitles used to derive the SUBTL word frequency estimates (Brysbaert & New, 2009), downloaded from For copyright reasons, each line appears in a random order in the corpus. Therefore, participants are effectively rating each subtitle line without access to broader information about the context in which the line occurs.


Recall that in the SUBTL data, we extracted for rating a sample of 100 lines of subtitles for almost all homonyms, or all available lines for a few homonyms that were part of fewer than 100 lines. As for the FAN data, to compute biggest for the subtitles data, we included all lines which showed agreement regardless of confidence level across the two raters. We grouped these rated lines for each homonym into subgroups according to the meaning classification offered by the raters. The estimate of biggest for each homonym was then simply the percentage of the lines in the meaning subgroup with the most lines.


Combined scatterplots and correlograms (r-values) depicting the relationships between the four measures. The full set of available data for each pair of measures was included, so different numbers of observations are included in each cell. Larger and darker red (vs. black) numbers indicate larger correlations. All correlations were significant, p< .05, two-tailed


Next, we explored the unique variance explained by measures of relative meaning frequency after controlling for the effects of other psycholinguistic variables. To do so, we first computed the residuals from multiple regressions that used the results from each mega-study as the dependent variable (ACC or RT) and included log10 word frequency (Brysbaert and New, 2009), orthographic Levenshtein distance (OLD; Yarkoni et al., 2008), number of phonemes, number of letters, number of syllables, number of senses, verb interpretations, noun interpretations, and letter bigram frequency as predictors. Except as cited above, all of these data were taken from the covariate data provided as part of the eDom norms (Armstrong et al., 2012). We then created simple regression models that used the different measures of relative meaning frequency to predict the residuals. In essence, this corresponds to a stepwise regression wherein the meaning frequency estimate is added last. The results are presented in Table 2 for all available data for each meaning frequency estimate (Table 3 in the Appendix includes the analyses of the intersection data).


Before embarking on our own norming project, we also examined whether alternative sets of more realistic labeled (classified) data may have been developed in the domain of computational linguistics, which has been somewhat divorced from the cognitive psychology literature on this topic. There, we did discover data that was somewhat in line with our aims, but which we still felt was lacking in some respects if the aim is to build a tight link between human representations of word meaning and computational models. For example, several computational linguistic resources have been developed which consist of interpretation-tagged annotations of natural text (e.g., Passonneau et al., 2012; Taghipour & Ng, 2015). Our main issue with using these corpora to estimate meaning frequency, however, was that they typically forfeit significant depth and amount (if any) of human annotations in order to gain breadth of coverage and total number of annotations (e.g., Taghipour & Ng, 2015). At the opposite end of the spectrum, forgoing breadth for depth, several corpora have been developed that provide very extensive sets of annotated data but for far fewer words. For example, corpora exist that provide 4000 + sentences for each of the words line, hard, and serve annotated with the appropriate interpretation (Leacock, Towell, & Voorhees, 1993; Leacock, Miller, & Chodorow, 1998). Closer to our own work, which strikes a balance between breadth and depth, the DSO corpus (Ng & Lee, 1996) has almost 200,000 sentences for 191 words. That corpus, however, focused on annotating text taken from the Wall Street Journal and Brown Corpus, which may not be as representative of natural language usage as our SUBTL data derived from film and television subtitles. In addition, the DSO annotations were derived from WordNet (Fellbaum, 1998), which does not delineate between unrelated meanings and related senses in the same way that Wordsmyth does, which makes the structure of the latter particularly useful for the study of homonymy. (For additional discussion of the difficulties of sense tagging with WordNet senses, see Palmer, Babko-Malaya, and Dang (2004).) As another example, Taghipour and Ng (2015) used WordNet senses to label the MultiUN corpus (Eisele & Chen, 2010), an assembly of United Nations Documents, which are not the primary reading material of participants who complete psycholinguistic experiments.


Understanding how the meanings of ambiguous words are resolved is a critical component of any theory of word comprehension, and reliable and externally valid methods of estimating the relative meaning frequency of homonyms is a critical step in developing such a theory. The present work reports new relative meaning frequency estimates derived from movie subtitles and free association norms, and compares these two datasets with data from an explicit meaning frequency rating task and a previous free association study (Armstrong et al., 2012; Twilley et al., 1994). All measures were highly reliable across multiple raters and showed some moderate agreement with one another, but each set of norms was also associated with unique variance. This variance potentially reflects more complex interactions between how the statistical regularities of meaning distributions are encoded, stored, and retrieved in different task settings, as well as how representations of meaning and other grammatical and semantic knowledge are stored in an intertwined fashion.


Next to the book edition (in printed and electronic, PDF, format), HTS is also available as an online resource, connected with the Translation Studies Bibliography. For access to the Handbook of Translation Studies Online, please visit . 59ce067264






https://www.kashiabeauty.com/group/colorimetria/discussion/a922a71e-77b8-478a-bbd2-f0010c690eb6

About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

Members

bottom of page