Glenberg and Metha (henceforth GM) argue against the equivalence between meaning and covariation constraints among words that is assumed more or less strongly by (psycho)computational models adopting the distributional hypothesis (DH). They support their argument with a pair of experiments in which a group of subjects is trained to learn the distributional (covariation) constraints of respectively non-linguistic (unlabeled radio buttons) and linguistic (partially labeled radio buttons) stimuli representing feature distribution patterns of different types of two-wheel vehicles (scooters, motorcycles, bikes, etc.).
Covariation can be (part of) meaning
LENCI, ALESSANDRO
2008-01-01
Abstract
Glenberg and Metha (henceforth GM) argue against the equivalence between meaning and covariation constraints among words that is assumed more or less strongly by (psycho)computational models adopting the distributional hypothesis (DH). They support their argument with a pair of experiments in which a group of subjects is trained to learn the distributional (covariation) constraints of respectively non-linguistic (unlabeled radio buttons) and linguistic (partially labeled radio buttons) stimuli representing feature distribution patterns of different types of two-wheel vehicles (scooters, motorcycles, bikes, etc.).File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
