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.).
2008
Lenci, Alessandro
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.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/118721
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact