Where Words Get their Meaning

Cognitive processing and distributional modelling of word meaning in first and second language

| University of Bologna
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027208019 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027260420 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
Words are not just labels for conceptual categories. Words construct conceptual categories, frame situations and influence behavior. Where do they get their meaning?

This book describes how words acquire their meaning. The author argues that mechanisms based on associations, pattern detection, and feature matching processes explain how words acquire their meaning from experience and from language alike. Such mechanisms are summarized by the distributional hypothesis, a computational theory of meaning originally applied to word occurrences only, and hereby extended to extra-linguistic contexts.

By arguing in favor of the cognitive foundations of the distributional hypothesis, which suggests that words that appear in similar contexts have similar meaning, this book offers a theoretical account for word meaning construction and extension in first and second language that bridges empirical findings from cognitive and computer sciences. Plain language and illustrations accompany the text, making this book accessible to a multidisciplinary academic audience.
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 23]  2020.  xi, 208 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.23
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
xi
Chapter 1. Word power
2–10
Part 1. Word meaning construction and representation in the human mind
14–74
Chapter 2. Word meaning mental representation
14–31
Chapter 3. Word meaning extension: Deriving new meanings from old ones
34–53
Chapter 4. The bilingual mind and the bilingual mental lexicon
56–74
Part 2. Word meaning construction and representation in the artificial mind
78–132
Chapter 5. Distributional models and word embeddings
78–96
Chapter 6. Evaluating distributional models
98–115
Chapter 7. Distributional models beyond language
118–132
Part 3. Converging evidence in language and communication research
136–184
Chapter 8. Where words get their meaning
136–148
Chapter 9. The cognitive foundations of the distributional hypothesis
150–167
Chapter 10. Conclusions and outlook
170–184
References
185–206
Index
References

References

Abutalebi, J., & Green, D.
(2007) Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(3), 242–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ahmad, J.
(2012) Intentional vs. Incidental vocabulary learning. ELT Research Journal, 1(1), 71–79.Google Scholar
Althaus, N., & Westermann, G.
(2016) Labels constructively shape object categories in 10-month-old infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 151, 5–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Amrami, A., & Goldberg, Y.
(2019) Towards better substitution-based word sense induction. arXiv:1905.12598v2.Google Scholar
Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D.
(2009) Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116(3), 463–498. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Apresjan, Ju. D.
(1974) Regular Polysemy. Linguistics, 12(142). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asher, N.
(2011) Lexical meaning in context: A web of words. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asher, N., & Pustejovsky, J.
(2013) A Type Composition Logic for Generative Lexicon. In James Pustejovsky, P. Bouillon, H. Isahara, K. Kanzaki, & C. Lee (Eds.), Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory (Vol. 46, pp. 39–66). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asmuth, J., & Gentner, D.
(2017) Relational Categories are More Mutable than Entity Categories. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(10), 2007–2025. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, R., & Keohane, R. O.
(1985) Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions. World Politics, 38(1), 226–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
(2010) Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learning perspective. The Mental Lexicon, 5, 436–461. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Hendrix, P., & Ramscar, M.
(2013) Sidestepping the combinatorial explosion: An explanation of ngram frequency effects based on naïve discriminative learning. Lang Speech, 56(3), 329–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C.
(1979) Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 533–81.Google Scholar
Balaban, M. T., & Waxman, S. R.
(1997) Do Words Facilitate Object Categorization in 9-Month-Old Infants? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64(1), 3–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, D. A.
(1991) Infants’ Contribution to the Achievement of Joint Reference. Child Development, 62(5), 875–890. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baltrušaitis, T., Ahuja, C., Morency, L.
(2019) Multimodal Machine Learning: A Survey and Taxonomy. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. February 2019. Crossref
Bambini, V., Bertini, C., Schaeken, W., Stella, A., & Di Russo, F.
(2016) Disentangling Metaphor from Context: An ERP Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barca, L., Burani, C., & Arduino, L. S.
(2002) Word naming times and psycholinguistic norms for Italian nouns. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(3), 424–434. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A.
(2000) On the plausibility of claiming a métonymie motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads (pp. 31–58). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M., & Lenci, A.
(2010) Distributional Memory: A General Framework for Corpus-Based Semantics. Computational Linguistics, 36(4), 673–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) How we BLESSed distributional semantic evaluation, 1–10.Google Scholar
Baroni, M., Dinu, G., & Kruszewski, G.
(2014) Don’t count, predict! A systematic comparison of context-counting vs. Context-predicting semantic vectors. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 238–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M., Evert, S., & Lenci, A.
(Eds.) (2008) Lexical semantics: Bridging the gap between semantic theory and computational simulation. Retrieved from http://​wordspace​.collocations​.de​/lib​/exe​/fetch​.php​/workshop:esslli:esslli​_2008​_lexicalsemantics​.pdf
Barrett, L. F.
(2017) How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain (Paperback edition). London: PAN Books.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W.
(1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(04). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1435), 1177–1187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K.
(2005) Situating Abstract Concepts. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding Cognition (pp. 129–163). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, K., & Wilson, C.
(2008) Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 245–283). Retrieved from https://​www​.oxfordscholarship​.com​/view​/10​.1093​/acprof:oso​/9780199217274​.001​.0001​/acprof​-9780199217274​-chapter​-13. Crossref
Beigman Klebanov, B., Wee Leong, C., Gutierrez, D., Shutova, E. & Flor, M.
(2016) Semantic classifications for detection of verb metaphors. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pp. 101–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bengio, Y., Schwenk, H., Senécal, J.-S., Morin, F., & Gauvain, J. L.
(2006) Neural Probabilistic Language Models. In D. E. Holmes & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Innovations in Machine Learning (Vol. 194, pp. 137–186). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D.
(2005) The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 57–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergelson, E., & Swingley, D.
(2012) At 6–9 months, human infants know the meanings of many common nouns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(9), 3253–3258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E., & Raven, P. H.
(1973) General Principles of Classification and Nomenclature in Folk Biology. American Anthropologist, 75(1), 214–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E.
(2011) Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 65(4), 229–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L.
(2009) Where Is the Semantic System? A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of 120 Functional Neuroimaging Studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19(12), 2767–2796. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M.
(1993) Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 19(2), 295–308.Google Scholar
Blythe, R. A., Smith, K., & Smith, A. D. M.
(2010) Learning Times for Large Lexicons Through Cross-Situational Learning. Cognitive Science, 34(4), 620–642. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolognesi, M.
(2011) Il lessico mentale bilingue e gli spazi semantici distribuzionali: E similarità tra i verbi in L1, in L2 e nei corpora. Studi di Glottodidattica, 5(2), 51–72.Google Scholar
(2014) Distributional Semantics meets Embodied Cognition: Flickr® as a database of semantic features. Selected Papers from the 4th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 18–35.Google Scholar
(2016a) Metaphors, bilingual mental lexicon and distributional models. In E. Gola & F. Ervas (Eds.), Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication (Vol. 5, pp. 105–122). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Modeling Semantic Similarity between Metaphor Terms of Visual vs. Linguistic Metaphors through Flickr Tag Distributions. Frontiers in Communication, 1. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Flickr® distributional tagspace: Evaluating the semantic spaces emerging from Flickr® tag distributions. In (ed.). M. Jones, Big data in cognitive science. (pp. 144–173). New York, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
(2017b) Using semantic feature norms to investigate how the visual and verbal modes afford metaphor construction and expression. Language and Cognition, 9(3), 525–552. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolognesi, M., & Aina, L.
(2019) Similarity is closeness: Using distributional semantic spaces to model similarity in visual and linguistic metaphors. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 15(1), 101–137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolognesi, M., Burgers, C., & Caselli, T.
(2020) On Abstraction: Decoupling conceptual concreteness and categorical specificity. Cognitive Processing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolognesi, M., & Steen, G.
(2018) Editors’ Introduction: Abstract Concepts: Structure, Processing, and Modeling. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(3), 490–500. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2019) Perspectives on abstract concepts: Cognition, language and communication. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bonnaud, V., Gil, R., & Ingrand, P.
(2002) Metaphorical and non-metaphorical links: A behavioral and ERP study in young and elderly adults. Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology, 32(4), 258–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F.
(2014) Words as social tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L.
(2001) Does Language Shape Thought? Mandarin and English Speakers’ Conceptions of Time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) How Language Shapes Thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L., & Prinz, J.
(2008) What Thoughts Are Made Of. In G. R. Semin & E. R. Smith (Eds.), Embodied Grounding (pp. 98–116). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. J.
(1996) Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(1), 63–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boulenger, V., Hauk, O., & Pulvermuller, F.
(2009) Grasping Ideas with the Motor System: Semantic Somatotopy in Idiom Comprehension. Cerebral Cortex, 19(8), 1905–1914. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bouma, G.
(2009) Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. Processing texts automatically. In Proceedings of the Biennial GSCL Conference.Google Scholar
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D.
(2005) The Career of Metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bruni, E., Tran, N. K., & Baroni, M.
(2014) Multimodal Distributional Semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 49, 1–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & Duyck, W.
(2010) Is it time to leave behind the Revised Hierarchical Model of bilingual language processing after fifteen years of service? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(3), 359–371. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V.
(2014) Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bullinaria, J. A., & Levy, J. P.
(2007) Extracting semantic representations from word co-occurrence statistics: A computational study. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 510–526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Extracting semantic representations from word co-occurrence statistics: Stop-lists, stemming, and SVD. Behavior Research Methods, 44(3), 890–907. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, E. M., Henderson, M. D., & Markman, A. B.
(2013) There Are Many Ways to See the Forest for the Trees: A Tour Guide for Abstraction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(5), 501–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., Tomasello, M., Butterworth, G., & Moore, C.
(1998) Social Cognition, Joint Attention, and Communicative Competence from 9 to 15 Months of Age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 63(4), i. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D.
(2008) Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic Differences in Temporal Language and Thought. Language Learning, 58, 63–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Gijssels, T.
(2015) What makes a metaphor an embodied metaphor? Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cassani, G., Grimm, R., Gillis, S., & Daelemans, W.
(2016) Constraining the search space in cross-situational word learning: different models make different predictions. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1152–1157). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Çetinavcı, B. M.
(2014) Contextual Factors in Guessing Word Meaning from Context in a Foreign Language. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2670–2674. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, S.
(2017) The analogical modeling of linguistic categories. Language and Cognition, 9(1), 52–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chersoni, E., Lenci, A., & Blache, P.
(2017) Logical Metonymy in a Distributional Model of Sentence Comprehension. Proceedings of the 6th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2017), 168–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1957) Syntactic structures. Retrieved from. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1975) The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
(1980) Rules and representations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Church, K. W., & Hanks, P.
(1989) Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics -, 76–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E.
(1995) Language acquisitionThe lexicon and syntax. In Speech, Language, and Communication (pp. 304–337). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P.
(1975) Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(1), 56–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collobert, R., & Weston, J.
(2008) A unified architecture for natural language processing: Deep neural networks with multitask learning. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning – ICML ’08, 160–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collobert, R., Weston, J., Bottou, L., Karlen, M., Kavukcuoglu, K., & Kuksa, P.
(2011) Natural Language Processing (almost) from Scratch. ArXiv:1103.0398 [Cs]. Retrieved from http://​arxiv​.org​/abs​/1103​.0398
Connell, L.
(2018) What have labels ever done for us? The linguistic shortcut in conceptual processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M.
(2004) Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 491–511. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C.
(2002) Conceptual integration and metaphor: an event-related potential study. Memory & Cognition 30, 958–968. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cox, T. F., & Cox, M. A. A.
(2001) Multidimensional Scaling. Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A.
(1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crutch, S. J., & Jackson, E. C.
(2011) Contrasting Graded Effects of Semantic Similarity and Association across the Concreteness Spectrum. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(7), 1388–1408. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E.
(2005) Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128(3), 615–627. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K.
(2010) The differential dependence of abstract and concrete words upon associative and similarity-based information: Complementary semantic interference and facilitation effects. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27(1), 46–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crutch, S. J., Connell, S., & Warrington, E. K.
(2009) The different representational frameworks underpinning abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from odd-one-out judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(7), 1377–1390. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crutch, S. J., Ridha, B. H., & Warrington, E. K.
(2006) The Different Frameworks Underlying Abstract and Concrete Knowledge: Evidence from a Bilingual Patient with a Semantic Refractory Access Dysphasia. Neurocase, 12(3), 151–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuccio, V.
(2018) Attention to metaphor: From neurons to representations. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daelemans, W. & van den Bosch, A.
(2005) Memory-based Language Processing. Studies in natural language processing. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daoutis, C. A., Franklin, A., Riddett, A., Clifford, A., & Davies, I. R. L.
(2006) Categorical effects in children’s colour search: A cross-linguistic comparison. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24(2), 373–400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., Thorne, S. L., & Verspoor, M.
(2013) Dynamic Systems Theory as a comprehensive theory of second language development. In M. del P. García Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), AILA Applied Linguistics Series (Vol. 9, pp. 199–220). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Grauwe, S., Swain, A., Holcomb, P. J., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G. R.
(2010) Electrophysiological insights into the processing of nominal metaphors. Neuropsychologia, 48(7), 1965–1984. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Vega, M., Glenberg, A., & Graesser, A.
(2008) Symbols and EmbodimentDebates on meaning and cognition. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Desai, R. H., Conant, L. L., Binder, J. R., Park, H., & Seidenberg, M. S.
(2013) A piece of the action: Modulation of sensory-motor regions by action idioms and metaphors. NeuroImage, 83, 862–869. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Saussure, F.
(1916) Cours de linguistique générale, ed. C. Bally and A. Sechehaye, with the collaboration of A. Riedlinger, Lausanne and Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Dove, G.
(2009) Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition, 110(3), 412–431. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Three symbol ungrounding problems: Abstract concepts and the future of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1109–1121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dufter, P., & Schütze, H.
(2019) Analytical Methods for Interpretable Ultradense Word Embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.08654.Google Scholar
Egorova, N., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F.
(2016) Brain basis of communicative actions in language. NeuroImage, 125, 857–867. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L.
(2009) On the Meaning of Words and Dinosaur Bones: Lexical Knowledge Without a Lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 547–582. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erk, K., & Pado, S.
(2010) Exemplar-based models for word meaning in context. In ’Proceedings of ACL, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 92–97.Google Scholar
Falkum, I. L., Recasens, M., & Clark, E. V.
(2017) “ The moustache sits down first”: On the acquisition of metonymy. Journal of Child Language, 44(1), 87–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, C.
(1998) A Semantic Network of English: The Mother of All WordNets. Computers and the Humanities, 32(2/3), 209–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D.
(2002) Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferretti, T. R., Kutas, M., & McRae, K.
(2007) Verb aspect and the activation of event knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(1), 182–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferretti, T. R., McRae, K., & Hatherell, A.
(2001) Integrating Verbs, Situation Schemas, and Thematic Role Concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(4), 516–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferry, A. L., Hespos, S. J., & Waxman, S. R.
(2010) Categorization in 3- and 4-Month-Old Infants: An Advantage of Words Over Tones. Child Development, 81(2), 472–479. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, L., Gabrilovich, E., Matias, Y., Rivlin, E., Solan, Z., Wolfman, G., & Ruppin, E.
(2001) Placing search in context: The concept revisited. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on World Wide Web – WWW ’01, 406–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Firth, J.
(1957) A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. Tudies in Linguistic Analysis, 1–32.Google Scholar
Fitneva, S. A., & Christiansen, M. H.
(2011) Looking in the Wrong Direction Correlates With More Accurate Word Learning. Cognitive Science, 35(2), 367–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A.
(1983) The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J.
(1999) The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1366–1383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) The processing of familiar and novel senses of a word: Why reading Dickens is easy but reading Needham can be hard. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(4), 595–613. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fulkerson, A. L., & Waxman, S. R.
(2007) Words (but not Tones) facilitate object categorization: Evidence from 6- and 12-month-olds. Cognition, 105(1), 218–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, J., & Koelling, R. A.
(1966) Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychon Sci 4, 123–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S.
(1999) DISCUSSION: Incidental Vocabulary Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 319–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D.
(1978) On Relational Meaning: The Acquisition of Verb Meaning. Child Development, 49(4), 988. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1983) Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy*. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., & Boroditsky, L.
(2001) Individuation, relativity and early word learning. In M. Bowerman & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 215–256). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S.
(2003) Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerlach, P.
(2018) The Social Framework of Individual Decisions. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs Jr., R. W., & Gerrig, R. J.
(1989) How Context Makes Metaphor Comprehension Seem “Special.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4(3), 145–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(1984) Literal Meaning and Psychological Theory*. Cognitive Science, 8(3), 275–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006a) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2006b) Metaphor Interpretation as Embodied Simulation. Mind & Language, 21(3), 434–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Experiential tests of figurative meaning construction. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction (pp. 19–32). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gildea, P., & Glucksberg, S.
(1983) On understanding metaphor: The role of context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(5), 577–590. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giora, R.
(1997) Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glanzer, M., & Duarte, A.
(1971) Repetition between and within languages in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10(6), 625–630. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., Cassidy, K., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C.
(2005) Hard Words. Language Learning and Development, 1(1), 23–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S.
(2001) Understanding Figurative Language. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H.
(1982) On understanding non-literal speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1, 85–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B.
(1990) Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goggin, J., & Wickens, D. D.
(1971) Proactive interference and language change in short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10(4), 453–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, R. L., & Gerken, L.
(1999) Artificial grammar learning by 1-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge. Cognition, 70(2), 109–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J.
(1997) Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Retrieved from https://​escholarship​.org​/uc​/item​/3g9427m2
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor (pp. 79–100). In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1595–1614. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. W.
(1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P.
(1975) Logic and Conversation. Reprinted from Syntax and semantics 3: Speech arts, Cole et al. “Logic and conversation”, pp. 41–58 (1975), with permission from Elsevier.Google Scholar
Guida, A., & Lenci, A.
(2007) Semantic Properties of Word Associations to Italian Verbs. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 19(2), 293–326.Google Scholar
Haastrup, K.
(1989) Lexical inferencing procedures, Part 1 and Part 2. Copenhagen: Handelshojskolen i Kobenhavn.Google Scholar
Hampe, B.
(Ed.) (2017) Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harley, B., & Hart, D.
(2000) Vocabulary Learning in the Content-oriented Second-language Classroom: Student Perceptions and Proficiency. Language Awareness, 9(2), 78–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S.
(1990) The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42(1–3), 335–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, R. J.
(1976) Comprehension of metaphors: A test of the two-stage processing model. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8(4), 312–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z. S.
(1954) Distributional Structure. Word, 10(2–3), 146–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1973) A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology. Charles F. Hockett. International Journal of American Linguistics, 39(4), 252–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Zellig S., & Mandelbaum, D. G.
(1951) Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Personality. Language, 27(3), 288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, F., Reichart, R., & Korhonen, A.
(2015) SimLex-999: Evaluating Semantic Models With (Genuine) Similarity Estimation. Computational Linguistics, 41(4), 665–695. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, P.
(2016) The meaning of ‘life’ and other abstract words: Insights from neuropsychology. Journal of Neuropsychology, 10(2), 317–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, P., Jefferies, E., & Lambon Ralph, M. A.
(2010) Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex Plays an Executive Regulation Role in Comprehension of Abstract Words: Convergent Neuropsychological and Repetitive TMS Evidence. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(46), 15450–15456. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., & Rogers, T. T.
(2013) Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 718–730. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hollis, G.
(2019) Learning about things that never happened: a critique and refinement to the Rescorla-Wagner update rule when many outcomes are possible, Memory & Cognition, 1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K.
(2008) Fast Mapping but Poor Retention by 24-Month-Old Infants. Infancy, 13(2), 128–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, T. H.
(2014) Social Metaphor Detection via Topical Analysis. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 19(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
Huckin, T., & Coady, J.
(1999) Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: A Review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 181–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, C., Binder, J. R., Medler, D. A., & Liebenthal, E.
(2006) Syntactic and Semantic Modulation of Neural Activity during Auditory Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(4), 665–679. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Indefrey, P.
(2006) A Meta-analysis of Hemodynamic Studies on First and Second Language Processing: Which Suggested Differences Can We Trust and What Do They Mean?: Hemodynamic Studies of L1 and L2 Processing . Language Learning, 56, 279–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Inhoff, A. W., Lima, S. D., & Carroll, P. J.
(1984) Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory & Cognition, 12(6), 558–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1997) The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jung, K., Shavitt, S., Viswanathan, M., & Hilbe, J. M.
(2014) Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8782–8787. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kachergis, G., Yu, C., & Shiffrin, R. M.
(2014) Cross-situational word learning is both implicit and strategic. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.
(1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kalgren, I., & Sahlgren, M.
(2001) From Words to Understanding, 294–308. CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Kamin, L. J.
(1968) “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Miami symposium on the prediction of behavior, 1967: Aversive Stimulation. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Kiela, D., & Clark, S.
(2014) A Systematic Study of Semantic Vector Space Model Parameters. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Continuous Vector Space Models and Their Compositionality (CVSC), 21–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiela, D., Bulat, L., & Clark, S.
(2015) Grounding semantics in olfactory perception. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers) (pp. 231–236). Beijing, China: ACL.Google Scholar
Kiela, D., & Clark, S.
(2015) Multi-and cross-modal semantics beyond vision: Grounding in auditory perception. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2015) (pp. 2461–2470). Lisbon, Portugal: ACL. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W.
(2000) Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 257–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L.
(2001) The Representation of Polysemous Words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 259–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 548–570. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2013) The Metaphor–Metonymy Relationship: Correlation Metaphors Are Based on Metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(2), 75–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krennmayr, T., Steen, G.
(2017) VU Amsterdam Metaphor Corpus. In: Ide, N., Pustejovsky, J. (eds) Handbook of Linguistic Annotation pp. 1053–1071 Springer, Dordrecht. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krishnakumaran, S., & Zhu, X.
(2007) Hunting Elusive Metaphors Using Lexical Resources. Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Figurative Language (pp. 13–20). Rochester, New York. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E.
(1994) Category Interference in Translation and Picture Naming: Evidence for Asymmetric Connections Between Bilingual Memory Representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Wodniecka, Z.
(2006) Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9(2), 119–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P. K.
(2004) Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(11), 831–843. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kurzweil, R.
(2012) How to create a mind: The secret of human thought revealed. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L.
(2009) Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1284, 145–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lai, V. T., & Curran, T.
(2013) ERP evidence for conceptual mappings and comparison processes during the comprehension of conventional and novel metaphors. Brain and language, 127(3), 484–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by (5. [Dr.]). Chicago, Ill.: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T.
(1997) A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lapesa, G., & Evert, S.
(2014) A Large Scale Evaluation of Distributional Semantic Models: Parameters, Interactions and Model Selection. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2, 531–546. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N.
(1974) Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T., Schriefers, H., Baayen, R. H., Grainger, J., & Zwitserlood, P.
(2008) Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: A megastudy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(1), 12–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenci, A.
(2018) Distributional Models of Word Meaning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4(1), 151–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lent, J. R.
(2017) The patterning instinct: A cultural history of humanity’s search for meaning. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Leong, C. W., Klebanov, B. B., & Shutova, E.
(2018) A Report on the 2018 VUA Metaphor Detection Shared Task. Proceedings of the Workshop on Figurative Language Processing. NAACL 2018 Workshop on Figurative Language Processing. New Orleans, Louisiana. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(2003) Language and mind: Let’s get the issue straight! In D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, pp. 25–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levy, O., & Goldberg, Y.
(2014) Linguistic Regularities in Sparse and Explicit Word Representations. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, 171–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levy, O., Goldberg, Y., & Dagan, I.
(2015) Improving Distributional Similarity with Lessons Learned from Word Embeddings. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3, 211–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, V., Samuels, S. M., & Ross, L.
(2004) The Name of the Game: Predictive Power of Reputations versus Situational Labels in Determining Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Moves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1175–1185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J., & Low, G.
(2006) Figurative Thinking and Foreign Language Learning. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, M. M.
(2007) Symbolic or embodied representations: A case for symbol interdependency. In T. Landauer, D. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.). In Handbook of latent semantic analysis (T. Landauer, D. McNamara, S. Dennis, W. Kintsch, pp. 107–120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2008) Embodied relations are encoded in language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 838–844. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Symbol Interdependency in Symbolic and Embodied Cognition: Topics in Cognitive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 273–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Knowing the Meaning of a Word by the Linguistic and Perceptual Company It Keeps. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(3), 573–589. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, M. M., & Zwaan, R. A.
(2009) Language Encodes Geographical Information. Cognitive Science, 33(1), 51–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowder, M. W., & Gordon, P. C.
(2013) It’s hard to offend the college: Effects of sentence structure on figurative-language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 993–1011. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G.
(2008) The conceptual grouping effect: Categories matter (and named categories matter more). Cognition, 108(2), 566–577. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Linguistically Modulated Perception and Cognition: The Label-Feedback Hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lynott, D., & Connell, L.
(2013) Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 516–526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
(1977) Semantics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mahon, B. Z.
(2015) What is embodied about cognition? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(4), 420–429. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A.
(2008) A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1–3), 59–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., Gennari, S., Imai, M., Ameel, E., Tsuda, N., & Majid, A.
(2008) Talking About Walking: Biomechanics and the Language of Locomotion. Psychological Science, 19(3), 232–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M.
(2017) Explaining human performance in psycholinguistic tasks with models of semantic similarity based on prediction and counting: A review and empirical validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 57–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M.
(1990) Constraints Children Place on Word Meanings. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 57–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M., & Wachtel, G. F.
(1988) Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 121–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, C. & Ryan, N.
(2019) BERT Word Embeddings Tutorial. Retrieved from http://​www​.mccormickml​.com
McDonald, S., & Brew, C.
(2004) A distributional model of semantic context effects in lexical processing. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics – ACL ’04, 17-es. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McElree, B., & Nordlie, J.
(1999) Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in equal time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(3), 486–494. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McElree, B., Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J.
(2006) Deferred Interpretations: Why Starting Dickens is Taxing but Reading Dickens Isn’t. Cognitive Science, 30(1), 181–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McElree, B., M. Traxler, M. Pickering, R. Seely, and R. Jackendoff
(2001) Reading time evidence for enriched composition. Cognition 78(1), B17–B25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McMurray, B., Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K.
(2012) Word learning emerges from the interaction of online referent selection and slow associative learning. Psychological Review, 119(4), 831–877. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Word learning emerges from the interaction of online referent selection and slow associative learning. Psychological Review, 119(4), 831–877. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McMurray, B., Horst, J. S., Toscano, J. C., & Samuelson, L. K.
(2009) Integrating Connectionist Learning and Dynamical Systems Processing: Case Studies in Speech and Lexical Development. In J. Spencer (Ed.), Toward a Unified Theory of Development Connectionism and Dynamic System Theory Re-Consider (pp. 218–250). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., & Tversky, A.
(1982) On the Elicitation of Preferences for Alternative Therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306(21), 1259–1262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McRae, K., & Jones, M.
(2013) Semantic Memory. In D. Reisberg (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C.
(2005) Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 547–559. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McRae, K., Nedjadrasul, D., Pau, R., Lo, B. P.-H., & King, L.
(2018) Abstract Concepts and Pictures of Real-World Situations Activate One Another. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(3), 518–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. M.
(2009) Connected words: Word associations and second language vocabulary acquisition. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Medin, D., & Ortony, A.
(1989) Comments on Part I: Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–196). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Medina, T. N., Snedeker, J., Trueswell, J. C., & Gleitman, L. R.
(2011) How words can and cannot be learned by observation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(22), 9014–9019. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meng, Y., Huang, J., Wang, G., Wang, Z., Zhang, C., Han, J.
(2020) Unsupervised Word Embedding Learning by Incorporating Local and Global Contexts. Frontiers in Big Data, 3, CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mesquita, B., Barrett, L. F., & Smith, E. R.
(Eds.) (2010) The mind in context. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J.
(2013) Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. ArXiv:1301.3781 [Cs]. Retrieved from http://​arxiv​.org​/abs​/1301​.3781
Mikolov, T., Yih, S. W., & Zweig, G.
(2013) Linguistic Regularities in Continuous Space Word Representations. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT-2013). Retrieved from https://​www​.microsoft​.com​/en​-us​/research​/publication​/linguistic​-regularities​-in​-continuous​-space​-word​-representations/
Miller, G. A.
(1998) Nouns in wordnet. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database, 23–46.Google Scholar
Mitchell, M.
(2020) On Crashing the Barrier of Meaning in Artificial Intelligence. AI Magazine, 41(2), 86–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Monaghan, P., & Mattock, K.
(2012) Integrating constraints for learning word–referent mappings. Cognition, 123(1), 133–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moss, H. E., Ostrin, R. K., Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D.
(1995) Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: Evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 863–883. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munakata, Y., & McClelland, J. L.
(2003) Connectionist models of development. Developmental Science, 6(4), 413–429. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G.
(2004) The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Nacey, S.
(2013) Metaphors in learner English. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H.
(2003) L2 Vocabulary Learning from Context: Strategies, Knowledge Sources, and Their Relationship with Success in L2 Lexical Inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 645. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P.
(2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Navigli, R.
(2009) Word sense disambiguation: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 41(2), 1–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noble, W., & Davidson, I.
(1991) The Evolutionary Emergence of Modern Human Behaviour: Language and its Archaeology. Man, 26(2), 223. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Tracing the emergence of modern human behavior: Methodological pitfalls and a theoretical path. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 12(2), 121–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noppeney, U., & Price, C. J.
(2004) An fMRI Study of Syntactic Adaptation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(4), 702–713. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M.
(1986) Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115(1), 39–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G.
(1995) Transfers of Meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12(2), 109–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Antos, S. J.
(1978) Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(4), 465–477. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C. E.
(1952) The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 49(3), 197–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H.
(1957) The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois press.Google Scholar
Padó, S., & Lapata, M.
(2007) Dependency-Based Construction of Semantic Space Models. Computational Linguistics, 33(2), 161–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A.
(1983) The mind’s eye in arts and science. Poetics, 12(1), 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) Mental Representations. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Dual coding theory and the mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon, 5(2), 205–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parel, R.
(2004) The impact of lexical inferencing strategies on second language reading proficiency. Reading and Writing, 17(6), 847–873. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Park, S., Bak, J., & Oh, A.
(2017) Rotated word vector representations and their interpretability. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pecher, D.
(2018) Curb Your Embodiment. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(3), 501–517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A.
(Eds.) (2005) Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, T., Patwardhan, S., & Michelizzi, J.
(2004) Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artifical Intelligence, 1024–1025. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
(2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piñango, M. M., Zhang, M., Foster-Hanson, E., Negishi, M., Lacadie, C., & Constable, R. T.
(2017) Metonymy as Referential Dependency: Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Arguments for a Unified Linguistic Treatment. Cognitive Science, 41, 351–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1991) Rules of language. Science 253.530–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) The language instinct: The new science of language and mind. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
(1999) Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2004) Clarifying the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 31.949–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pirrelli, V., Marzi, C., Ferro, M., Cardillo, F. A., Baayen, H. R., & Milin, P.
(2020) Psycho-computational modelling of the mental lexicon. In V. Pirrelli, I. Plag, and W. Dressler (eds.) Word Knowledge and Word Usage, pages: 23–82. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plat, R., Lowie, W. & de Bot, K.
(2018) Word Naming in the L1 and L2: A Dynamic Perspective on Automatization and the Degree of Semantic Involvement in Naming. Frontiers in Psychology 8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, K., Hu, J.-F., & Cohen, L. B.
(2008) Labels can override perceptual categories in early infancy. Cognition, 106(2), 665–681. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Polka, L., & Werker, J. F.
(1994) Developmental changes in perception of nonnative vowel contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(2), 421–435. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ponari, M., Norbury, C. F., & Vigliocco, G.
(2017) How do children process abstract concepts? Evidence from a lexical decision task. Developmental Science, 10, 10–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ponniah, J.
(2011) The Effectiveness of the Comprehension Hypothesis: A Review on the Current Research on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition. Journal on English Language Teaching, 1(2), 1–4.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group
(2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22:1, pp1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, F.
(2018) Neurobiological Mechanisms for Semantic Feature Extraction and Conceptual Flexibility. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(3), 590–620. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J.
(1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James
(1991) The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17(4), 409–441.Google Scholar
Pynte, J., Besson, M., Robichon, F.-H., & Poli, J.
(1996) The Time-Course of Metaphor Comprehension: An Event-Related Potential Study. Brain and Language, 55(3), 293–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O.
(2013) Word and object. Place of publication not identified: Martino Fine Books. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, P. C., Eimas, P. D., & Rosenkrantz, S. L.
(1993) Evidence for Representations of Perceptually Similar Natural Categories by 3-Month-Old and 4-Month-Old Infants. Perception, 22(4), 463–475. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raganato, A., Camacho-Collados, J., & Navigli, R.
(2017) Word Sense Disambiguation: A Unified Evaluation Framework and Empirical Comparison. Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, 99–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, M., Dye, M., & Klein, J.
(2013) Children value informativity over logic in word learning. Psychological Science 24, 6, 1017–1023. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, M., Dye, M., & McCauley, S. M.
(2013) Error and expectation in language learning: The curious absence of mouses in adult speech. Language, 89(4), 760–793. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raposo, A., Moss, H. E., Stamatakis, E. A., & Tyler, L. K.
(2009) Modulation of motor and premotor cortices by actions, action words and action sentences. Neuropsychologia, 47(2), 388–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rapp, R.
(2004) A Freely Available Automatically Generated Thesaurus of Related Words, 395–398.Google Scholar
Reines, M. F., & Prinz, J.
(2009) Reviving Whorf: The Return of Linguistic Relativity. Philosophy Compass, 4(6), 1022–1032. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R.
(1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy, Eds., Classical Conditioning II, pp. 64–99. Appleton-CenturyCrofts.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A.
(1988) Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43(3), 151–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Restrepo Ramos, F. D.
(2015) Incidental Vocabulary Learning in Second Language Acquisition: A Literature Review. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 17(1), 157–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Riordan, B., & Jones, M. N.
(2011) Redundancy in Perceptual and Linguistic Experience: Comparing Feature-Based and Distributional Models of Semantic Representation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 303–345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberson, D., Hanley, J. R., & Pak, H.
(2009) Thresholds for color discrimination in English and Korean speakers. Cognition, 112(3), 482–487. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, C. W., & Sloutsky, V. M.
(2007) Linguistic Labels and Categorization in Infancy: Do Labels Facilitate or Hinder? Infancy, 11(3), 233–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W.
(2002) Making Sense of Semantic Ambiguity: Semantic Competition in Lexical Access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 245–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E.
(1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P.
(1976) Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblatt, F.
(1957) The perceptron, a perceiving and recognizing automaton (Project Para Report No. 85-460-1). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (CAL).Google Scholar
(1958) The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychological Review, 65(6), 386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothe, S., Ebert, S., & Schütze, H.
(2016) Ultradense word embeddings by orthogonal transformation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies.Google Scholar
Rubenstein, H., & Goodenough, J. B.
(1965) Contextual correlates of synonymy. Communications of the ACM, 8(10), 627–633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rüschemeyer, S.-A., Brass, M., & Friederici, A. D.
(2007) Comprehending Prehending: Neural Correlates of Processing Verbs with Motor Stems. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(5), 855–865. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sabsevitz, D. S., Medler, D. A., Seidenberg, M., & Binder, J. R.
(2005) Modulation of the semantic system by word imageability. NeuroImage, 27(1), 188–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L.
(1996) Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926–1928. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N.
(1996) Word Segmentation: The Role of Distributional Cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 606–621. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sahlgren, M.
(2006) The word-space model: Using distributional analysis to represent syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between words in high-dimensional vector spaces. Stockholm: Dep. of Linguistics, Stockholm Univ. [unpublished thesis].Google Scholar
Sahlgren, M., & Lenci, A.
(2016) The Effects of Data Size and Frequency Range on Distributional Semantic Models. Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 975–980. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J.
(1983) Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(1), 82–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Harnishfeger, K. K., & Stowe, R. W.
(1988) Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(5), 499–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, H.
(1993) Word Space. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 5, 895–902.Google Scholar
(1992) Dimensions of meaning. In Proceedings of Supercomputing ’92, 787–796. IEEE Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) Automatic word sense discrimination. Computational Linguistics, 24(1), 97–124.Google Scholar
Scott, S. K., Blank, C., Rosen, S., & Wise, R.
(2000) Identification of a pathway for intelligible speech in the left temporal lobe. Brain, 123(12), 2400–2406. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R.
(1975) Speech acts and recent linguistics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 263(1 Developmental), 27–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1980) Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3):417–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sejnowski, T. J.
(2018) The deep learning revolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shutova, Ekaterina
2010 Automatic metaphor interpretation as a paraphrasing task. In Proceedings of NAACL 2010, pp. 1029–1037, Los Angeles, USA.Google Scholar
Shutova, E., Kaplan, J., Teufel, S., & Korhonen, A.
(2013) A computational model of logical metonymy. ACM Transactions on Speech and Language Processing, 10(3), 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shutova, E., Kiela, D., and Maillard, J.
(2016) Black holes and white rabbits: Metaphor identification with visual features. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (San Diego, CA), 160–170.
Shutova, E., Sun, L., Korhonen, A.
(2010) Metaphor Identification Using Verb and Noun Clustering. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), pages 1002–1010, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
Sikos, J. & Padó, S.
(2019) Frame Identification as Categorization: Exemplars vs Prototypes in Embeddingland. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Semantics. Gothenburg, Sweden. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
(1996) Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions (pp. 195–219). Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Smith, L., & Yu, C.
(2008) Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situational statistics. Cognition, 106(3), 1558–1568. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spitsyna, G., Warren, J. E., Scott, S. K., Turkheimer, F. E., & Wise, R. J. S.
(2006) Converging Language Streams in the Human Temporal Lobe. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(28), 7328–7336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spivey, M.
(2006) The Continuity of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
(2010) A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swingley, D.
(2009) Contributions of infant word learning to language development. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1536), 3617–3632. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1991) Path to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 17(1), 480. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Typology and process in concept structuring (1. MIT Press paperback ed). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D.
(1993) What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 14–56). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thaler, S., Simperl, E., Siorpaes, K., & Hofer, C.
(2011) A survey on games for Knowledge acquisition. STI Technical Report, May 2011 19.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. G., Campos, J. J., Shucard, D. W., Ramsay, D. S., & Shucard, J.
(1981) Semantic Comprehension in Infancy: A Signal Detection Analysis. Child Development, 52(3), 798. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thornbury, S.
(2013) How to teach vocabulary (13. impr). Harlow: Longman, Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) The cultural origins of human cognition (4. print). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Barton, M. E.
(1994) Learning words in nonostensive contexts. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 639–650. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., Strosberg, R., & Akhtar, N.
(1996) Eighteen-month-old children learn words in non-ostensive contexts. Journal of Child Language, 23(1), 157–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trask, A., Michalak, M., & Liu, J.
(2015) Sense2vec – a fast and accurate method for word sense disambiguation in neural word embeddings. ArXiv e-prints.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E.
(2002) Processing Subject and Object Relative Clauses: Evidence from Eye Movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 69–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Medina, T. N., Hafri, A., & Gleitman, L. R.
(2013) Propose but verify: Fast mapping meets cross-situational word learning. Cognitive Psychology, 66(1), 126–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turney, P. D.
(2001) Mining the Web for Synonyms: PMI-IR versus LSA on TOEFL. In L. De Raedt & P. Flach (Eds.), Machine Learning: ECML 2001 (Vol. 2167, pp. 491–502). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D.
(1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Utsumi, A.
(2011) Computational Exploration of Metaphor Comprehension Processes Using a Semantic Space Model. Cognitive Science, 35(2), 251–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van den Bos, G. R.
(Ed.) (2007) APA dictionary of psychology (1st ed). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Veale, T.
(2012) Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London; New York: Continuum International Pub. Group.Google Scholar
Veale, T., Shutova, E., & Klebanov, B. B.
(2016) Metaphor: A Computational Perspective. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 9(1), 1–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Filipovic Kleiner, L.
(2004) From mind in the mouth to language in the mind: Language in Mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8 (1), 5–7. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. P.
(2007) Semantic representation. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Ponari, M., & Norbury, C.
(2018) Learning and Processing Abstract Words and Concepts: Insights From Typical and Atypical Development. Topics in Cognitive Science 10(3): 533–549. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vivas, L., Montefinese, M., Bolognesi, M., and Vivas, G.
(2020) Core features: measures and characterization for different languages. Cognitive Processing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Ahn, L., & Dabbish, L.
(2004) Labeling images with a computer game. Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’04, 319–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vouloumanos, A.
(2008) Fine-grained sensitivity to statistical information in adult word learning. Cognition, 107(2), 729–742. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J., Conder, J. A., Blitzer, D. N., & Shinkareva, S. V.
(2010) Neural representation of abstract and concrete concepts: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 31(10), 1459–1468. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Warrington, E. K., & Cipolotti, L.
(1996) Word comprehension: The distinction between refractory and storage impairments. Brain, 119(2), 611–625. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T.
(1979) Semantic access dyslexia. Brain, 102(1), 43–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waxman, S. R., & Markow, D. B.
(1995) Words as Invitations to Form Categories: Evidence from 12- to 13-Month-Old Infants. Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 257–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, W.
(1949) Translation. In Locke, W. N.; Booth, A. D. (eds.). Machine Translation of Languages: Fourteen Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Webb, S.
(2008) The Effects of Context on Incidental Vocabulary Learning. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 232–245.Google Scholar
Weber, I., Robertson, S., & Vojnovic, M.
(2009) Rethinking the ESP Game. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 11. Retrieved from https://​www​.microsoft​.com​/en​-us​/research​/publication​/rethinking​-the​-esp​-game/
Weiland, H., Bambini, V., & Schumacher, P. B.
(2014) The role of literal meaning in figurative language comprehension: Evidence from masked priming ERP. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M., and Lahiri, A.
forth.). Processing of literal and metaphorical meanings in polysemous verbs: An experiment and its methodological importance.
Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M., and Kohl, K.
forth.). Demolishing walls and myths: On the status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon.
Westermann, G., & Mareschal, D.
(2014) From perceptual to language-mediated categorization. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1634), 20120391. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilks, Y.
(1975) A Preferential, Pattern-Seeking, Semantics for Natural Language Inference. Artificial Intelligence 6, 53–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1978) Making preferences more active. Artificial Intelligence 11(3), 197–223. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, D. J.
(1952) The use of sub-routines in programmes. ACM ‘52: Proceedings of the 1952 ACM national meeting, 235–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X.
(2005) Content Differences for Abstract and Concrete Concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(5), 719–736. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winawer, J., Witthoft, N., Frank, M. C., Wu, L., Wade, A. R., & Boroditsky, L.
(2007) Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(19), 7780–7785. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L.
(1953) Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. J.
(2011) Linguistic relativity: Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yu, C.
(2008) A Statistical Associative Account of Vocabulary Growth in Early Word Learning. Language Learning and Development, 4(1), 32–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yu, C., & Smith, L. B.
(2007) Rapid Word Learning Under Uncertainty via Cross-Situational Statistics. Psychological Science, 18(5), 414–420. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Embodied attention and word learning by toddlers. Cognition, 125(2), 244–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yu, C., Zhong, Y., & Fricker, D.
(2012) Selective Attention in Cross-Situational Statistical Learning: Evidence From Eye Tracking. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yurovsky, D., Fricker, D. C., Yu, C., & Smith, L. B.
(2014) The role of partial knowledge in statistical word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(1), 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zarcone, A., Lenci, A., Padó, S., & Utt, J.
(2013) Fitting, Not Clashing! A Distributional Semantic Model of Logical Metonymy. Proceedings of IWCS, 404–410.Google Scholar
Zarcone, A., Padó, S., & Lenci, A.
(2014) Logical Metonymy Resolution in a Words-as-Cues Framework: Evidence from Self-Paced Reading and Probe Recognition. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 973–996. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K.
(1949) Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A.
(2014) Embodiment and language comprehension: Reframing the discussion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 229–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Situation models, mental simulations, and abstract concepts in discourse comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1028–1034. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subjects

Linguistics

Semantics
Cognition and language
Bilingualism
Cognitive linguistics
Theoretical linguistics

Psychology

Cognitive psychology
BIC Subject: CFDM – Bilingualism & multilingualism
BISAC Subject: LAN016000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Semantics
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2020040110 | Marc record