Semantic Studies of Organisation and Functioning of Mental Lexicon
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2020-8-29-51
Abstract
The review article discusses the key problems of semantic organization of the mental lexicon. It is understood as a dynamic, cognitively organized semantic network of lexical units. The paper presents the characteristics of the main models of semantic organization of mental vocabulary, highlights the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. It is noted that currently connectionist models are developing most actively. Among them there are the following: the small world network, which considers a certain fragment of the lexicon; thesaurus models that combine all units of the lexicon; computational and distributive models that build relationships between a large number of units based on corpus data about shared usage. The author analyses the sources of information about the organization of the mental lexicon, among which the leading position is occupied by the results of associative experiments and priming. It is revealed that research is also carried out on the subjects’ intuitive assessments of word similarity, analysis of unintentional speech errors. Neuropsychological technologies are used to study the mental lexicon. The problem of semantic relations in the mental lexicon, which are described using a “spatial” metaphor, is discussed separately: semantic proximity is considered as a distance or a vector.
Supporting agencies: The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 19-112-50367
About the Author
V. A. Belov
Cherepovets State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD in Philology, senior research scientist, Department of German Philology and Intercultural Communication,
Cherepovets
References
1. Aitchison, J. (2012). Words in the Mind. An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Oxford: Blackwell.
2. Anderson, J. (2000). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: Wiley.
3. Borge-Holthoefer, J., Arenas, A. (2010). Semantic networks: Structure and dynamics. Entropy, 12: 1264—1302.
4. Budanitsky, A., Hirst, G. (2001). Semantic distance in WordNet: An experimental, application-oriented evaluation of five measures. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on WordNet and Other Lexical Resources: Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL-2001). Pittsburgh. 29—34.
5. Bouaffre, S., Faita-Ainseba, F. (2007). Hemispheric differences in the time-course of semantic priming processes: evidence from event-related potentials (ERPs). Brain and Cognition, 63 (2): 123—135.
6. Burgess, C., Lund, K. (2000). The dynamics of meaning in memory. In: Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 117—156.
7. Burke, D., Shafto, M. (2004). Aging and Language Production. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13 (1): 21—24.
8. Camblin, C., Gordon, P., Swaab, T. (2007). The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical associationduring sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 56: 103—128.
9. Caramazza, A. (1996). The brain’s dictionary. Nature, 380: 485—486.
10. Collins, A., Quillian, R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8 (2): 240—247.
11. Cree, G., McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132: 163—201.
12. Deacon, D., Grose-Fifer, J., Yang, C.-M. (2004). Evidence for a new conceptualization of semantic representation in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Cortex, 40: 467—478.
13. Deglin, L. V., Balonov, L. Ya., Dolinina, I. B. (1983). Yazyk i funktsionalnaya asimmetriya mozga. In: Tekst i kultura. Trudy po znakovym sistemam, XVI. Tartu: Tartuskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet. 31—42. (In Russ.).
14. Deerwester, S., Dumais, S., Furnas, G. (1990). Indexing by Latent Semantic. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 41 (6): 391—407.
15. Dell, G. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93: 283—321.
16. Deyne, De S., Storms, G. (2008). Word Associations: Network and Semantic properties. Behavior Research Methods, 40: 213—231.
17. Deyne, De S., Verheyen, S., Storms, G. (2015). The role of corpus size and syntax in deriving lexico-semantic representations for a wide range of concepts. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68 (8): 1643—1664.
18. Deyne, De S., Navarro, D., Perfors, A. (2016). Structure at every scale: A semantic network account of the similarities between unrelated concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145 (9): 1228—1254.
19. Deyne, De S. Kenett, Y., N., D. Anaki. (2016). Large-scale network representations of semantics in the mental lexicon. In: Big data in cognitive science: From methods to insights. New York: Psychology Press. 174—202.
20. Elman, J. (2004). An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8 (7): 301—306.
21. Estes, Z., Golonka, S., Jones, L. (2011). Thematic Thinking: The Apprehension and Consequences of Thematic Relations. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 54: 249—294.
22. Federmeier, K., Wlotko, E., De Ochoa-Dewald, E. (2007). Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research, 1146: 75—84.
23. Federmeier, K. (2007). Thinking ahead: the role and roots of prediction in language Comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44 (4): 491—505.
24. Fodor, J. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
25. Forster, K. (2006). Early activation of category information in visual word recognition. The Mental Lexicon, 1 (1): 35—58.
26. Jackendoff, R. (2000). Fodorian modularity and representational modularity. In: Language and the Brain. Representation and Processing. San Diego: Academic Press. 4—30.
27. Lerner, I., Bentin, S., Shriki, O. (2014). Integrating the automatic and the controlled: Strategies in semantic priming in an attractor network with latching dynamics. Cognitive Science, 38 (8): 1562—1603.
28. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
29. Jones, L., Estes, Z. (2012). Lexical priming: Associative, semantic, and thematic influences on word recognition. In: Visual word recognition, (2): Meaning and context: Individuals and development. Hove: Psychology Press. 4—72.
30. Lorch, R. (1982). Priming and search processes in semantic memory: A test of three models of spreading activation. Journal of Verbal Learning Verbal Behavior, 21 (4): 468—492.
31. Marslen-Wilson, W. (1999). Abstractness and combination: The morphemic lexicon. In: Language Processing. Hove: Psychology Press. 101—119.
32. McClelland, J., Rumelhart, D. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88 (5): 375—407.
33. McClelland, J., John, M. St., Taraban, R. (1989). Sentence comprehension: a parallel distributed processing approach. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4: 287—335.
34. McClelland, J., Elman, J. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18 (1): 1—86.
35. McRae, K., Cree, G., Seidenberg, M. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37 (4): 547—559.
36. McRae, K., Jones, M. (2013). Semantic memory. In: The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 206—219.
37. Medin, D., Rips, L. (2005). Concepts and categories: memory, meaning, and metaphysics. In: The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 37—72.
38. Medin, D., Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In: Similarity and analogical reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press. 179—195.
39. Miller, G., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C. (1990). Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3 (4): 235—244.
40. Mollin, S. (2009). Combining corpus linguistics and psychological data on word co-occurrence: Corpus collocates versus word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5: 175—200.
41. Morton, J. (1982). Disintegrating the lexicon: An information processing approach. In: Perspectives on Mental Representation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 89—109.
42. Murphy, L. (2002). Semantic Relation and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Nelson, D., McEvoy, C., Schreiber, T. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36: 402—407.
44. Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: a connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52 (3): 189—234.
45. Poeppel, D., Emmorey, K., Hickok, G. (2012). Towards a new neurobiology of language. Journal of Neuroscience, 32 (41): 14125—14131.
46. Poulisse, N. (1999). Slips of the tongue: speech errors in first and second language production. Philadelphia, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
47. Rogers, T. (2008). Computational models of semantic memory. The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 226—267.
48. Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. XI—XII.
49. Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50. Sloman, S. (1998). Categorical inference is not a tree: The myth of inheritance hierarchies. Cognitive Psychology, 35: 1—33.
51. Steyvers, M., Shiffrin, R., Nelson, D. (2005). Word association spaces for predicting semantic similarity effects in episodic memory. In: Decade of behavior: Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications. Washington: American Psychological Association. 237—249.
52. Steyvers, M., Tenenbaum, J. (2005). The large scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29: 41—78.
53. Turney, P. (2006). Similarity of Semantic Relations. Computational Linguistics, 32 (3): 379—416.
54. Ullman, M. Corkin, S., Coppolla, M. (1997). A neural dissociation within language: evidence that the mental dictionary is part of declarative memory, and that grammatical rules are processed by the procedural system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9: 266—276.
55. Ullman, M., Pancheva, R., Love, T. (2005). Neural correlates of lexicon and grammar: Evidence from the production, reading, and judgment of inflection in aphasia. Brain and Language, 93 (2): 185—238.
56. Watts, D., Strogatz, S. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393: 440—442.
57. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58. Wurm, L., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R. (2006). Dynamics of the auditory comprehension of prefixed words: Cohort entropies and conditional root uniqueness points. The Mental Lexicon, 1 (1): 125—146.
Review
For citations:
Belov V.A. Semantic Studies of Organisation and Functioning of Mental Lexicon. Nauchnyi dialog. 2020;(8):29-51. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2020-8-29-51
Views:
864
Email this article 