Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 27:3 (2022) ► pp.321–348

Exploring the impact of lexical context on word association responses

ORCID logo | Keimyung University
In word association tasks, participants respond with the first word that comes to mind on seeing a given cue. These responses are generally assumed to be influenced by a number of factors, including cue semantics, form, and textual distribution. Previous studies exploring the third of these influences have used pairwise association measures, such as mutual information, to evaluate the extent to which textual distributions influence response selection. In the current paper, a different approach is taken. Rather than examining co-occurrences between a cue and its observed responses, this paper explores the possibility that the cue’s holistic collocational environment shapes its associative profile. Regression modelling demonstrates that the predictability of this textual distribution is a significant predictor of variance in the cue’s response profile. Overall, however, the amount of variance explained is small. A subsequent qualitative examination of distributional and associative profiles suggests several semantically based constraints to response generation.
Keywords: word association, collocation, entropy, lexical context, profiles
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The construct of lexical context, and its explanatory properties
  • 3.Exploring distributional predictability and WA responses
    • 3.1Method
    • 3.2Comparing associative and collocational entropy
    • 3.3Does collocational entropy predict overlap between primary associates and most frequent collocates?
    • 3.4Discussion
  • 4.What is revealed by comparison of collocational and associative environments?
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20102.thw
References (52)
References
Baayen, R. H. (2010). Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learning perspective. The Mental Lexicon, 5 (3), 436–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., & Đurđević, D. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118 1, 428–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & Moscoso Del Prado Martín, F. (2003). Semantic density and past-tense formation in three Germanic languages. Language, 81 (3), 666–698. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bøyum, M. (2016). A New Word Association Test for Norwegian. University of Oslo.Google 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charles, W. G., & Miller, G. A. (1989). Contexts of antonymous adjectives. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10 (03), 357–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cramer, P. (1968). Word Association. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dagenbach, D., Horst, S., & Carr, T. H. (1990). Adding new information to semantic memory: How much learning is enough to produce automatic priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16 (4), 581–591.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2018). The iWeb Corpus. Retrieved February 2, 2021 from [URL]
De Deyne, S., & Storms, G. (2008). Word associations: Network and semantic properties. Behavior Research Methods, 40 (1), 213–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B. (1989). Representational aspects of word imageability and word frequency as assessed through word association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15 (5), 824–845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deese, J. (1966). The Structure of Associations in Language and Thought. Johns Hopkins Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Gries, S. Th. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2 (1), 23–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duñabeitia, J. A., Avilés, A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). NoA’s ark: Influence of the number of associates in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15 (6), 1072–1077. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Entwisle, D. R. (1966). Form class and children’s word associations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 5 1, 558–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T., & Izura, C. (2011). Word Association in L1 and L2: An exploratory study of response types, response times, and interlingual mediation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33 ( 3 ), 373–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run . In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis (pp. 57–99). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. In Aquilino Sánchez & M. Almela (Eds.), A Mosaic of Corpus Linguistics: Aelected Approaches (pp. 269–291). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2013). 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18 (1), 137–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). The discriminatory power of lexical context for alternations: An information-theoretic exploration. Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science, 5 (1–2), 78–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Divjak, D. (2009). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 57–76). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning, 65 (S1), 228–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guida, A., & Lenci, A. (2007). Semantic properties of word associations to Italian verbs. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 19 1(2007), 293–326.Google Scholar
Hahn, L. W., & Sivley, R. M. (2011). Entropy, semantic relatedness and proximity. Behavior Research Methods, 43 (3), 746–760. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied Logistic Regression (2nd ed.). Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10 (4), 785–813. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A., & Solovyev, V. D. (2009). What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of Russian words for sadness and happiness. Cognitive Linguistics, 20 (2), 367–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, B. (2018). Collocation and word association: Comparing collocation measuring methods. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23 (1), 85–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, H.-Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38 (1), 52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiss, G. R., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R., & Piper, J. (1973). An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In A. J. Aitkin, R. W. Bailey, & N. Hamilton-Smith (Eds.), The Computer and Literary Studies (pp. 153–165). Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44 1, 978–990. DOI logoGoogle 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 1, 211–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longman. (2014). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (6th ed.).Google 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 1, 57–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2001). Rethinking the word frequency effect: The neglected role of distributional information in lexical processing. Language and Speech, 44 (3), 295–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGee, I. (2009). Adjective-noun collocations in elicited and corpus data: Similarities, differences, and the whys and wherefores. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5 (1), 79–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McRae, K., Khalkhali, S., & Hare, M. (2012). Semantic and associative relations in adolescents and young adults: Examining a tenuous dichotomy. In V. F. Reyna, S. B. Chapman, M. R. Dougherty, & J. Confrey (Eds.), The Adolescent Brain: Learning, Reasoning, and Decision Making (pp. 39–66). American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michelbacher, L., Evert, S., & Schütze, H. (2011). Asymmetry in corpus-derived and human word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7 (2), 245–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 26 1, 1–9.Google Scholar
Moscoso Del Prado Martín, F., Kostić, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 94 (1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nissen, H. B., & Henriksen, B. (2006). Word class influence on word association test results. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 389–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pecher, D., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1999). Automatic priming effects for new associations in lexical decision and perceptual indetification. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 52 (3), 593–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, A., & Bentin, S. (2003). Incidental formation of episodic associations: The importance of sentential context. Memory & Cognition, 31 (2), 306–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Word associations are formed incidentally during sentential semantic integration. Acta Psychologica, 127 (1), 57–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1997). Adding new word associations to semantic memory: Evidence for two interactive learning components. Acta Psychologica, 96 (1–2), 103–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. (2020). WordSmith Tools (Version 8.0) [Computer software]. Lexical Analysis Software. [URL]
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thwaites, P. (2019). Lexical and Distributional Influences on Word Association Response Generation [Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff University]. ORCA Online Research @ Cardiff. [URL]
(2020). Does verb transitivity influence word association responses? The Mental Lexicon 15 (3), 464–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Heuven, W. J. B., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 67 1(January 2015), 1176–1190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vivas, L., Manoiloff, L., García, A. M., Lizarralde, F., & Vivas, J. (2019). Core semantic links or lexical associations: Assessing the nature of responses in word association tasks. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48 (1), 243–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wettler, M., Rapp, R., & Sedlmeier, P. (2005). Free word associations correspond to contiguities between words in texts. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 12 (2–3), 111–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar