Cover not available
Article published In:
Explorations of morphological structure in distributional space
Edited by Melanie J. Bell, Juhani Järvikivi and Vito Pirrelli
[The Mental Lexicon 17:3] 2022
► pp. 337–367

Making sense of spoken plurals

ORCID logo | Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
 | Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
 | Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
Distributional semantics offers new ways to study the semantics of morphology. This study focuses on the semantics of noun singulars and their plural inflectional variants in English. Our goal is to compare two models for the conceptualization of plurality. One model (FRACSS) proposes that all singular-plural pairs should be taken into account when predicting plural semantics from singular semantics. The other model (CCA) argues that conceptualization for plurality depends primarily on the semantic class of the base word. We compare the two models on the basis of how well the speech signal of plural tokens in a large corpus of spoken American English aligns with the semantic vectors predicted by the two models. Two measures are employed: the performance of a form-to-meaning mapping and the correlations between form distances and meaning distances. Results converge on a superior alignment for CCA. Our results suggest that usage-based approaches to pluralization in which a given word’s own semantic neighborhood is given priority outperform theories according to which pluralization is conceptualized as a process building on high-level abstraction. We see that what has often been conceived of as a highly abstract concept, [+plural], is better captured via a family of mid-level partial generalizations.
Keywords: plural semantics, distributional semantics, FRACSS, Cosine Class Average, sound-meaning mapping, spoken word recognition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Study 1: Assessing the isomorphy of form and meaning with LDL-AURIS
    • 3.1Representations
    • 3.2Mapping audio vectors onto semantic vectors
    • 3.3Training data and test data
    • 3.4Procedure
    • 3.5Results
      • 3.5.1Recognitions
      • 3.5.2Errors
    • 3.6An alternative approach
  • 4.Study 2: Assessing the isomorphy of form and meaning with distance measures
  • 5.General Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Authors’ contributions
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 17 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.22011.sha
References (52)
References
Amenta, S., Marelli, M., Sulpizio, S. (2017). From sound to meaning: Phonology-to-Semantics mapping in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24 ( 3 ), 887–893. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Chuang, Y.-Y., Shafaei-Bajestan, E., Blevins, J. (2019). The discriminative lexicon: A unified computational mo del for the lexicon and lexical processing in comprehension and production grounded not in (de)composition but in linear discriminative learning. Complexity, 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2005). Semantic density and past-tense formation in three Germanic languages. Language, 81 1, 666–698. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boleda, G. (2020). Distributional Semantics and Linguistic Theory. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6 1, 213–234. DOI logo arXiv:1905.01896v4.Google Scholar
Chuang, Y.-Y., Brown, D., Baayen, R. H., Evans, R. (2022). Paradigm gaps are associated with weird “distributional semantics" properties: Russian defective nouns and their case and number paradigms. submitted. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
Ciaramita, M., & Johnson, M. (2003). Supersense tagging of unknown nouns in wordnet. Proceedings of the 2003 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (p. 168–175). USA: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number (S. R. Anderson et al., Eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faraway, J. J. (2005). Linear models with r. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. Retrieved from [URL]
Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1968). Selected papers of J. R. Firth, 1952–59. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gallice, G. (2012). Flickr – ggallice – street dogs (1). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved 2022-5-31, from [URL] (This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.)
Günther, F., Rinaldi, L., Marelli, M. (2019). Vector-Space Models of Semantic Representation From a Cognitive Perspective: A Discussion of Common Misconceptions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14 (6), 1006–1033. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harbour, D. (2008). Morphosemantic Number: From Kiowa Noun Classes To UG Number Features (1st ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Valence and atomic number. Linguistic Inquiry, 42 (4), 561–594. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1954, 8). Distributional Structure. WORD, 10 (2–3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (2004). Massive reduction in conversational American English. Spontaneous speech: data and analysis. proceedings of the 1st session of the 10th international symposium (pp. 29–54). Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Khursheed, O. (2014). Apples of kashmir valley. Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved 2022-5-31, from [URL] (This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.)
Kiela, D., Bulat, L., Clark, S. (2015). Grounding semantics in olfactory perception. ACL-IJCNLP 2015 – 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, Proceedings of the Conference, 2 1, 231–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiela, D., & Clark, S. (2017). Learning neural audio embeddings for grounding semantics in auditory perception. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 60 1, 1003–1030. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kisselew, M., Padó, S., Palmer, A., Šnajder, J. (2015, April). Obtaining a better understanding of distributional models of German derivational morphology. (pp. 58–63). London, UK: Association for Computational Linguistics.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. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Levy, O., Kenett, Y. N., Oxenberg, O., Castro, N., De Deyne, S., Vitevitch, M. S., Havlin, S. (2021). Unveiling the nature of interaction between semantics and phonology in lexical access based on multilayer networks. Scientific Reports, 11 (1), 1–14. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Manning, C., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S., McClosky, D. (2014). The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit. Proceedings of 52nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: System demonstrations (pp. 55–60). Baltimore, Maryland: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marelli, M., Amenta, S., Crepaldi, D. (2015). Semantic Transparency in Free Stems: The Effect of Orthography-Semantics Consistency on Word Recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68 (8), 1571–1583. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marelli, M., & Baroni, M. (2015). Affixation in semantic space: Modeling morpheme meanings with compositional distributional semantics. Psychological Review, 122 (3), 485–515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikolov, T. (2013, Jul 30). word2vec. Google Code Archive. Retrieved 2021-05-28, from [URL]
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. 1st International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2013 – Workshop Track Proceedings, 1–12. arXiv:1301.3781.Google Scholar
Milin, P., Filipović Durdević, D., Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2009). The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language, 60 (1), 50–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38 (11), 39–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monaghan, P., Shillcock, R. C., Christiansen, M. H., Kirby, S. (2014). How arbitrary is language? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369 (1651). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, E. H. (1920). On the reciprocal of the general algebraic matrix. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 26 (9), 394–395.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
Nikolaev, A., Chuang, Y., Baayen, R. H. (2022). A generating model for finnish nominal inflection using distributional semantics. Accepted for publication in the Mental Lexicon. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
Ochshorn, R. M., & Hawkins, M. (2015). Gentle: A robust yet lenient forced aligner built on kaldi. (Available online at [URL]).
Park, J. A. (2013). Spanish racoon cats. Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved 2022-5-31, from [URL] (This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.).
Plag, I., Homann, J., Kunter, G. (2017). Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics, 53 (1), 181–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polomé, E. C. (1967). Swahili language handbook. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Povey, D., Ghoshal, A., Boulianne, G., Burget, L., Glembek, O., Goel, N., … Vesely, K. (2011, December). The kaldi speech recognition toolkit. IEEE 2011 workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding. IEEE Signal Processing Society.Google Scholar
Shafaei-Bajestan, E., Moradipour-Tari, M., Uhrig, P., Baayen, R. H. (2021). LDL-AURIS: a computational model, grounded in error-driven learning, for the comprehension of single spoken words. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Semantic properties of english nominal pluralization: Insights from word embeddings. arXiv. arXiv:2203.15424.Google Scholar
Shahmohammadi, H., Lensch, H. P. A., Baayen, R. H. (2021, November). Learning zero-shot multifaceted visually grounded word embeddings via multi-task training. Proceedings of the 25th conference on computational natural language learning (pp. 158–170). Online: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shillcock, R., Kirby, S., McDonald, S., Brew, C. (2001). Filled pauses and their status in the mental lexicon. Proc. ITRW on Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech, Edinburgh, UK, 29–31 August 2001 (DiSS 2001) (pp. 53–56). Edinburgh, UK: International Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
Siegelman, N., Rueckl, J. G., Lo, J. C. M., Kearns, D. M., Morris, R. D., Compton, D. L. (2022). Quantifying the regularities between orthography and semantics and their impact on group- and individual-level behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 48 (6), 839–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomaschek, F., Plag, I., Ernestus, M., Baayen, R. H. (2019). Modeling the duration of word-final s in english with naive discriminative learning. Journal of Linguistics. ([URL]) DOI logo
Uhrig, P. (2018). Newsscape and the distributed little red hen lab – a digital infrastructure for the large-scale analysis of tv broadcasts. A.-J. Zwierlein, J. Petzold, K. Böhm, & M. Decker (Eds.), Anglistentag 2017 in regensburg: Proceedings. proceedings of the conference of the german association of university teachers of english (pp. 99–114). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
(2021). Large-Scale Multimodal Corpus Linguistics – The Big Data Turn (Habilitation thesis, unpublished manuscript). FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg.
van der Maaten, L., & Hinton, G. (2008). Visualizing Data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9 (86), 2579–2605. Retrieved from [URL]
Vyagov, V. (2021). Oranges (fruits). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved 2022-5-31, from [URL] (This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.).
Wang, B., Wang, A., Chen, F., Wang, Y., Kuo, C. C. J. (2019). Evaluating word embedding models: Methods and experimental results. APSIPA Transactions on Signal and Information Processing, 8 (1), e19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yip, P.-C., & Rimmington, D. (2006). Chinese: An essential grammar. Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Baayen, R. Harald
2024. The wompom. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 20:3 ► pp. 615 ff. DOI logo
Mujezinović, Erdin, Vsevolod Kapatsinski & Ruben van de Vijver
2024. One Cue's Loss Is Another Cue's Gain—Learning Morphophonology Through Unlearning. Cognitive Science 48:5 DOI logo
Shafaei-Bajestan, Elnaz, Masoumeh Moradipour-Tari, Peter Uhrig & R. Harald Baayen
2024. The pluralization palette: unveiling semantic clusters in English nominal pluralization through distributional semantics. Morphology 34:4 ► pp. 369 ff. DOI logo
Heitmeier, Maria, Yu-Ying Chuang & R. Harald Baayen
2023. How trial-to-trial learning shapes mappings in the mental lexicon: Modelling lexical decision with linear discriminative learning. Cognitive Psychology 146 ► pp. 101598 ff. DOI logo
Nikolaev, Alexandre, Yu-Ying Chuang & R. Harald Baayen
2022. A generating model for Finnish nominal inflection using distributional semantics. The Mental Lexicon 17:3 ► pp. 368 ff. DOI logo
Stupak, Inna V. & R. Harald Baayen
2022. An inquiry into the semantic transparency and productivity of German particle verbs and derivational affixation. The Mental Lexicon 17:3 ► pp. 422 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.