不同的词汇产生不同的竞争对手

IF 0.7 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Sabine Arndt-Lappe
{"title":"不同的词汇产生不同的竞争对手","authors":"Sabine Arndt-Lappe","doi":"10.3366/word.2023.0219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Analogy-based theories assume that in situations of affix competition, language users create novel word forms on the basis of similar existing forms in their Mental Lexicons ( Baayen et al. 2011 ; Daelemans & van den Bosch 2005; Skousen 1989 ). Interestingly, however, simulation studies employing computational implementations of analogical theories have almost invariably adopted a rather abstractionist view of the Mental Lexicon, representing the word stock of the language, and abstracting away from differences between individual speakers (see, e.g., Arndt-Lappe 2014 ; Chapman & Skousen 2005 ; Eddington 2006 ; Nieder et al. 2021 ). This is a problem because it precludes the possibility of testing a central prediction of analogical theories: if affixes are assigned on the fly on the basis of similar words in the lexicon, then speakers with different lexicons should make different choices. The present paper provides a proof-of-concept study addressing this issue for the form-based rivalry between the two English adjectival suffixes - ic and - ical. Analogical Modeling of Language (AML; Skousen et al. 2013 ) is used as a computational model. On the basis of a survey of the distribution of derivatives in different registers in the British National Corpus, predictions of the analogical model are compared for a simulated speaker with a large vocabulary (including academic words) and a simulated speaker with a small vocabulary that is based mainly on words from spoken language. The statistical analysis of the simulations reveals that, while sharing some basic properties, the two models make very clear – and testable – predictions about speaker differences.","PeriodicalId":43166,"journal":{"name":"Word Structure","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Different lexicons make different rivals\",\"authors\":\"Sabine Arndt-Lappe\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/word.2023.0219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Analogy-based theories assume that in situations of affix competition, language users create novel word forms on the basis of similar existing forms in their Mental Lexicons ( Baayen et al. 2011 ; Daelemans & van den Bosch 2005; Skousen 1989 ). Interestingly, however, simulation studies employing computational implementations of analogical theories have almost invariably adopted a rather abstractionist view of the Mental Lexicon, representing the word stock of the language, and abstracting away from differences between individual speakers (see, e.g., Arndt-Lappe 2014 ; Chapman & Skousen 2005 ; Eddington 2006 ; Nieder et al. 2021 ). This is a problem because it precludes the possibility of testing a central prediction of analogical theories: if affixes are assigned on the fly on the basis of similar words in the lexicon, then speakers with different lexicons should make different choices. The present paper provides a proof-of-concept study addressing this issue for the form-based rivalry between the two English adjectival suffixes - ic and - ical. Analogical Modeling of Language (AML; Skousen et al. 2013 ) is used as a computational model. On the basis of a survey of the distribution of derivatives in different registers in the British National Corpus, predictions of the analogical model are compared for a simulated speaker with a large vocabulary (including academic words) and a simulated speaker with a small vocabulary that is based mainly on words from spoken language. The statistical analysis of the simulations reveals that, while sharing some basic properties, the two models make very clear – and testable – predictions about speaker differences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Word Structure\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Word Structure\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2023.0219\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Word Structure","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2023.0219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于类比的理论认为,在词缀竞争的情况下,语言使用者在其心理词汇表中相似的现有形式的基础上创造新的词形(Baayen et al. 2011;Daelemans,van den Bosch 2005;Skousen 1989)。然而,有趣的是,使用类比理论的计算实现的模拟研究几乎总是采用一种相当抽象的心理词典观点,代表语言的单词库存,并抽象出个体说话者之间的差异(参见,例如,Arndt-Lappe 2014;查普曼,Skousen 2005;Eddington 2006;Nieder et al. 2021)。这是一个问题,因为它排除了测试类比理论的一个中心预测的可能性:如果词缀是根据词典中相似的单词动态分配的,那么使用不同词典的人应该做出不同的选择。本文针对英语两个形容词后缀- ic和ical之间基于形式的竞争进行了概念验证研究。语言的类比建模(AML)Skousen et al. 2013)被用作计算模型。在对英国国家语料库中不同语域的衍生词分布进行调查的基础上,对具有大量词汇(包括学术词汇)的模拟说话者和具有主要基于口语词汇的小词汇的模拟说话者进行了类比模型的预测比较。模拟的统计分析表明,尽管这两个模型有一些共同的基本特性,但它们对说话者的差异做出了非常清晰且可测试的预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Different lexicons make different rivals
Analogy-based theories assume that in situations of affix competition, language users create novel word forms on the basis of similar existing forms in their Mental Lexicons ( Baayen et al. 2011 ; Daelemans & van den Bosch 2005; Skousen 1989 ). Interestingly, however, simulation studies employing computational implementations of analogical theories have almost invariably adopted a rather abstractionist view of the Mental Lexicon, representing the word stock of the language, and abstracting away from differences between individual speakers (see, e.g., Arndt-Lappe 2014 ; Chapman & Skousen 2005 ; Eddington 2006 ; Nieder et al. 2021 ). This is a problem because it precludes the possibility of testing a central prediction of analogical theories: if affixes are assigned on the fly on the basis of similar words in the lexicon, then speakers with different lexicons should make different choices. The present paper provides a proof-of-concept study addressing this issue for the form-based rivalry between the two English adjectival suffixes - ic and - ical. Analogical Modeling of Language (AML; Skousen et al. 2013 ) is used as a computational model. On the basis of a survey of the distribution of derivatives in different registers in the British National Corpus, predictions of the analogical model are compared for a simulated speaker with a large vocabulary (including academic words) and a simulated speaker with a small vocabulary that is based mainly on words from spoken language. The statistical analysis of the simulations reveals that, while sharing some basic properties, the two models make very clear – and testable – predictions about speaker differences.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Word Structure
Word Structure LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信