Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Complexity
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 5785617, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5785617
Research Article

A Novel Procedure for Measuring Semantic Synergy

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 84105 Beer-Sheva, Israel

Correspondence should be addressed to Yair Neuman; li.ca.ugb@namueny

Received 8 September 2016; Revised 3 November 2016; Accepted 5 December 2016; Published 15 January 2017

Academic Editor: Sergio Gómez

Copyright © 2017 Yair Neuman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. D. Anastassiou, “Computational analysis of the synergy among multiple interacting genes,” Molecular Systems Biology, vol. 3, no. 1, article 83, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. V. Griffith, Quantifying synergistic information [Ph.D. dissertation], California Institute of Technology, 2014.
  3. P. L. Williams and R. D. Beer, “Nonnegative decomposition of multivariate information,” https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2515.
  4. N. Timme, W. Alford, B. Flecker, and J. M. Beggs, “Synergy, redundancy, and multivariate information measures: an experimentalist's perspective,” Journal of Computational Neuroscience, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 119–140, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. C. Semenza and C. Luzzatti, “Combining words in the brain: the processing of compound words. Introduction to the special issue,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 31, no. 1-2, pp. 1–7, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. J. Bell and M. Schäfer, “Modelling semantic transparency,” Morphology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 157–199, 2016. View at Google Scholar
  7. S. Frisson, E. Niswander-Klement, and A. Pollatsek, “The role of semantic transparency in the processing of English compound words,” British Journal of Psychology, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 87–107, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. G. Libben, “Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: consequences for representation, processing, and impairment,” Brain and Language, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 30–44, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. G. Libben, M. Gibson, Y. B. Yoon, and D. Sandra, “Compound fracture: the role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness,” Brain and Language, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 50–64, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. B. J. Juhasz, Y.-H. Lai, and M. L. Woodcock, “A database of 629 English compound words: ratings of familiarity, lexeme meaning dominance, semantic transparency, age of acquisition, imageability, and sensory experience,” Behavior Research Methods, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1004–1019, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. P. D. Turney, “Semantic composition and decomposition: from recognition to generation,” https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7908.
  12. S. Reddy, D. McCarthy, and S. Manandhar, “An empirical study on compositionality in compound nouns,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Natural Language Processing, pp. 210–218, Chiang Mai, Thailand, November 2011.
  13. S. Clark, Vector Space Models of Lexical Meaning. Handbook of Contemporary Semantics, Wiley-Blackwell, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 2012.
  14. P. D. Turney and P. Pantel, “From frequency to meaning: vector space models of semantics,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 37, pp. 141–188, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. M. Davies, “The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): design, architecture, and linguistic insights,” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 159–190, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. P. D. Turney, Y. Neuman, D. Assaf, and Y. Cohen, “Literal and metaphorical sense identification through concrete and abstract context,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP '11), pp. 680–690, Edinburgh, Scotland, July 2011. View at Scopus
  17. M. Andrews, G. Vigliocco, and D. Vinson, “Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations,” Psychological Review, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 463–498, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. M. Brysbaert, A. B. Warriner, and V. Kuperman, “Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas,” Behavior Research Methods, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 904–911, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. C. H. Bennett and R. Landauer, “The fundamental physical limits of computation,” Scientific American, vol. 253, no. 1, pp. 48–56, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. B. Tamir and Y. Neuman, The Physics of Categorization, Complexity, 2015.