Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
workshop:esslli:background [2010/02/07 23:52] schtepf |
workshop:esslli:background [2010/11/01 14:07] |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ====== Lexical Semantics Workshop (ESSLLI 2008) ====== | ||
- | |||
- | [[start|Start page]] -- | ||
- | **Background** -- | ||
- | [[proceedings|Programme and proceedings]] -- | ||
- | [[task|Shared tasks]] -- | ||
- | [[cfp|Call for papers]] | ||
- | |||
- | ===== Background and motivation ===== | ||
- | |||
- | [[http:// | ||
- | |||
- | Corpus-based distributional models (such as LSA or HAL) | ||
- | have been claimed to capture interesting aspects of word meaning | ||
- | and provide an explanation for the rapid acquisition of semantic | ||
- | knowledge by human language learners. | ||
- | However, although these models have been proposed as | ||
- | plausible simulations of human semantic space organization, | ||
- | careful and extensive empirical tests of such claims are still lacking. | ||
- | |||
- | Systematic evaluations typically focus on large-scale | ||
- | quantitative tasks, often more oriented towards engineering | ||
- | applications (see, e.g., the recent SEMEVAL evaluation campaign) than | ||
- | towards the challenges posed by linguistic theory, | ||
- | philosophy and cognitive science. | ||
- | between corpus-driven computational approaches to semantics on the one | ||
- | hand and theory-driven symbolic approaches on the other -- a situation that | ||
- | is characteristic of the linguistic and of most | ||
- | of the cognitive tradition. | ||
- | Moreover, whereas human lexical semantic competence is obviously | ||
- | multi-faceted -- ranging from free association to taxonomic judgments to | ||
- | relational effects -- tests of distributional models tend to focus on a | ||
- | single aspect (most typically the detection of semantic similarity), | ||
- | and few if any models have been tuned to tackle | ||
- | different facets of semantics in an integrated manner. | ||
- | |||
- | Our workshop purports to fill these gaps by inviting research teams and | ||
- | individual scholars to test their computational models on a variety of small but | ||
- | carefully designed tasks that aim to bring out linguistically and | ||
- | cognitively interesting aspects of semantics | ||
- | ([[#Tasks and data sets|see below]] for details). | ||
- | datasets are available to the participants, | ||
- | encouraged to explore them and highlight interesting aspects of their | ||
- | models' | ||
- | |||
- | The focus is NOT on competition, | ||
- | models highlight different semantic aspects, how far we are from | ||
- | an integrated model, and which aspects of semantics are beyond the | ||
- | reach of purely distributional approaches. | ||
- | In fact, we believe that at the current state of the art in | ||
- | computational and distributional semantics, our goal should not be | ||
- | to develop the best-performing model for a specific application, | ||
- | to enlarge our understanding of the limits and potentialities | ||
- | of different approaches when confronted with cognitively realistic tasks. | ||
- | |||
- | In addition to these practical tasks, theoretical and experimental papers | ||
- | discussing the relation between distributional and symbolic approaches to meaning | ||
- | are also invited. | ||
- | task data sets from a theoretical perspective or that discuss simulation results | ||
- | and their implications for semantic and cognitive theory. | ||
- | |||
- | Through collaborative preparatory work on the Word Space wiki ([[http:// | ||
- | collaboration among the nascent community of researchers interested in computational semantics from a theoretical rather than engineering-oriented point of view. | ||