Advertisement

Eureka! A Simple Solution to the Complex ‘Tip-of-the-Tongue’-Problem

  • Michael ZockEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Dictionaries are repositories of knowledge concerning words. While readers are mostly concerned with meanings, writers are generally more concerned with word forms (lemma) expressing meanings. I will focus here on this latter task: building a tool to help authors to find the word they are looking for, word they may know but whose form is eluding them. Put differently, my goal is to build a resource helping authors to overcome the Tip-of-the-Tongue problem (ToT). Obviously, in order to access a word, it must be stored somewhere (brain, resource). Yet this is far from sufficient. Access may depend on many other factors than storage of word forms: organization of the dictionary (index), the user’s cognitive state, i.e. available knowledge at the onset of search, the distance between the source- and the target-word (direct neighbor or not) , the knowledge of the relationship between the two, etc. I will try to provide evidence for the claim that (word) storage does not guarantee access. To this end I will compare a well-known lexical resource, WordNet (WN), to an equivalent one, but bootstrapped from Wikipedia (WiPe). While both versions contain basically the same set of words, the latter contains   many more (syntagmatic) links than WN. This is probably the reason why WiPe outperforms WN. In the last two sections I will explain under what conditions WN is suitable for word access, and what it might take to go beyond the limitations of this famous resource.

References

  1. Abrams, L., Trunk, D. L., & Margolin, S. J. (2007). Resolving tip-of-the-tongue states in young and older adults: The role of phonology. In L. O. Randal (Ed.), Aging and the elderly: Psychology, sociology, and health (pp. 1–41). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Abel, A. (2012). Dictionary writing systems and beyond. In S. Granger, & M. Paquot (Eds.), Electronic lexicography (pp. 83–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agirre, E., Ansa, O., Hovy, E., & Martinez, D. (2001). Enriching WordNet concepts with topic signatures. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.CL/0109031.
  4. Aitchison, J. (2003). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (2010). The BBI combinatory dictionary of English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  6. Bentivogli, L., & Pianta, E. (2004). Extending WordNet with syntagmatic information. In P. Sojka, K. Pala, P. Smrz, C. Fellbaum, & P. Vossen (Eds.), GlobalWor(l)dNet Conference, Proceedings (pp. 47–53). Brno: Masaryk University.Google Scholar
  7. Benjamin, M. (2014). Collaboration in the production of a massively multilingual lexicon. In LREC Conference Proceedings (pp. 211–215). Reykjavik.Google Scholar
  8. Bernstein, T. (1975). Bernstein’s reverse dictionary. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  9. Biemann, C. (2012). Structure discovery in natural language. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bilac, S., Watanabe, W., Hashimoto, T., Tokunaga, T., & Tanaka, H. (2004). Dictionary search based on the target word description. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of The Association for Natural Language Processing (pp. 556–559). Tokyo.Google Scholar
  11. Boissière, P. (1862). Dictionnaire analogique de la langue française: Répertoire complet des mots par les idées et des idées par les mots. Paris: Auguste Boyer.Google Scholar
  12. Boyd-Graber, J., Fellbaum, C., Osherson, D., & Schapire, R. (2006). Adding dense, weighted, connections to WordNet. In P. Sojka, Ks. Choi, C. Fellbaum, & P. Vossen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Global WordNet Conference 2006 (pp. 29–35). Brno: Masaryk University.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, A. S. (1991). The tip of the tongue experience: A review and evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 10, 204–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, R., & Mc Neill, D. (1966). The tip of the tongue phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 5, 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Casares, J. (1942). Diccionario ideológico de la lengua española. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili.Google Scholar
  16. de Deyne, S., & Storms, G. (2015). Word associations. In J. R. Taylor (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the word. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. de Deyne, S., Verheyen, S., & Storms, G. (2016). Structure and organization of the mental lexicon: A network approach derived from syntactic dependency relations and word associations. In Towards a theoretical framework for analyzing complex linguistic networks (pp. 47–79). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Dong, Z., & Dong, Q. (2006). HowNet and the computation of meaning. London: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  19. Dornseiff, F., Wiegand, H. E., & Quasthoff, U. (2004). Der deutsche Wortschatz nach Sachgruppen. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Dutoit, D., & Nugues, P. (2002). A lexical network and an algorithm to find words from definitions. In F. van Harmelen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 450–454). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  21. Edmonds, D. (Ed.). (1999). The Oxford reverse dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. El-Kahlout, I. D., & Oflazer, K. (2004). Use of WordNet for retrieving words from their meanings. In P. Sojka, K. Pala, P. Smrž, C. Fellbaum, & P. Vossen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Global Wordnet Conference (pp. 118–123). Brno: Masaryk University.Google Scholar
  23. Evens, M. W. (2009). Relational models of the lexicon: Representing knowledge in semantic networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Everitt, B., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database and some of its applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fergusson, R., & Fergusson, R. (1985). The Penguin rhyming dictionary. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  27. Fernando, S. (2013). Enriching lexical knowledge bases with encyclopedic relations (Doctoral dissertation). University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  28. Ferret, O. (2015). Typing relations in distributional thesauri. In N. Gala, R. Rapp & G. Bel-Enguix, (Eds.), Language Production, Cognition, and the Lexicon. Springer, 113–134.Google Scholar
  29. Fontenelle, T. (1997). Turning a bilingual dictionary into a lexical-semantic database. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gliozzo, A., & Strapparava, C. (2008). Semantic domains in computational linguistics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (Eds.). (2012). Electronic lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Green, R., Bean, C. A., & Myaeng, S. H. (2002). The semantics of relationships. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanks, P. (2012). Corpus evidence and electronic lexicography. In S. Granger & M. Paquot, (Eds.), Electronic lexicography (pp. 57–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kahn, J. (1989). Reader’s Digest reverse dictionary. London: Reader’s Digest.Google Scholar
  35. Kilgarriff, A., Rychlý, P., Smrž, P., & Tugwell, D. (2004). The sketch engine. In G. Williams & S. Vessier (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh EURALEX International Congress (pp. 105–116). Lorient, France: UBS.Google Scholar
  36. Kilgarriff, A., & Kosem, I. (2012). Corpus tools for lexicographers. In S. Granger & M. Paquot (Eds.), Electronic Lexicography (pp. 31–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levelt, W., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.Google Scholar
  38. Levelt, W. J. (1993). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Levelt, W. J. (2001). Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(23), 13464–13471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mel’čuk, I., & Polguère, A. (2007). Lexique actif du français: l’apprentissage du vocabulaire fondé sur 20 000 dérivations sémantiques et collocations du français. Champs linguistiques. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  41. Mihalcea, R., & Moldovan, D. (2001). Extended WordNet: Progress report. In NAACL 2001Workshop on WordNet and Other Lexical Resources (pp. 95–100). Pittsburgh, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Miller, G. (1991). The science of words. Scientific American Library. New York: W H Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  43. Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. J. (1990). Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4), 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Miller, G. A., & Fellbaum, C. (1992). Semantic networks of English. In B. Levin & S. Pinker (Eds.), Lexical and conceptual semantics (pp. 197–229). Cambridge and Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Moerdijk, F. (2008). Frames and semagrams. Meaning description in the General Dutch Dictionary. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Euralex International Congress (pp. 561–570). Barcelona: EURALEX.Google Scholar
  47. Murphy, M. L. (2003). Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy and other paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nastase, V., Nakov, P., Seaghdha, D. O., & Szpakowicz, S. (2013). Semantic relations between nominals. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 6(1), 1–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Navigli, R., & Ponzetto, S. (2012). BabelNet: The automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network. Artificial Intelligence, 193, 217–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nikolova, S., Tremaine, M., & Cook, P. R. (2010). Click on bake to get cookies: Guiding word-finding with semantic associations. In Proceedings of the 12th International. ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 155–162). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  51. Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2006). Speaking words: Contributions of cognitive neuropsychological research. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23(1), 39–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Richardson, S., Dolan, W., & Vanderwende, L. (1998). Mindnet: Acquiring and structuring semantic information from text. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Computational linguistics, ACL-COLING’98 (pp. 1098–1102). Montréal.Google Scholar
  53. Robert, P., Rey, A., & Rey-Debove, J. (1993). Dictionnaire alphabetique et analogique de la Langue Française. Paris: Le Robert.Google Scholar
  54. Roget, P. (1852). Thesaurus of English words and phrases. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  55. Rundell, M., & Fox, G. (Eds.). (2002). Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  56. Schvaneveldt, R. (Ed.). (1989). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, New Jersey, US: Ablex.Google Scholar
  57. Schwartz, B. L. (2002). Tip-of-the-tongue states: Phenomenology, mechanism, and lexical. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  58. Schwartz, B. L. (2006) Tip-of-the-tongue states as metacognition. Metacognition and Learning. 1(2), 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200–219). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sierra, G. (2000). The onomasiological dictionary: A gap in lexicography. In U. Heid, S. Evert, E. Lehmann, & C. Rohrer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Euralex International Congress (pp. 223–235). Stuttgart: IMS, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  61. Storjohann, P. (Ed.). (2010). Lexical-semantic relations: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  62. Summers, D. (1993). Language Activator: The world’s first production dictionary. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  63. Thumb, J. (2004). Dictionary look-up strategies and the bilingualised learner’s dictionary. A think-aloud study. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tulving, E., & Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van Sterkenburg, P. (2003). Onomasiological specifications and a concise history of onomasiological dictionaries. In P. van Sterkenburg (Ed.), A practical guide to lexicography (pp. 127–143). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Webster, M. (2007). Merriam Webster's rhyming dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Springfield, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  67. Zhang, Z., Gentile, A., & Ciravegna, F. (2012). Recent advances in methods of lexical semantic relatedness  –  A survey. Journal of Natural Language Engineering, 19(4), 411–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zock, M. (2015a). ‘Errare humanum est’. Refusing to ‘appreciate’ this fact could be a big mistake! In G. Adda, M. Adda-Decker, J. Mariani, V. Barbu Mititelu, D. Tufis, & I. Vasilescu (Eds.), Errors by Humans and Machines in multimedia, multimodal and multilingual data processing. Proceedings of ERRARE 2015. Bucharest: Romanian Academy Publishing House.Google Scholar
  69. Zock, M. (2015b). Introduction to the special issue of ‘cognitive aspects of natural language processing’ (Words in books, computers and the human mind). Journal of Cognitive Science, 16(4), 355–378. Institute for Cognitive Science, Seoul National University (http://j-cs.org/gnuboard/bbs/board.php?bo_table=__vol016i4).
  70. Zock, M., & Biemann, C. (2016). Towards a resource based on users' knowledge to overcome the Tip-of-the-Tongue problem. In Proceedings of the COLING Workshop 'Cognitive Aspects of the Lexicon' (CogALex-V) (pp. 57–68) Osaka, Japan.Google Scholar
  71. Zock, M., Ferret, O., & Schwab, D. (2010). Deliberate word access: An intuition, a roadmap and some preliminary empirical results. International Journal of Speech Technology, 13(4), 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zock, M., & Schwab, D. (2011). Storage does not guarantee access. The problem of organizing and accessing words in a speaker’s lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Science, 12(3), 233–258. Institute for Cognitive Science, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
  73. Zock, M., & Tesfaye, D. (2015). Automatic creation of a semantic network encoding part_of relations. Journal of Cognitive Science, 16(4), 431–491. Institute for Cognitive Science, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
  74. Zock, M., Wandmacher, T., & Ovchinnikova, E. (2009). Are vector-based approaches a feasible solution to the « tip-of-the-tongue » problem? S. Granger & M. Paquot (Eds.), eLexicography in the 21st century: New challenges, new applications  (pp. 355–366). Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, LIF (UMR 7279)MarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations