Lexical networks - Revision history

Bhattach at 07:28, 21 June 2007

2007-06-21T07:28:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:28, 21 June 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:
	2.[[Hannah_Cornish]]		2.[[Hannah_Cornish]]

	3.		3. [[Kathryn_Cooper]]

Bhattach at 06:05, 15 June 2007

2007-06-15T06:05:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:05, 15 June 2007
Line 135:		Line 135:
	more suited specifically to this type of network, we're very interested		more suited specifically to this type of network, we're very interested
	in hearing about it.)		in hearing about it.)

			== Modified ideas ==

			[Sayan sent off this email to Mark Newman today. (It incorporates some additional/new
			thoughts.]

			Hi Prof. Newman,

			This is Sayan, a grad student at U-M and one of the participants of
			the current Santa Fe Institute Summer School. First of all, many
			thanks for your interesting talks here earlier this week. It gave me
			some ideas for the group project on lexical networks which I and a
			couple of others are thinking of doing here at the Summer School.

			I am writing to you to see if you might possibly have the reference
			for the two papers that you mentioned towards the end of your last
			lecture (the paper about bipartite networks, and the paper about
			algorithms to find groups of vertices; I think the latter was Newman
			and Light (?) but I'm not sure -- I didn't copy down the references
			thinking that the slides will be on the Summer School Wiki, but
			they're not there yet.) Do you by any chance have the references?

			Our idea for the project, briefly, is the following: we'll create a
			lexical net with data (text, i.e. a corpus) from a given domain, and
			then "grow" the net thus built with more data from the domain. We want
			the second set of data should be similar enough to the
			first set of data, but with some systematic variation from the former.

			Specifically, we are thinking of using the data consisting of the
			abstracts (or maybe even full papers) of the Santa Fe Institute
			working paper series for this purpose. Our thinking behind this is this:
			in the early days, most working papers in SFI used to be from the
			hard sciences, while, with time, more and more papers have recently
			been from the social sciences. So, if we create a lexical net using data that
			uses the text of the earlier papers as a corpus, and then "grow" the
			net into a new net using data thaty uses the text of the later papers
			as a corpus, our working hypothesis is that we may end up getting
			subtle but interesting differences between these two lexical nets. We
			would expect the first lexical net to have more "hard-science" qualities
			somehow, and the second lexical net to have (relatively) more "social
			science" qualities somehow.

			We haven't quite thought everything through, but it does seem like algorithms
			that have to do with partitions in networks, or finding groups of
			vertices within
			networks, might be handy -- hence the reuqest. (As this is just an
			exploratory project,
			we're just interested about using this project to play with and get
			insights about lexical networks.)

			I know you must be very busy and so I apologize for making the request,
			since I should have noted down the references myself at the time of the
			lecture. In case you have the references lying about, they would be very
			helpful for us. (And in case you have any thoughts/suggestions about
			the project
			based on what I wrote above, that would be very helpful too!)

			Thanks very much for your help,

			-Sayan.

Bhattach at 05:07, 13 June 2007

2007-06-13T05:07:34Z

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 (suggested by [http://www.santafe.edu/events/workshops/index.php/Sayan_Bhatacharyya Sayan])
-==Members: (please add yourself if you are interested )==
+==Interested people: (please add yourself if you are interested )==
 .[[Sayan_Bhattacharyya]]
-.
+.[[Hannah_Cornish]]
 .
@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 Now, of course (1) and (2) above could actually end up being pursuable in terms of / within the same project: for example, the identification of synonyms within a lexical network could lead to attack tolerance (e.g. how to design a "self-healing" lexical network so that, if some of the nodes in the network are taken out, synonyms can step in to take over for the words thus taken out...)
-==An interesting exchange with John Mahoney:==
+==An interesting exchange with John Mahoney on June 8 ==
@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 Thanks again, am putting this up on the Wiki.

Bhattach at 05:53, 11 June 2007

2007-06-11T05:53:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:53, 11 June 2007
Line 34:		Line 34:


	On 6/8/07, John Mahoney <~~jrmahoney@~~ucdavis.edu> wrote:		On 6/8/07, John Mahoney <jrmahone (at) ucdavis (dot) edu> wrote:

	> might be interesting to try to model a lex net where synonyms display resistance to becoming		> might be interesting to try to model a lex net where synonyms display resistance to becoming

Bhattach at 05:52, 11 June 2007

2007-06-11T05:52:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:52, 11 June 2007
Line 35:		Line 35:

	On 6/8/07, John Mahoney <jrmahoney@ucdavis.edu> wrote:		On 6/8/07, John Mahoney <jrmahoney@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
	>
	> might be interesting to try to model a lex net where synonyms display resistance to becoming		> might be interesting to try to model a lex net where synonyms display resistance to becoming

	> equally used. attempting to use ideas from Page's talk on consistency and coherence. some say		> equally used. attempting to use ideas from Page's talk on consistency and coherence. some say

	> ketchup.. some say catsup ?		> ketchup.. some say catsup ?

	>		>
	> so basically thinking about the difference between semantic equivalence and equivalent use.		> so basically thinking about the difference between semantic equivalence and equivalent use.

	>		>
	> ?-john		> ?-john


	Hi John,		Hi John,

Bhattach at 05:51, 11 June 2007

2007-06-11T05:51:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:51, 11 June 2007
Line 30:		Line 30:

	Now, of course (1) and (2) above could actually end up being pursuable in terms of / within the same project: for example, the identification of synonyms within a lexical network could lead to attack tolerance (e.g. how to design a "self-healing" lexical network so that, if some of the nodes in the network are taken out, synonyms can step in to take over for the words thus taken out...)		Now, of course (1) and (2) above could actually end up being pursuable in terms of / within the same project: for example, the identification of synonyms within a lexical network could lead to attack tolerance (e.g. how to design a "self-healing" lexical network so that, if some of the nodes in the network are taken out, synonyms can step in to take over for the words thus taken out...)

			==An interesting exchange with John Mahoney:==


			On 6/8/07, John Mahoney <jrmahoney@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
			>
			> might be interesting to try to model a lex net where synonyms display resistance to becoming
			> equally used. attempting to use ideas from Page's talk on consistency and coherence. some say
			> ketchup.. some say catsup ?
			>
			> so basically thinking about the difference between semantic equivalence and equivalent use.
			>
			> ?-john

			Hi John,

			Thanks for this interesting idea.

			It makes me think of each node (word) maybe as a "basin of
			attraction", drawing meanings into it, with some (a few) meanings that
			are perched precariously on the rim between two basins, and capable of
			going down the direction of either word.

			We might also have a natural tendency to "compartmentalize" the world
			into discrete, non-overlapping categories (this would make sense from
			the viewpoint of evolutionary history, I think -- it might simply make
			sense to carve up the world into discrete categories if you're a
			hunter-gatherer on the savannahs trying to make split-second
			decisions). And so maybe we can say, from one point of view, that
			"language abhors synonyms" ?

			And there is the competing pressure, for reasons of building
			fault-tolerance into the system, etc, to get some redundancy in there,
			too.

			So from the point of view of a lexical network, there are good
			reasons, perhaps, for nodes to be similar (what you called "semantic
			equivalence") as well as for nodes to be dissimilar (what you called
			"non-equivalence of use").

			Thanks again, am putting this up on the Wiki.

Bhattach at 19:05, 8 June 2007

2007-06-08T19:05:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 8 June 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:

	(suggested by [http://www.santafe.edu/events/workshops/index.php/Sayan_Bhatacharyya Sayan])		(suggested by [http://www.santafe.edu/events/workshops/index.php/Sayan_Bhatacharyya Sayan])

			==Members: (please add yourself if you are interested )==

			1.[[Sayan_Bhattacharyya]]

			2.

			3.


	Lexical networks are graphs encoding the co-occurrence of words in large texts. (If the text is sufficiently large, we can pretend that the network encodes the entire language).		Lexical networks are graphs encoding the co-occurrence of words in large texts. (If the text is sufficiently large, we can pretend that the network encodes the entire language).

Alexhealing at 14:23, 8 June 2007

2007-06-08T14:23:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:23, 8 June 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Lexical networks are graphs encoding the co-occurrence of words in large texts. (If the text is sufficiently large, we can pretend that the network encodes the entire language).		Lexical networks are graphs encoding the co-occurrence of words in large texts. (If the text is sufficiently large, we can pretend that the network encodes the entire language).

	In the graph, two connected words are adjacent, and the degree of a given word is the number of edges that connect it with other words. You can take a look at this paper to see what lexical networks look like: (it's a short, readable paper): [http://complex.upf.es/~ricard/SWPRS.pdf 'The small-world of human language' by Cancho i Ferrer and Solé].		In the graph, two connected words are adjacent, and the degree of a given word is the number of edges that connect it with other words. You can take a look at this paper to see what lexical networks look like: (it's a short, readable paper): [http://complex.upf.es/~ricard/SWPRS.pdf The small-world of human language' by Cancho i Ferrer and Solé].

Alexhealing at 14:23, 8 June 2007

2007-06-08T14:23:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:23, 8 June 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Lexical networks are graphs encoding the co-occurrence of words in large texts. (If the text is sufficiently large, we can pretend that the network encodes the entire language).		Lexical networks are graphs encoding the co-occurrence of words in large texts. (If the text is sufficiently large, we can pretend that the network encodes the entire language).

	In the graph, two connected words are adjacent, and the degree of a given word is the number of edges that connect it with other words. You can take a look at this paper to see what lexical networks look like: (it's a short, readable paper): [complex.upf.es/~ricard/SWPRS.pdf 'The small-world of human language' by Cancho i Ferrer and Solé].		In the graph, two connected words are adjacent, and the degree of a given word is the number of edges that connect it with other words. You can take a look at this paper to see what lexical networks look like: (it's a short, readable paper): [http://complex.upf.es/~ricard/SWPRS.pdf 'The small-world of human language' by Cancho i Ferrer and Solé].

Bhattach at 14:18, 8 June 2007

2007-06-08T14:18:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:18, 8 June 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Lexical networks are graphs encoding the co-occurrence of words in large texts. (If the text is sufficiently large, we can pretend that the network encodes the entire language).		Lexical networks are graphs encoding the co-occurrence of words in large texts. (If the text is sufficiently large, we can pretend that the network encodes the entire language).

	In the graph, two connected words are adjacent, and the degree of a given word is the number of edges that connect it with other words. You can take a look at this paper to see what lexical networks look like: (it's a short, readable paper): [complex.upf.es/~ricard/SWPRS.pdf The small-world of human language].		In the graph, two connected words are adjacent, and the degree of a given word is the number of edges that connect it with other words. You can take a look at this paper to see what lexical networks look like: (it's a short, readable paper): [complex.upf.es/~ricard/SWPRS.pdf 'The small-world of human language' by Cancho i Ferrer and Solé].