Datasets:

WINGNUS
/

ACL-OCL

	{
	"paper_id": "J05-2004",
	"header": {
	"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
	"date_generated": "2023-01-19T02:50:54.491005Z"
	},
	"title": "A Mathematical Model of Historical Semantics and the Grouping of Word Meanings into Concepts",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Martin",
	"middle": [
	"C"
	],
	"last": "Cooper",
	"suffix": "",
	"affiliation": {
	"laboratory": "",
	"institution": "University of Toulouse III",
	"location": {}
	},
	"email": "cooper@irit.fr.submission"
	}
	],
	"year": "",
	"venue": null,
	"identifiers": {},
	"abstract": "A statistical analysis of polysemy in sixteen English and French dictionaries has revealed that, in each dictionary, the number of senses per word has a near-exponential distribution. A probabilistic model of historical semantics is presented which explains this distribution. This mathematical model also provides a means of estimating the average number of distinct concepts per word, which was found to be considerably less than the average number of senses listed per word. The grouping of word senses into concepts is based on whether they could inspire the same new senses (by metaphor, metonymy, etc.), that is, their potential future rather than their history.",
	"pdf_parse": {
	"paper_id": "J05-2004",
	"_pdf_hash": "",
	"abstract": [
	{
	"text": "A statistical analysis of polysemy in sixteen English and French dictionaries has revealed that, in each dictionary, the number of senses per word has a near-exponential distribution. A probabilistic model of historical semantics is presented which explains this distribution. This mathematical model also provides a means of estimating the average number of distinct concepts per word, which was found to be considerably less than the average number of senses listed per word. The grouping of word senses into concepts is based on whether they could inspire the same new senses (by metaphor, metonymy, etc.), that is, their potential future rather than their history.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Abstract",
	"sec_num": null
	}
	],
	"body_text": [
	{
	"text": "Ambiguity is ubiquitous in natural language. It is most dramatic when it concerns the parsing of a sentence in examples such as The High Court judges rape and murder suspects.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Introduction",
	"sec_num": "1."
	},
	{
	"text": "I heard a giant swallow after seeing a horse fly.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Introduction",
	"sec_num": "1."
	},
	{
	"text": "La petite brise la glace.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Introduction",
	"sec_num": "1."
	},
	{
	"text": "('The girl breaks the mirror.'/'The little breeze chills her.') (from Fuchs 1996) However, the most common form of ambiguity concerns the meanings of individual words, as in the following examples:",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 70,
	"end": 81,
	"text": "Fuchs 1996)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Introduction",
	"sec_num": "1."
	},
	{
	"text": "The minister decided to leave the party.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Introduction",
	"sec_num": "1."
	},
	{
	"text": "('church minister'/'government minister', 'drinks party'/'political party') He's a curious individual. ('odd'/'nosey') Je suis un imb\u00e9cile. ('I'm following an idiot.'/'I am an idiot.') The last example involves homographs (different words which happen to be spelled the same). However, it should be noted that only a small percentage of word sense ambiguity is due to homography. (We obtained an estimate of approximately 2% by random sampling of English and French dictionaries [12, 21, 22, 24] .) Many words have gained multiple senses by metonymy or by figurative or metaphorical uses. The resulting senses are sufficiently different to be considered by lexicographers as distinct concepts (e.g., political party/drinks party). In information retrieval systems with natural language interfaces (Mandala, Tokunaga, and Tanaka 1999; Stevenson and Wilks 1999) or in models of human language processing via networks of semantic links (Fellbaum 1998; Hayes 1999; Vossen 2001) , a fundamental question is what should correspond to a basic semantic concept. Is it a word, a word sense, or a group of word senses?",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 103,
	"end": 118,
	"text": "('odd'/'nosey')",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 479,
	"end": 483,
	"text": "[12,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 484,
	"end": 487,
	"text": "21,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 488,
	"end": 491,
	"text": "22,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 492,
	"end": 495,
	"text": "24]",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 797,
	"end": 833,
	"text": "(Mandala, Tokunaga, and Tanaka 1999;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF40"
	},
	{
	"start": 834,
	"end": 859,
	"text": "Stevenson and Wilks 1999)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF51"
	},
	{
	"start": 933,
	"end": 948,
	"text": "(Fellbaum 1998;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
	},
	{
	"start": 949,
	"end": 960,
	"text": "Hayes 1999;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF38"
	},
	{
	"start": 961,
	"end": 973,
	"text": "Vossen 2001)",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Introduction",
	"sec_num": "1."
	},
	{
	"text": "This article presents a stochastic model of the evolution of language which allows us to answer this question. Applying the model to statistics obtained from a large number of monolingual and bilingual dictionaries provides convincing evidence that neither words nor individual word senses (as identified by lexicographers) correspond to concepts, but rather groups of word senses. Our model demonstrates that each word represents, on average, about 1.3 distinct concepts. This can be compared with the average 2.0 distinct senses per word listed in the dictionaries. This model also allows us to propose a novel and formal definition of the word concept. There are clear applications in artificial intelligence (Mandala, Tokunaga, and Tanaka 1999; Stevenson and Wilks 1999) , cognitive science (Cruse 1995) , lexicography, and historical linguistics (Algeo 1998; Antilla 1989; Schendl 2001; Geeraerts 1997 ).",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 712,
	"end": 748,
	"text": "(Mandala, Tokunaga, and Tanaka 1999;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF40"
	},
	{
	"start": 749,
	"end": 774,
	"text": "Stevenson and Wilks 1999)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF51"
	},
	{
	"start": 795,
	"end": 807,
	"text": "(Cruse 1995)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
	},
	{
	"start": 851,
	"end": 863,
	"text": "(Algeo 1998;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
	},
	{
	"start": 864,
	"end": 877,
	"text": "Antilla 1989;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
	},
	{
	"start": 878,
	"end": 891,
	"text": "Schendl 2001;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF50"
	},
	{
	"start": 892,
	"end": 906,
	"text": "Geeraerts 1997",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF36"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Introduction",
	"sec_num": "1."
	},
	{
	"text": "Word origin and the evolution of spelling, pronunciation, and meaning have long been studied by etymologists. Etymology tells us that many words in everyday use have a history that can be traced back thousands of years (Onions 1966; Picoche 1992 ). This can be contrasted with the hundreds of new entries which lexicographers add to each new edition of a dictionary. These new entries are not only neologisms, but also new senses for existing words. The history of the variations in spelling and pronunciation of particular words are not of direct concern here. We are interested in how word, sense pairs enter (or leave) a language. For each such semantic change, we can try to identify the originator, the reason, and the mechanism by which it occurs. Picoche (1992) states that the majority of words in French have a scholarly origin and were introduced by clerics, jurists, intellectuals, and scientists directly from Latin and Greek. However, it is clear that many words are of popular origin (e.g., bike, trainers, and OK in English or v\u00e9lo, baskets, and OK in French) and have become accepted terms as the result of common use.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 219,
	"end": 232,
	"text": "(Onions 1966;",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 233,
	"end": 245,
	"text": "Picoche 1992",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF46"
	},
	{
	"start": 754,
	"end": 768,
	"text": "Picoche (1992)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF46"
	},
	{
	"start": 998,
	"end": 1074,
	"text": "(e.g., bike, trainers, and OK in English or v\u00e9lo, baskets, and OK in French)",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "The Genesis of Word Senses",
	"sec_num": "2."
	},
	{
	"text": "The principal reason why new word, sense pairs are introduced is to adapt language to new communicative requirements (Schendl 2001) . Discoveries and inventions can give rise to neologisms (e.g., kangaroo, quark, Internet) or new senses for existing words (e.g., the 'armoured vehicle' sense of tank which coexists with the earlier 'large container' sense). Another driving force in historical semantics is the human tendency toward efficiency of communication, by, for example, shortening words or expressions (e.g., clipping of omnibus to bus), ignoring unnecessary semantic distinctions, and inventing new words to replace long expressions. Other reasons for semantic change have more to do with human psychology than with practical necessity. Taboo leads to the introduction of slang words or euphemisms, such as to terminate for 'to kill' or senior for 'old'. Litotes is a special case in which a word is replaced by the negation of its opposite (e.g., not bad for 'good'). New words may be employed to make an old product sound more modern, exotic, or appetizing (e.g., the old-fashioned British word chips is often replaced by french fries or frites on menus). The human tendency to emphasize or exaggerate leads to the replacement of severe by horrific or very by awfully (Schendl 2001 ).",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 117,
	"end": 131,
	"text": "(Schendl 2001)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF50"
	},
	{
	"start": 189,
	"end": 222,
	"text": "(e.g., kangaroo, quark, Internet)",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 1280,
	"end": 1293,
	"text": "(Schendl 2001",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF50"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Origins of Semantic Change",
	"sec_num": "2.1"
	},
	{
	"text": "We can divide the mechanisms for neologism into three categories (Algeo 1998; Antilla 1989; Chalker and Weiner 1994; Gramley 2001; Schendl 2001; Stockwell and Minkova 2001) :",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 65,
	"end": 77,
	"text": "(Algeo 1998;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
	},
	{
	"start": 78,
	"end": 91,
	"text": "Antilla 1989;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
	},
	{
	"start": 92,
	"end": 116,
	"text": "Chalker and Weiner 1994;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
	},
	{
	"start": 117,
	"end": 130,
	"text": "Gramley 2001;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF37"
	},
	{
	"start": 131,
	"end": 144,
	"text": "Schendl 2001;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF50"
	},
	{
	"start": 145,
	"end": 172,
	"text": "Stockwell and Minkova 2001)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF52"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Mechanisms of Semantic Change",
	"sec_num": "2.2"
	},
	{
	"text": "1.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Mechanisms of Semantic Change",
	"sec_num": "2.2"
	},
	{
	"text": "Word-creation from no previous etymon. This is rare but is the most likely explanation for echoic words such as vroom, cuckoo, oh! (Bloomfield 1933 ).",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 131,
	"end": 147,
	"text": "(Bloomfield 1933",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Mechanisms of Semantic Change",
	"sec_num": "2.2"
	},
	{
	"text": "Borrowing from another language. This includes loan words (e.g., strudel from German, pizza from Italian) and loan translations in which each element of a word is translated (e.g., spring roll from Chinese, dreamtime from the Australian aboriginal alcheringa (Gramley 2001) , and chien-chaud, which is the French Quebec version of hot dog).",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 259,
	"end": 273,
	"text": "(Gramley 2001)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF37"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "2.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Word formation from existing etyma (words or word components). This includes (a) compounding (e.g., bookcase, bushfire), (b) blending (e.g., brunch, motel), (c) affixation (e.g., overcook, international, likeness, privatize), (d) shortening (e.g., petrol(eum), radar, telly, AIDS), (e) eponyms (e.g., kleenex, sandwich, jersey, casanova), (f) internal derivations (Gramley 2001 ) (e.g., extend/extent or sing/song), (g) reduplication (Stockwell and Minkova 2001 ) (e.g., fifty-fifty, dum-dum), (h) morphological reanalysis (Schendl 2001 ) (e.g., the nonexistent verb to edit was formed from the noun editor; the word cheeseburger was derived from hamburger even though this word comes from the proper name Hamburg).",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 121,
	"end": 124,
	"text": "(b)",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 226,
	"end": 229,
	"text": "(d)",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 339,
	"end": 342,
	"text": "(f)",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 364,
	"end": 377,
	"text": "(Gramley 2001",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF37"
	},
	{
	"start": 416,
	"end": 419,
	"text": "(g)",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 434,
	"end": 461,
	"text": "(Stockwell and Minkova 2001",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF52"
	},
	{
	"start": 523,
	"end": 536,
	"text": "(Schendl 2001",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF50"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "3.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Mechanisms 1 and 3(f)-(h) are rare compared to 2 and 3(a)-(e) (Algeo 1998) . Clearly, the above mechanisms are not exclusive. Borrowing and word formation are obviously both at play in examples such as blitz, which is a clipping of the German word blitzkreig, and the French word tennisman, which is a compound of two English words. Word creation, borrowing, and word formation generally produce a new word with a single sense, except when by coincidence the word being created, borrowed, or formed already exists with a different sense. In the rest of the article, we consider homographs produced by such coincidences to be different words. In most dictionaries, homographs have distinct entries. For example, the term bug, meaning 'error in a computer program,' was borrowed into French as bogue (by assimilation with the already existing word with the unrelated meaning 'husk'), but these two meanings of bogue are listed in French dictionaries as two distinct words.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 62,
	"end": 74,
	"text": "(Algeo 1998)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "3.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Nevertheless, we should mention three cases in which a neologism is often not recognized as a genuinely new word: ellipsis (Antilla 1989 ) (e.g., daily (newspaper)), zero derivation (Nevalainen 1999 ) (also known as conversion [Gramley 2001; Schendl 2001] ) (e.g., to cheat > a cheat), and borrowing of an already-existing word with a related sense (e.g., to control was borrowed into French as contr\u00f4ler, thus giving an extra sense to this French word meaning 'to verify').",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 123,
	"end": 136,
	"text": "(Antilla 1989",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
	},
	{
	"start": 182,
	"end": 198,
	"text": "(Nevalainen 1999",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF42"
	},
	{
	"start": 227,
	"end": 241,
	"text": "[Gramley 2001;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF37"
	},
	{
	"start": 242,
	"end": 255,
	"text": "Schendl 2001]",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF50"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "3.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "The following is a list of mechanisms which can create a new sense for an alreadyexisting word (adapted from Algeo [1998] ):",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 109,
	"end": 121,
	"text": "Algeo [1998]",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "3.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "1. referential shift (e.g., to print now also refers to laser printers).",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "3.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "generalization (e.g., chap used to mean 'a customer') or abstraction (e.g., zest denoted orange or lemon peel used for flavoring before being used in the abstract sense of 'gusto').",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "2.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "3. specialization (e.g., in Old English fowl meant any kind of bird and meat any kind of food [Onions 1966; Schendl 2001] ) or concretion.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 94,
	"end": 107,
	"text": "[Onions 1966;",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 108,
	"end": 121,
	"text": "Schendl 2001]",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF50"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "2.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "metaphor (e.g., kite, meaning 'bird of prey,' applied to a toy).",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": ". metonymy (literally, 'name change'), that is, naming something by any of its parts, accompaniments, or indexes (e.g., the crown for the sovereign, the City for the people who work there, tin for the container made of that metal, cognac for the drink originating from that region) (Traugott and Dasher 2002) .",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 282,
	"end": 308,
	"text": "(Traugott and Dasher 2002)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF54"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "5",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "clang association or folk etymology (e.g., belfry meant 'a movable tower used in attacking walled positions,' but the first syllable was associated with bell, and now the basic meaning is 'bell tower' [Antilla 1989] ).",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 201,
	"end": 215,
	"text": "[Antilla 1989]",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "6.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": ". embellishment of language by using words which are more acceptable, attractive, or flattering than existing terms (hyperbole, litotes, euphemisms, etc., as discussed above).",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "7",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "We use the general term association to cover all these cases.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "7",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "In order to study the relative importance of neologism, obsolescence, and the creation of new meanings for existing words, we counted the number of senses listed per word in several different monolingual dictionaries. We observed the following general empirical rule satisfied to within a fairly high degree of accuracy by all the dictionaries studied [9, 12, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 31, 32] :",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 352,
	"end": 355,
	"text": "[9,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 356,
	"end": 359,
	"text": "12,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 360,
	"end": 363,
	"text": "19,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 364,
	"end": 367,
	"text": "20,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 368,
	"end": 371,
	"text": "21,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 372,
	"end": 375,
	"text": "23,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 376,
	"end": 379,
	"text": "24,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 380,
	"end": 383,
	"text": "28,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 384,
	"end": 387,
	"text": "31,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 388,
	"end": 391,
	"text": "32]",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "The Near-Exponential Rule",
	"sec_num": "3."
	},
	{
	"text": "Near-Exponential Rule: The number of senses per word in a monolingual dictionary has an approximately exponential distribution.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "The Near-Exponential Rule",
	"sec_num": "3."
	},
	{
	"text": "One way of testing this rule is by plotting log(N s ) against s, where N s is the number of words in the dictionary with exactly s senses. If the near-exponential rule is satisfied, then the resulting plot should be very close to a straight line with a negative slope. This is indeed the case for the dictionaries tested, with varying values of the slope depending on the dictionary. Figures 1 and 2 show the plot of N s , on a logarithmic scale, against s for four English [19, 24, 28, 31] and five French [9, 12, 20, 21, 23] dictionaries. Only those points (s, N s ) for which N s > 12 are plotted in the figures.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 466,
	"end": 478,
	"text": "English [19,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 479,
	"end": 482,
	"text": "24,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 483,
	"end": 486,
	"text": "28,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 487,
	"end": 490,
	"text": "31]",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 500,
	"end": 510,
	"text": "French [9,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 511,
	"end": 514,
	"text": "12,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 515,
	"end": 518,
	"text": "20,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 519,
	"end": 522,
	"text": "21,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 523,
	"end": 526,
	"text": "23]",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [
	{
	"start": 384,
	"end": 399,
	"text": "Figures 1 and 2",
	"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
	}
	],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "The Near-Exponential Rule",
	"sec_num": "3."
	},
	{
	"text": "For each dictionary, the values of N s were obtained by sampling a random set of pages of the dictionary. Sampling was performed independently for each dictionary, meaning that the random sample of words was different in each case. We excluded entries corresponding to proper names, foreign words, spelling variants, derived words (such as past participles), regional words, abbreviations, and expressions. We allowed hyphens within words but not spaces. Thus cat-o'-nine-tails counted as a word, but tower block and phrasal verbs such as give up did not. Only words forming part of British English or French spoken in metropolitan France were considered. All words were treated equally irrespective of their relative frequencies. Thus the words get and floccinaucinihilipilification were given the same importance. The size of each dictionary that was sampled is given in the reference section. The dictionaries sampled vary in size from 20,000 to 80,000 words.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "The Near-Exponential Rule",
	"sec_num": "3."
	},
	{
	"text": "To ensure that the near-exponential rule was not simply an artifact of our choice of experimental procedure or of lexicographical practice, we performed the same analysis on a dictionary of abbreviations and acronyms [7], a dictionary of scientific terms [1], a bilingual dictionary of slang words [17] , and a dictionary of French synonyms [10] . The resulting curves, shown in Figure 3 , are far from straight lines.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 298,
	"end": 302,
	"text": "[17]",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 341,
	"end": 345,
	"text": "[10]",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [
	{
	"start": 379,
	"end": 387,
	"text": "Figure 3",
	"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
	}
	],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "The Near-Exponential Rule",
	"sec_num": "3."
	},
	{
	"text": "We performed similar counts for bilingual dictionaries. Figures 4 and 5 show the number of words NT t with t translations plotted against t for several pairs of languages. The NT t scale is again logarithmic. Although the near-exponential rule could also be said to hold for certain bilingual dictionaries, the curvature of the log NT t against t curve varies considerably depending on the distance between the two languages. For pairs of languages with strong etymological connections (such as French and Spanish), the average curvature is positive (Figure 4 ), but for pairs of distant languages (such as Japanese and English) the average curvature is negative ( Figure 5 ). A theoretical explanation of this phenomenon is outside the scope of the present article, but it is probably due to the greater differences in the segmentation of semantic space by distant languages (see Resnik and Yarowsky [2000] for some illustrative examples). It will be treated in detail in a follow-up article.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 881,
	"end": 907,
	"text": "Resnik and Yarowsky [2000]",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF48"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [
	{
	"start": 56,
	"end": 71,
	"text": "Figures 4 and 5",
	"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
	},
	{
	"start": 550,
	"end": 559,
	"text": "(Figure 4",
	"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
	},
	{
	"start": 665,
	"end": 673,
	"text": "Figure 5",
	"ref_id": "FIGREF4"
	}
	],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "The Near-Exponential Rule",
	"sec_num": "3."
	},
	{
	"text": "In the following section we present a mathematical model which explains the nearexponential distribution of word senses observed in English and French dictionaries. Not only do the curves of Figures 1 and 2 share the property of being close to straight lines (i.e., having curvature close to zero), but in each case, the curvature that they do exhibit is positive rather than negative. Although barely discernible for some of the curves, this positive curvature cannot be ignored. We fitted a straight line to the curves and then used a chi-square test to judge the closeness of fit of this straight line to the data. For each curve the chi-square test demonstrated a significant discrepancy between the model and the data. For example, the significance level was 15 standard deviations for the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (LCDE) [24] . In order to find a satisfactory model to explain this slight but consistently positive curvature, we study in more detail the process by which words gain new senses.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 845,
	"end": 849,
	"text": "[24]",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Words, Senses, and Concepts",
	"sec_num": "4."
	},
	{
	"text": "The word panel provides a good example of a word whose number of meanings has grown since its introduction into English from Old French in the 13th century. Its original meaning was a piece of cloth placed under a saddle. Over the centuries it gained many meanings, by extension of this original sense, which can be grouped together in the following concept:",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Words, Senses, and Concepts",
	"sec_num": "4."
	},
	{
	"text": "(C1) an often rectangular-shaped part of a surface (of a wall, fence, cloth, etc.), possibly decorated or with controls fastened to it.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Words, Senses, and Concepts",
	"sec_num": "4."
	},
	{
	"text": "Concept (C1) covers four of the meanings of panel listed in the LDCE. However, during the 14th century panel also gained the following meaning: piece of parchment (attached to a writ) on which names of jurors were written (hence by metonymy) list of jurymen: jury (Onions 1966) . Four of the meanings of panel listed in the LDCE can be considered to be covered by the following general concept:",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 264,
	"end": 277,
	"text": "(Onions 1966)",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Words, Senses, and Concepts",
	"sec_num": "4."
	},
	{
	"text": "(C2) a group of people (or the list of their names) brought together to answer questions, make judgements, etc.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Words, Senses, and Concepts",
	"sec_num": "4."
	},
	{
	"text": "If panel were to gain new meanings, such as 1. a side of a tower block 2. a school disciplinary committee then these would be by association with the two concepts listed above, (C1) and (C2), respectively. Note that neither of these potential new meanings would constitute a truly new concept, since they can be considered to be covered by the existing concepts (C1) and (C2). If, on the other hand, panel were to gain the following new meanings 3. a wall which divides a large room into smaller units but which does not reach the ceiling 4. a combined table and bench that can be used, for example, by a panel of experts by association with concepts (C1) and (C2), respectively, then these new meanings could be considered as corresponding to new concepts. These meanings are sufficiently different from the existing meanings listed in the LCDE that they themselves could give rise to further new meanings by metonymy, metaphor, etc., which would simply not be possible by direct association with the existing meanings. For example, the following meanings could theoretically be derived from the meanings 3 and 4, respectively, above (but not directly from concepts (C1) and (C2), respectively):",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Words, Senses, and Concepts",
	"sec_num": "4."
	},
	{
	"text": "5. any division of something into smaller units",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Words, Senses, and Concepts",
	"sec_num": "4."
	},
	{
	"text": "We continue with another example, this time from French. The word toilette has eight meanings listed in Le petit Robert [21] , which we can translate and paraphrase as follows:",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 113,
	"end": 124,
	"text": "Robert [21]",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "a combined desk and bench for a single person",
	"sec_num": "6."
	},
	{
	"text": "1. a small piece of cloth (from toile = 'piece of cloth') and, in particular, one that was used in the past to wrap up objects 2. a membrane used by butchers to wrap up certain pieces of meat 3. clothes, jewelry, comb, etc. (objects necessary to prepare one's appearance before going out, which used to be laid out on a small cloth) We can group these meanings into three concepts:",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "a combined desk and bench for a single person",
	"sec_num": "6."
	},
	{
	"text": "(D1) a small piece of material (meanings 1, 2) (D2) the objects used for, the action of or the style of dressing, making-up, cleaning of a person or an object (meanings 3, 4, 5, 6, 8) (D3) a washroom, toilet (meaning 7)",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "a combined desk and bench for a single person",
	"sec_num": "6."
	},
	{
	"text": "We have grouped meanings together in this way because we consider it likely that new meanings for toilette which could enter the French language by association with an existing meaning would be very similar for those meanings grouped into the same concept, but very different for those corresponding to different concepts. This discussion leads us naturally to the following technical definition of concept:",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "a combined desk and bench for a single person",
	"sec_num": "6."
	},
	{
	"text": "Two meanings of a given word correspond to the same concept if and only if they could inspire the same new meanings by association.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Definition",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "We suggest grouping together different senses of a word, not only according to their parts of speech or to their etymology (i.e., the history) of word senses, but also according to their potential future: whether or not they could inspire the same new meanings by association. This can be compared with the biological definition of species in terms of the ability to breed together to produce viable offspring rather than in terms of history or physical characteristics.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Definition",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "This section describes a stochastic model of the creation of word senses. This model not only explains the near-exponential rule but also provides a deeper insight into the process of naming. Let L D be a language as defined by the set of word, sense pairs in a dictionary D. We consider the evolution of the language L D over time. We must always bear in mind that L D is, of course, only an approximate representation of the semantics of the corresponding natural language. For example, the compiler of a dictionary may choose to include archaic words as a historical record or to exclude whole categories of words such as slang or technical terms. Consider the evolution of L D as a stochastic process in which each step is either (a) the elimination of a word sense (by obsolescence), (b) the introduction of a new word (by creation, borrowing, word-formation, or any other mechanism), or (c) the addition of a new sense for an existing word (by association with an existing sense). Let t be the probability of a step of type (a), u the probability of a step of type (b), and v the probability of a step of type (c). Note that t + u + v = 1. The parameters of our model t, u, v are unknowns which will be estimated from the observed values of N s (the number of words with s senses).",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "A Mathematical Model of Word Sense Genesis",
	"sec_num": "5."
	},
	{
	"text": "We make the following simplifying assumptions:",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "A Mathematical Model of Word Sense Genesis",
	"sec_num": "5."
	},
	{
	"text": "1. New-word single-sense assumption: When a neologism enters the language L D , it has a single sense.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "A Mathematical Model of Word Sense Genesis",
	"sec_num": "5."
	},
	{
	"text": "Independence of obsolescence and number of senses: The probability that a word, sense pair leaves the language L D by obsolescence is independent of the number of senses this word has in L D .",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "2.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "The new-word single-sense assumption is an essential part of our model. To test it we require two editions of the same dictionary. The 1994 edition of the Dictionnaire de l'acad\u00e9mie fran\u00e7aise indicates which words are new compared to the 1935 edition. Less than 17% of these words are polysemic. Furthermore, this corresponds, according to our model and to within-sample error, to the proportion of originally monosemic words entering the language that can be expected to acquire new senses during the period between the publication of the two editions. Assumption 2 above is not as important as assumption 1, since later we restrict ourselves to a no-obsolescence model.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "2.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "As discussed in the previous section, the set of s senses of an ambiguous word may correspond to a number c of essentially distinct concepts, where c is some number between one and s. For example, the plumbing and anatomy senses of joint correspond to the same concept, since they could inspire the same new senses by association. The 'cigarette containing cannabis' sense of joint clearly corresponds to a different concept, since it could inspire a very different set of new senses by association. Associations inspired by distinct concepts are assumed to occur independently. We assume that a word with s senses in L D represents on average 1 + \u03b1(s \u2212 1) concepts. We call \u03b1 the concept creation factor (since, in a no-obsolescence model, \u03b1 is simply the probability that a new sense for a word w can be considered a new concept compared to the existing senses for w). We can now state a third assumption:",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "2.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Associations are with concepts: The probability that a concept gives rise to a new sense for a word w by association is proportional to the number of concepts represented by w in L D , which is assumed to be on average 1 + \u03b1(s \u2212 1), where s is the number of senses of w and \u03b1 is a constant.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "3.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "The concept creation factor \u03b1 is another unknown which will be estimated from the values of N s . We make a fourth hypothesis in order to render the problem mathematically tractable:",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "3.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "N 1 N 2 N 3 N 4 N 5 N 6 N 7 N 8 N",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "3.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Stationary-state hypothesis: L D considered as a stochastic process is in a stationary state, in the sense that the probability P(s) that an arbitrary word of L D has exactly s senses does not change as L D evolves.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "To test the validity of the stationary-state hypothesis, we compared the 1933 and 1993 editions of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (SOED) [32, 28] . In the space of 60 years, the number of words in the SOED increased by 24%. Nevertheless the values of P(s) (s = 1, 2, . . . , 9) remained almost constant. A chi-square test revealed that the differences in the values of P(s) (s = 1, 2, . . .) could be accounted for by sampling error.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 144,
	"end": 148,
	"text": "[32,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 149,
	"end": 152,
	"text": "28]",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "The corresponding values of N s are given in Table 1 .",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [
	{
	"start": 45,
	"end": 52,
	"text": "Table 1",
	"ref_id": "TABREF1"
	}
	],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "The results of further experiments carried out to test the validity of the assumptions on which our model is based are given in a later section, so as not to clutter up the presentation of the model in this section.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Let m be the expected number of senses per word in L D . Since",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [
	{
	"start": 0,
	"end": 8,
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"ref_id": "EQREF",
	"raw_str": "m = \u221e s=1 s P(s)",
	"eq_num": "( 1 )"
	}
	],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "and the values of P(s) are constant by the stationary-state hypothesis, m is also a constant.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "The expected net increase in the number of word senses in L D during one step of the process is \u2212t + (1 \u2212 t) = 1 \u2212 2t, since the probability that a word sense is lost by obsolescence is t and the probability that a word sense is gained is 1 \u2212 t. If r denotes the expected net increase in the number of words in L D during one step of the process, then we must have 1\u22122t r = m, since m is a constant. Thus",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [
	{
	"start": 0,
	"end": 8,
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"ref_id": "EQREF",
	"raw_str": "r = (1 \u2212 2t)/m",
	"eq_num": "(2)"
	}
	],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Note that the number of words in L D would be constant if and only if t = 0.5. Let p out (s) represent the probability that the next change in the language L D is that a word with s senses loses one of its senses by obsolescence. Let p in (s) represent the probability that the next change in L D is that a word with s senses gains a new sense. Note that \u221e s=1 p out (s) = t and \u221e s=1 p in (s) = v, by the definitions of t and v. By the stationary-state hypothesis, the expected net increase in N s (the number of words in L D with exactly s senses) during one step must be proportional to P(s). Denote the expected net increase in N s by \u03b4 s = dP(s), for some constant d. We then have 2).",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "\u221e s=1 \u03b4 s = d, since \u221e s=1 P(s) = 1. But \u221e s=1 \u03b4 s = r,",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "We can also express \u03b4 s , the expected net increase in N s , in terms of the probabilities p in (s) and p out (s), which gives the following equation:",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "(",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [
	{
	"start": 0,
	"end": 8,
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"ref_id": "EQREF",
	"raw_str": "1 \u2212 2t)P(s)/m = \u2212p in (s) \u2212 p out (s) + p in (s \u2212 1) + p out (s + 1)",
	"eq_num": "(3)"
	}
	],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "since N s is decremented when a word with s senses gains or loses a sense and N s is incremented when a word with s \u2212 1 senses gains a sense or a word with s + 1 senses loses a sense. From the assumption of the independence of obsolescence and number of senses, it follows directly that p out (s) is proportional to sP(s ",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "= K P(s)(1 + \u03b1(s \u2212 1)). Since \u221e s=1 p in (s) = v, \u221e s=1 P(s) = 1, and \u221e s=1 sP(s) = m, we have v = \u221e s=1 K P(s)(1 + \u03b1(s \u2212 1)) = K (1 \u2212 \u03b1) + K \u03b1m. Thus K = v/(1 \u2212 \u03b1 + \u03b1m), and hence, for s = 1, 2, . . . p in (s) = v(1 + \u03b1(s \u2212 1))P(s) 1 \u2212 \u03b1 + \u03b1m",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Note that the creation of a new word with a single sense is a special case. By definition of u as the probability that the next step of the process is the creation of a new word,",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [
	{
	"start": 0,
	"end": 8,
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"ref_id": "EQREF",
	"raw_str": "p in (0) = u Summing equation (3), for s = 1, 2, . . ., gives 1 \u2212 2t m = \u2212p out (1) + p in (0) = \u2212tP(1) m + u Thus u = 1 \u2212 2t + tP(1) m",
	"eq_num": "(4)"
	}
	],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "and, since by",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "definition v = 1 \u2212 t \u2212 u, v = 1 \u2212 t \u2212 1 \u2212 2t + tP(1) m",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Plugging in the formulas for p in (s), p out (s), and v, our basic equation (3) becomes, after simplification, for s > 1:",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [
	{
	"start": 0,
	"end": 8,
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"ref_id": "EQREF",
	"raw_str": "t(s + 1)(1 \u2212 \u03b1 + \u03b1m)P(s + 1) \u2212 {(m \u2212 mt \u2212 1 + 2t \u2212 tP(1))(1 \u2212 \u03b1 + \u03b1s) +(1 \u2212 2t + ts)(1 \u2212 \u03b1 + \u03b1m)}P(s) + (m \u2212 mt \u2212 1 + 2t \u2212 tP(1))(1 \u2212 2\u03b1 + \u03b1s)P(s \u2212 1) = 0",
	"eq_num": "( 5 )"
	}
	],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "As observed in the previous section, empirical evidence indicates that P(s) is a near-exponential function. In fact, if P(s) were an exponential function, then since \u221e s=1 P(s) = 1 and \u221e s=1 sP(s) = m, we can easily deduce that P(s) would be equal to m \u22121 (1 \u2212 m \u22121 ) s\u22121 . The proof of the following result is simple but rather tedious and hence is omitted:",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "4.",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "The solution P(s) to the set of equations (5) is the exponential function",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Proposition",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "P(s) = m \u22121 (1 \u2212 m \u22121 ) s\u22121 if and only if \u03b1 = t m \u2212 2tm + 2t",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Proposition",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Since the relationship between \u03b1, t, and m given by the above proposition did not seem to have any theoretical foundation, and since the observed values of P(s) did not, in fact, follow a perfectly exponential distribution, we decided to estimate the values of the parameters m, \u03b1, and t which would best explain the actual near-exponential distributions. We first set m = \u221e s=1 sP obs (s), where P obs (s) are the observed values of P(s) calculated from the values of N s . Then we calculated the values of \u03b1 and t which minimized the sum of the squares of the errors in equation 5. For six out of the ten dictionaries tested, the best-fit value occurred when t = 0. The average of the best-fit values of t was 0.04. These results led us to examine different editions of the same dictionaries in order to obtain an alternative estimate of t. We discovered that while hundreds or even thousands of words were added between two different editions of the same dictionary [32, 28], very few words were removed due to obsolescence. For example, the number of words in the Dictionnaire de l'Acad\u00e9mie Fran\u00e7aise [9] increased by 28% in 59 years, whereas the total number of word senses marked as obsolete in the latest edition is less than 1%. Our conclusion is that the English and French languages, as defined by dictionaries, are in a state of continual expansion, with an almost negligible loss of word senses by obsolescence.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Proposition",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "We therefore study in more detail the special case in which t = 0. The following result follows immediately from equation (4) by setting t = 0: Proposition When t = 0, the probability that the next addition to L D is the creation of a new word is u = 1/m.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Proposition",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "When assumptions 1, 2, 3 and 4 hold and furthermore L D is subject to no obsolescence, then the probability that an arbitrary word in L D has s senses is given by",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Theorem",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [
	{
	"start": 0,
	"end": 8,
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"ref_id": "EQREF",
	"raw_str": "P(1) = 1 + \u03b1m \u2212 \u03b1 m + \u03b1m \u2212 \u03b1 P(s) = 1 + \u03b1m \u2212 \u03b1 m + \u03b1m \u2212 \u03b1 s i=2 (m \u2212 1)(1 \u2212 2\u03b1 + \u03b1i) m + m\u03b1i \u2212 \u03b1i (s > 1)",
	"eq_num": "(6)"
	}
	],
	"section": "Theorem",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Proof When t = 0, equation 5becomes, for s > 1",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Theorem",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [
	{
	"start": 0,
	"end": 8,
	"text": "EQUATION",
	"ref_id": "EQREF",
	"raw_str": "P(s)(m + m\u03b1s \u2212 \u03b1s) = P(s \u2212 1)(m \u2212 1)(1 \u2212 2\u03b1 + \u03b1s)",
	"eq_num": "( 7 )"
	}
	],
	"section": "Theorem",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Summing equation 7for s = 2, 3, . . . , gives",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Theorem",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "(1 \u2212 P(1))m + (m \u2212 P(1))(m\u03b1 \u2212 \u03b1) = (m \u2212 1)(1 \u2212 \u03b1) + m(m \u2212 1)\u03b1 since \u221e s=1 P(s) = 1, \u221e s=2 P(s) = 1 \u2212 P(1), \u221e",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Theorem",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "s=1 sP(s) = m, and \u221e s=2 sP(s) = m \u2212 P(1). Solving for P(1) gives",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Theorem",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "P(1) = 1 + \u03b1m \u2212 \u03b1 m + \u03b1m \u2212 \u03b1",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Theorem",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "The closed-form solution for P(s) in the statement of the theorem then follows by an easy induction using equation 7.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Theorem",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "We make the no-obsolescence assumption throughout this section, that is, that t = 0. Knowing that u = 1/m allows us to estimate that, in French, approximately 60% of new word senses correspond to the creation of a new word and approximately 40% to the introduction of a new sense for an existing word. In English the split is approximately 50-50. There are, however, quite large variations (between 55% and 65% in French) depending on the dictionary consulted. Variations are inevitable, since different lexicographers have different interpretations of what constitutes distinct senses of a word. We conjecture that similar percentages exist for all natural languages, although there will be variations among languages depending, among other things, on the ease with which new words can be created. The curves in Figure 1 are approximately straight lines, but all have a slight positive curvature. This curvature can be explained by the fact that \u03b1 > 0. Note that, under the assumption t = 0, the concept creation factor \u03b1 is simply the probability that a new sense for an existing word is sufficiently different from previous senses for it to correspond to a new concept (capable of inspiring associations different from those that could be inspired by the existing senses). When \u03b1 = t = 0, it follows from the results proved in the previous section that P(s) is an exponential function. For \u03b1 > 0, however, the plot of log N s against s does indeed have a positive curvature.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [
	{
	"start": 813,
	"end": 821,
	"text": "Figure 1",
	"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
	}
	],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Applying the Model to Experimental Data",
	"sec_num": "6."
	},
	{
	"text": "In order to evaluate visually the influence of the value of \u03b1 on the predicted values of N s , we generated the values of N s using equation 6for various values of \u03b1. The results are plotted in Figure 6 (with the average number m of meanings per word set to be the same as that for the LDCE [24] in order to provide a concrete comparison). The observed values of N s (for the LDCE) coincide so closely with those predicted by our model with \u03b1 = 0.31 that the curves of observed and predicted values would be barely distinguishable if drawn in the same figure.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 291,
	"end": 295,
	"text": "[24]",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [
	{
	"start": 194,
	"end": 202,
	"text": "Figure 6",
	"ref_id": "FIGREF6"
	}
	],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Applying the Model to Experimental Data",
	"sec_num": "6."
	},
	{
	"text": "For each dictionary we studied, we calculated the value of \u03b1 which provided the best fit, in a least squares sense, between the observed values of N s and those calculated from the values of P(s) given by equation (6). These best-fit values of \u03b1 are given in the second column of Table 2 for each dictionary we examined. The values of \u03b1 vary between 0.22 and 0.41 for the English dictionaries and between 0.28 and 0.47 for the French dictionaries. Our conclusion is that, although nearly half of the words in a dictionary are ambiguous in the sense that they require more than one definition, only approximately one-third of this ambiguity corresponds to ambiguity in the underlying concept (as defined in section 4). The value of the concept creation factor \u03b1 found for different dictionaries depends on the number of divisions into different senses the lexicographer chooses to list for each word. We can nevertheless calculate the average number of concepts per word in a dictionary. This number should be more independent of lexicographic choices. Table 2 also lists c, the average number of concepts per word, which is given by c = 1 + \u03b1(m \u2212 1), for each of the dictionaries studied. The average number of concepts per word is not the same, even for dictionaries of the same language. Variations are to be expected as a result of different lexicographical choices of which words and senses to include in the dictionary. We can note, in particular, that technical terms do not have the same distribution of number of senses per word as everyday words. Furthermore, many derived words do not have their own entries but are simply listed at the end of the entry for the root word. For example, in the LDCE [24] , solidly and solidness have no senses listed and were hence ignored in our study, even though solid has 15 senses in the same dictionary. Despite these interdictionary variations, we can nevertheless conclude that the average number of concepts per word (as defined in section 4) is approximately 1.3 for English dictionaries and a little less for French dictionaries.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 1708,
	"end": 1712,
	"text": "[24]",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [
	{
	"start": 280,
	"end": 287,
	"text": "Table 2",
	"ref_id": "TABREF4"
	},
	{
	"start": 1052,
	"end": 1059,
	"text": "Table 2",
	"ref_id": "TABREF4"
	}
	],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Applying the Model to Experimental Data",
	"sec_num": "6."
	},
	{
	"text": "As with any scientific theory, if our theory is correct, we should be able to put it to the test by means of experiment. Playing the devil's advocate, we invented several experiments which, if unsuccessful, would demonstrate the invalidity of our mathematical model.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Further Experiments to Validate the Model",
	"sec_num": "7."
	},
	{
	"text": "First, we performed a chi-square test to compare the observed values of N s and the values of N s predicted by our model (as calculated from equation 6). For nine out of the ten dictionaries tested, the \u03c7 2 value was less than \u03c7 2 0.10 (the value which should be exceeded in only 10% of random trials). In the one remaining case, \u03c7 2 was only marginally greater than \u03c7 2 0.10 . These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the difference between the observed and predicted values of N s is due to random sampling and that",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Further Experiments to Validate the Model",
	"sec_num": "7."
	},
	{
	"text": "E s = N obs s \u2212 N pred s (for s = 1, 2, . . .)",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Further Experiments to Validate the Model",
	"sec_num": "7."
	},
	{
	"text": "is an independent normally distributed random variable with mean zero (Hoel 1984) . It is interesting to note that the difference between the observed values of N s and those predicted by our model with \u03b1 = 0 (corresponding to the hypothesis that associations are with words) or \u03b1 = 1 (corresponding to the hypothesis that associations are with senses) are both statistically highly significant (at levels of 15 and 28 standard deviations, respectively, in the case of the LCDE [24]).",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 70,
	"end": 81,
	"text": "(Hoel 1984)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF39"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Further Experiments to Validate the Model",
	"sec_num": "7."
	},
	{
	"text": "In order to test the validity of the stationary-state hypothesis, we simulated the generation of a dictionary using the stochastic process model described in section 5. We used a random number generator to decide whether the next step should be the creation of a new word or the creation of a new sense for an existing word. Figure 7 is a graphical summary of one such simulation, for the particular values m = 0.6, t = 0, and \u03b1 = 0.3. The values of P(1), P(2), P(3), P(4), and P(5) are plotted against the number of words generated. After the generation of only 1,000 senses (which corresponds to less",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [
	{
	"start": 325,
	"end": 333,
	"text": "Figure 7",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Further Experiments to Validate the Model",
	"sec_num": "7."
	},
	{
	"text": "Values of P(1), P(2), P(3), P(4), and P(5) against the number of words generated in the simulation of the evolution of a dictionary. than 600 words), the values of P(1), P(2), P(3), P(4), and P(5) are practically constant. We can deduce that a steady state has been attained long before the simulation generates a dictionary of size comparable to those studied (several tens of thousands of senses). We conclude that the stationary-state hypothesis is, in fact, for dictionaries of any reasonable size, simply a mathematical consequence of our other assumptions.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Figure 7",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "To check the validity of our assumption that the average number of concepts corresponding to a word with s senses is 1 + \u03b1(s \u2212 1), we tested a more general linear model b + \u03b1(s \u2212 1) for a constant b. The best-fit values of b for each dictionary were all found to be between 0.98 and 1.08, thus confirming our assumption b = 1.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Figure 7",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Our conclusion that there is only a negligible loss of word senses from dictionaries through obsolescence contrasts with the fact that 22% of the words in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) [30] are marked as obsolete. Nevalainen (1999) points out that many of these obsolete words were abortive attempts by pre-17th-century writers to introduce new words which simply never caught on. Garner (1982) attributes 1,700 neologisms to Shakespeare alone. Before the publication of the first monolingual English dictionaries in the early 17th century, both vocabulary and spelling were more a matter of personal taste than convention. Standardization occurred only after the publication of Samuel Johnson's dictionary [8] in the 18th century. We should mention in passing that the very exhaustiveness of the OED makes it completely unsuitable (in the present context) as an accurate representation of the English language, since 90% of the senses listed are unknown to the majority of educated native English speakers (Winchester 2003 ). Thus our model cannot be expected to provide a faithful prediction of the evolution of the OED, since we assume that the set of word senses in a dictionary is an approximation of those available to people who create new senses for existing words. Instead of attempting to list all English words ever used, most dictionaries aim simply to list a set of words that an educated person might reasonably encounter during his or her lifetime, which is more in keeping with the assumptions of our model. Not surprisingly, therefore, fitting our model to values of N s obtained from the OED gave incoherent values of the parameters (\u03b1 = 1.51 when, by assumption, we should have 0 \u2264 \u03b1 \u2264 1). We obtained a similar anomalous best-fit value \u03b1 = 1.16 for Webster 's Third International Dictionary [34] , no doubt because this dictionary is again so exhaustive.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 220,
	"end": 237,
	"text": "Nevalainen (1999)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF42"
	},
	{
	"start": 387,
	"end": 400,
	"text": "Garner (1982)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
	},
	{
	"start": 1013,
	"end": 1029,
	"text": "(Winchester 2003",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF55"
	},
	{
	"start": 1783,
	"end": 1821,
	"text": "'s Third International Dictionary [34]",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Figure 7",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "It is worth going back to the counts of the number of senses per entry in specialized dictionaries [1, 7, 10, 17] , plotted in Figure 3 , to explain why these do not fit our model. The number of translations of a French word w in English slang [17] is related to the number of synonyms of w [10], since they both concern the onomasiological question of the different ways the same concept can be expressed in a language. This is the converse of the semasiological question of the development of different meanings of a given word, which is the problem our model addresses.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 99,
	"end": 102,
	"text": "[1,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 103,
	"end": 105,
	"text": "7,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 106,
	"end": 109,
	"text": "10,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 110,
	"end": 113,
	"text": "17]",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [
	{
	"start": 127,
	"end": 135,
	"text": "Figure 3",
	"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
	}
	],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Figure 7",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "The number of meanings of abbreviations and acronyms [7] is closely related to the question of the distribution of homographs in a language, since abbreviations and acronyms almost invariably obtain new meanings by coincidence rather than by association with existing meanings. For example, the 'temperature' and 'temporary' meanings of the abbreviation temp were clearly not derived by some direct semantic association between the notions of temperature and temporary (as would be required by our model).",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Figure 7",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "The distribution of the number of meanings of scientific and technical terms [1] can, on the other hand, be partly explained by our model. The reason that the distribution of these types of terms is so far from satisfying the near-exponential rule is simply that 75% of the terms listed in scientific and technical dictionaries are composed of at least two words. When we count only single-word entries (as we did for all dictionaries in Table 3 Average number m of meanings per word, concept-creation factor \u03b1, and average number c of concepts per word for three monolingual Basque dictionaries. Figures 1 and 2), we obtain a distribution which can be explained by our model. We found that, although the average number of senses listed per word for the scientific and technical dictionary we examined [1] was much less than for English dictionaries of everyday language [19, 24, 28, 31, 32] (1.35 compared to 2.0), the number of concepts per word was approximately the same at 1.32. In order to test the universality of the near-exponential rule, we also studied three monolingual Basque dictionaries [14, 15, 16] . Basque is a well-known language isolate. The curves of log N s against s were again nearly straight lines with a slight positive curvature, and the values of N s predicted by our model provided a very good fit to the observed values of N s . The corresponding values of m, \u03b1, and c are given in Table 3 . The number of concepts per word was approximately 1.2 for all three dictionaries.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 871,
	"end": 875,
	"text": "[19,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 876,
	"end": 879,
	"text": "24,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 880,
	"end": 883,
	"text": "28,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 884,
	"end": 887,
	"text": "31,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 888,
	"end": 891,
	"text": "32]",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 1102,
	"end": 1106,
	"text": "[14,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 1107,
	"end": 1110,
	"text": "15,",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 1111,
	"end": 1114,
	"text": "16]",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [
	{
	"start": 438,
	"end": 445,
	"text": "Table 3",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 1412,
	"end": 1419,
	"text": "Table 3",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Figure 7",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Our model assumes that no ambiguity arises in deciding what constitutes a word. However, such ambiguity is clearly present in fusional languages. In this article, we have chosen the pragmatically simple definition that the words of a language can be approximated by those sequences of characters without spaces whose meanings are listed in a given dictionary. Applying this definition to a German monolingual dictionary [13], we observed the usual near-exponential distribution in N s . The best-fit values of the parameters of our model were m = 1.20, \u03b1 = 0.80, and c = 1.16. The average number of meanings per word m and the average number of concepts per word c are low, no doubt because many specialized terms which are expressed by a sequence of words in other languages count, according to our definition, as a single word in German. Further research is required to test our model on other languages with complex morphology.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Figure 7",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "Finally, we were surprised that the number of concepts per word was almost identical for the five English dictionaries tested (see Table 2 ). However, we found that this was not always the case, since further trials on six other English dictionaries gave a larger range of values, shown in Table 4 , varying from 1.23 to 1.55. ",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [
	{
	"start": 131,
	"end": 138,
	"text": "Table 2",
	"ref_id": "TABREF4"
	},
	{
	"start": 290,
	"end": 297,
	"text": "Table 4",
	"ref_id": "TABREF6"
	}
	],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Figure 7",
	"sec_num": null
	},
	{
	"text": "One application of our model is a simple method for testing whether an attempt to group word senses into distinct concepts (as defined in section 4) has been successful. The number NW i of words representing i concepts should demonstrate a distribution with \u03b1 close to one, whereas the number NC j of concepts covering j dictionary meanings should demonstrate a distribution with \u03b1 close to zero (i.e., an exponential distribution, as illustrated in Figure 6 ). Such a grouping of word senses into concepts is clearly useful not only in computer models of natural languages, but also in lexicography and historical linguistics. In lexicography, different rules have been proposed for identifying polysemy, based on etymology, statistical analysis of colocations in corpora, the existence of zeugma (such as *there is a pen on the table and one outside for the sheep), the existence of different synonyms (such as present-now, present-gift), antonyms (right-wrong, rightleft), or paronyms (race-racing, race-racist), and the existence of ambiguous questions (such as the canine/male ambiguity of the word dog brought out by the question 'Is it a dog?') (Robins 1987; Ayto 1983; Cruse 1986 ). In the context of computational linguistics, Mihalcea and Moldovan (2001) relaxed these rules in order to find a more coarsegrained representation in WordNet, by grouping meanings based on similar synsets together with the existence of a common hypernym, antonym, or pertainym. The possible translations of a word w into several foreign languages is another useful practical tool for the grouping of the meanings of w into concepts (Resnik and Yarowsky 2000) .",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 1152,
	"end": 1165,
	"text": "(Robins 1987;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF49"
	},
	{
	"start": 1166,
	"end": 1176,
	"text": "Ayto 1983;",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
	},
	{
	"start": 1177,
	"end": 1187,
	"text": "Cruse 1986",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
	},
	{
	"start": 1236,
	"end": 1264,
	"text": "Mihalcea and Moldovan (2001)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF41"
	},
	{
	"start": 1623,
	"end": 1649,
	"text": "(Resnik and Yarowsky 2000)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF48"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [
	{
	"start": 450,
	"end": 458,
	"text": "Figure 6",
	"ref_id": "FIGREF6"
	}
	],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Relevance to Computational Linguistics",
	"sec_num": "8."
	},
	{
	"text": "We have introduced an equivalence relation between word meanings: S 1 \u2261 S 2 if the senses S 1 , S 2 of a word w could give rise to the same new senses for w by metaphor, metonymy, etc. The grouping of meanings into the corresponding equivalence classes could be an essential part of an automatic system for the interpretation of nonstandard uses of words. Words are often used with a meaning which is not explicitly listed in a dictionary. Metaphor and metonymy are obvious examples, but we can also mention meanings which are too specialized or too new to be listed in a general-purpose dictionary (such as the Internet meanings of the words provider, home, and portal, for example).",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Relevance to Computational Linguistics",
	"sec_num": "8."
	},
	{
	"text": "Analysis of the plot of log N s against s provides a method for identifying the criteria used in the compilation of a dictionary. A large positive curvature is characteristic of a dictionary whose aim is exhaustiveness. The OED [30] and Webster's [34] are examples, and perhaps to a lesser extent Johnson's dictionary [8] . A small positive curvature indicates a general-purpose dictionary whose aim is to list those words and meanings that an educated person can reasonably be expected to encounter during his or her lifetime. Machine-readable dictionaries play an important role in many naturallanguage-processing systems, and the choice of dictionary is a critical one. In many applications, an exhaustive dictionary is inappropriate. Finding the best-fit value of the concept creation factor \u03b1 has allowed us to identify such dictionaries. Our model could also be used to estimate performance characteristics of systems which use machinereadable dictionaries, since we have given a formula for the expected number of words with s senses. For example, this might help us judge which is the best data structure to use to store a dictionary.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 228,
	"end": 251,
	"text": "[30] and Webster's [34]",
	"ref_id": null
	},
	{
	"start": 318,
	"end": 321,
	"text": "[8]",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Relevance to Computational Linguistics",
	"sec_num": "8."
	},
	{
	"text": "An important aspect of the present work is the apparently universal nature of the near-exponential rule (with a slightly positive curvature when plotted on a logarithmic scale) for the number of words N s with s dictionary meanings. This provides an insight into language in general rather than any one language in particular. Our mathematical model of historical semantics provides a very plausible explanation for this general rule. Various mathematical models of the evolution of networks have been proposed in recent years which explain other statistical phenomena in linguistics, such as the small-worlds property of semantic nets (Gaume et al. 2002) . It is worth pointing out that Price's (1976) classical model for the number of journal articles with s citations is mathematically identical to our predicted value of N s if we set \u03b1 = 1. Since our model is a strict generalization of Price's model, it may find applications, both within and beyond the frontiers of linguistics, as a more general model for the prediction of network growth (Newman 2003) .",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 636,
	"end": 655,
	"text": "(Gaume et al. 2002)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF35"
	},
	{
	"start": 688,
	"end": 702,
	"text": "Price's (1976)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF47"
	},
	{
	"start": 1047,
	"end": 1060,
	"text": "(Newman 2003)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF43"
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Relevance to Computational Linguistics",
	"sec_num": "8."
	},
	{
	"text": "Empirical evidence indicates that the number of senses per word in a dictionary has an approximately exponential distribution. We have shown that a stochastic model of historical semantics not only can explain this near-exponential phenomenon but can also use the distance from an exponential distribution to estimate the average number of distinct concepts per word as well as the concept creation factor (the percentage of new senses for existing words which can be considered genuinely new concepts).",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Conclusion",
	"sec_num": "9."
	},
	{
	"text": "Further research is required to determine whether refinements to the mathematical model presented in this article can produce a more accurate model by, for example, distinguishing among different parts of speech, distinguishing between everyday and technical terms, or introducing the extra parameter word-frequency. The introduction to the OED states that prepositions generally have more senses than verbs and adjectives, which in turn have more senses than nouns. Pagel (2000) emphasizes the fact that the evolution of language is not identical for all words. Fundamental vocabulary, including body parts, seasons, and cosmological terms, are more stable than less basic words (Swadesh 1952) . Zipf (1949) was the first to notice a correlation between word frequency and number of senses listed in a dictionary, in the form of a hyperbolic distribution. This can be summarized by saying that a word with frequency rank r has on average twice as many meanings as a word with frequency rank 10r. A sophisticated stochastic model along the lines of the one presented in this article but taking into account frequency would require information on the relative frequency of each different sense of each word. Unfortunately this is beyond the scope of this preliminary article, whose aim is simply to show that a simple stochastic model (based on grouping senses into distinct concepts liable to give rise to different new senses) can explain a universal property of monolingual dictionaries.",
	"cite_spans": [
	{
	"start": 467,
	"end": 479,
	"text": "Pagel (2000)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF45"
	},
	{
	"start": 680,
	"end": 694,
	"text": "(Swadesh 1952)",
	"ref_id": "BIBREF53"
	},
	{
	"start": 697,
	"end": 708,
	"text": "Zipf (1949)",
	"ref_id": null
	}
	],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Conclusion",
	"sec_num": "9."
	},
	{
	"text": "A more intriguing avenue of future research is the investigation of the possibility of using statistical analysis of dictionaries to model synonymy rather than (or as well as) polysemy. Indeed, it is an open question whether a similar approach to that followed in this work can be used to group together senses of different words which correspond to the same concept.",
	"cite_spans": [],
	"ref_spans": [],
	"eq_spans": [],
	"section": "Conclusion",
	"sec_num": "9."
	}
	],
	"back_matter": [],
	"bib_entries": {
	"BIBREF0": {
	"ref_id": "b0",
	"title": "Dictionary of Science and Technology",
	"authors": [],
	"year": 1992,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology, ed. C. Morris, Academic Press, London, 1992 (c. 100,000 entries).",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF3": {
	"ref_id": "b3",
	"title": "Dictionary of Abbreviations and Acronyms",
	"authors": [],
	"year": 1992,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Dictionary of Abbreviations and Acronyms, 2nd edition, Tec & Doc-Lavoisier, Paris, 1992 (c. 50,000 entries).",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF8": {
	"ref_id": "b8",
	"title": "Dictionnaire universel de poche",
	"authors": [],
	"year": 2000,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Dictionnaire universel de poche, Hachette, Paris, 2000 (c. 32,000 words).",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF12": {
	"ref_id": "b12",
	"title": "Harrap's English-French Slang Dictionary",
	"authors": [],
	"year": 1984,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Harrap's English-French Slang Dictionary, Harrap, London, 1984 (c. 10,000 words).",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF19": {
	"ref_id": "b19",
	"title": "Mounged de poche fran\u00e7ais-arabe",
	"authors": [],
	"year": 1983,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Mounged de poche fran\u00e7ais-arabe, 10th edition, Dar El-Machreq, Beirut, 1983 (c. 15,000 words).",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF20": {
	"ref_id": "b20",
	"title": "Oxford Advanced Learner's Encyclopedic Dictionary",
	"authors": [],
	"year": 1992,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Oxford Advanced Learner's Encyclopedic Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992 (c. 33,000 words).",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF22": {
	"ref_id": "b22",
	"title": "Oxford Illustrated Dictionary",
	"authors": [],
	"year": 1975,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1975 (c. 50,000 words).",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF24": {
	"ref_id": "b24",
	"title": "Webster's Third International Dictionary, Encyclopaedia Britannica",
	"authors": [],
	"year": 1986,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Webster's Third International Dictionary, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 1986 (c. 156,000 words).",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF25": {
	"ref_id": "b25",
	"title": "The Cambridge History of the English Language",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "John",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Algeo",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1998,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "4",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "57--91",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Algeo, John. 1998. Vocabulary. In Suzanne Romaine, editor, The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 4., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pages 57-91.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF26": {
	"ref_id": "b26",
	"title": "Historical and Comparative Linguistics",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Raimo",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Antilla",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1989,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "6",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Antilla, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics, 2nd ed., volume 6 of Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF27": {
	"ref_id": "b27",
	"title": "On specifying meaning: Semantic analysis and dictionary definitions",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "John",
	"middle": [
	"R"
	],
	"last": "Ayto",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1983,
	"venue": "Lexicography: Principles and Practice",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "89--98",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Ayto, John R. 1983. On specifying meaning: Semantic analysis and dictionary definitions. In Reinhard R. K. Hartmann, editor, Lexicography: Principles and Practice. Academic Press, London, pages 89-98.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF28": {
	"ref_id": "b28",
	"title": "Language. Henry Holt",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Leonard",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Bloomfield",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1933,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. Henry Holt, New York.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF29": {
	"ref_id": "b29",
	"title": "The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Sylvia",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Chalker",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "Edmund",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Weiner",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1994,
	"venue": "BCA",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Chalker, Sylvia and Edmund Weiner. 1994. The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. BCA, London.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF30": {
	"ref_id": "b30",
	"title": "Lexical Semantics",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "D",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Cruse",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Alan",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1986,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF31": {
	"ref_id": "b31",
	"title": "Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic viewpoint",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "D",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Cruse",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Alan",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1995,
	"venue": "Computational Lexical Semantics",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "33--49",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Cruse, D. Alan. 1995. Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic viewpoint. In P. Saint-Dizier and E. Viegas, editors, Computational Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pages 33-49.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF32": {
	"ref_id": "b32",
	"title": "WordNet, An Electronic Lexical Database",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Christiane",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Fellbaum",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1998,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Fellbaum, Christiane. 1998. WordNet, An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF33": {
	"ref_id": "b33",
	"title": "Les ambigu\u00eft\u00e9s du fran\u00e7ais. Collection l'Essentiel Fran\u00e7ais",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Catherine",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Fuchs",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1996,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Fuchs, Catherine. 1996. Les ambigu\u00eft\u00e9s du fran\u00e7ais. Collection l'Essentiel Fran\u00e7ais. Ophrys, Paris.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF34": {
	"ref_id": "b34",
	"title": "Shakespeare's latinate neologisms",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Bryan",
	"middle": [
	"A"
	],
	"last": "Garner",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1982,
	"venue": "Shakespeare Studies",
	"volume": "15",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "149--170",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Garner, Bryan A. 1982. Shakespeare's latinate neologisms. Shakespeare Studies, 15: 149-170.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF35": {
	"ref_id": "b35",
	"title": "Forms of meaning, meaning of forms",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Bruno",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Gaume",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "Karine",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Duvignau",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Oliver",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "Marie-Dominique",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Gasquet",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Gineste",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 2002,
	"venue": "Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence",
	"volume": "14",
	"issue": "1",
	"pages": "61--74",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Gaume, Bruno, Karine Duvignau, Oliver. Gasquet, and Marie-Dominique Gineste. 2002. Forms of meaning, meaning of forms. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 14(1): 61-74.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF36": {
	"ref_id": "b36",
	"title": "Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Dirk",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Geeraerts",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1997,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology. Clarendon, Oxford.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF37": {
	"ref_id": "b37",
	"title": "The Vocabulary of World English",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Stephan",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Gramley",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 2001,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Gramley, Stephan. 2001. The Vocabulary of World English. Arnold, London.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF38": {
	"ref_id": "b38",
	"title": "The web of words",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Brian",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Hayes",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1999,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "108--112",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Hayes, Brian. 1999. The web of words. American Scientist (March-April): 108-112.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF39": {
	"ref_id": "b39",
	"title": "Introduction to Mathematical Statistics",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Paul",
	"middle": [
	"G"
	],
	"last": "Hoel",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1984,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Hoel, Paul G. 1984. Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, 5th ed. Wiley, New York.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF40": {
	"ref_id": "b40",
	"title": "Combining hand-made and automatically constructed thesauri for information retrieval",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Rila",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Mandala",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "Takenobu",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Tokunaga",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "Hozumi",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Tanaka",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1999,
	"venue": "Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "920--925",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Mandala, Rila, Takenobu Tokunaga, and Hozumi Tanaka. 1999. Combining hand-made and automatically constructed thesauri for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stockholm, pages 920-925.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF41": {
	"ref_id": "b41",
	"title": "EZ.WordNet: Principles for automatic generation of a coarse grained WordNet",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Rada",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Mihalcea",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "Dan",
	"middle": [
	"I"
	],
	"last": "Moldovan",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 2001,
	"venue": "Proceedings of the FLAIRS Conference",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "454--458",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Mihalcea, Rada and Dan I. Moldovan. 2001. EZ.WordNet: Principles for automatic generation of a coarse grained WordNet. In Proceedings of the FLAIRS Conference, pages 454-458.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF42": {
	"ref_id": "b42",
	"title": "Early Modern English lexis and semantics",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Terttu",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Nevalainen",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1999,
	"venue": "The Cambridge History of the English Language",
	"volume": "3",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "332--458",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Nevalainen, Terttu. 1999. Early Modern English lexis and semantics. In Roger Lass, editor, The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pages 332-458.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF43": {
	"ref_id": "b43",
	"title": "The structure and function of complex networks",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Mark",
	"middle": [
	"E J"
	],
	"last": "Newman",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 2003,
	"venue": "SIAM Review",
	"volume": "45",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "169--256",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Newman, Mark E. J. 2003. The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review 45:169-256.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF44": {
	"ref_id": "b44",
	"title": "The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology",
	"authors": [],
	"year": 1966,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Onions, C. T., editor. 1966, The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF45": {
	"ref_id": "b45",
	"title": "The history, rate and pattern of world linguistic evolution",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Mark",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Pagel",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 2000,
	"venue": "The Evolutionary Emergence of Language",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "391--416",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Pagel, Mark. 2000. The history, rate and pattern of world linguistic evolution. In Chris Knight, Michael Studdert-Kennedy, and James R. Hurford editors, The Evolutionary Emergence of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pages 391-416.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF46": {
	"ref_id": "b46",
	"title": "Dictionnaire etymologique du Fran\u00e7ais",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Jacqueline",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Picoche",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1992,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Picoche, Jacqueline. 1992. Dictionnaire etymologique du Fran\u00e7ais. Dictionnaires Le Robert, Paris.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF47": {
	"ref_id": "b47",
	"title": "A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Derek",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Price",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "S",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "De",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1976,
	"venue": "Journal of the American Society Information Science",
	"volume": "27",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "292--306",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Price, Derek de S. 1976. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society Information Science, 27: 292-306.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF48": {
	"ref_id": "b48",
	"title": "Distinguishing systems and distinguishing senses: New evaluation methods for word sense disambiguation",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Philip",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Resnik",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "David",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Yarowsky",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 2000,
	"venue": "Natural Language Engineering",
	"volume": "5",
	"issue": "3",
	"pages": "113--133",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Resnik, Philip and David Yarowsky. 2000. Distinguishing systems and distinguishing senses: New evaluation methods for word sense disambiguation. Natural Language Engineering 5(3):113-133.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF49": {
	"ref_id": "b49",
	"title": "Polysemy and the lexicographer",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Robert",
	"middle": [
	"H"
	],
	"last": "Robins",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1987,
	"venue": "Studies in Lexicography",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "52--75",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Robins, Robert H. 1987. Polysemy and the lexicographer. In Robert Burchfield, editor, Studies in Lexicography. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pages 52-75.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF50": {
	"ref_id": "b50",
	"title": "Historical Linguistics",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Herbert",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Schendl",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 2001,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Schendl, Herbert. 2001. Historical Linguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF51": {
	"ref_id": "b51",
	"title": "Combining weak knowledge sources for sense disambiguation",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Mark",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Stevenson",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "Yorick",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Wilks",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1999,
	"venue": "Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "884--889",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Stevenson, Mark and Yorick Wilks. 1999. Combining weak knowledge sources for sense disambiguation. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stockholm, pages 884-889.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF52": {
	"ref_id": "b52",
	"title": "English Words: History and Structure",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Robert",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Stockwell",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "Donka",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Minkova",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 2001,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Stockwell, Robert and Donka Minkova. 2001. English Words: History and Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF53": {
	"ref_id": "b53",
	"title": "Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Morris",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Swadesh",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1952,
	"venue": "Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society",
	"volume": "96",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "452--463",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Swadesh, Morris. 1952. Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 96:452-463.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF54": {
	"ref_id": "b54",
	"title": "Condensed meaning in EuroWordNet",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Elizabeth",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Traugott",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "Richard",
	"middle": [
	"B"
	],
	"last": "Cross",
	"suffix": ""
	},
	{
	"first": "",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Dasher",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 2001,
	"venue": "The Language of Word Meaning",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "363--383",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Traugott, Elizabeth Cross and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Vossen, Piek. 2001. Condensed meaning in EuroWordNet. In Pierrette Bouillon and Federica Busa, editors, The Language of Word Meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pages 363-383.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF55": {
	"ref_id": "b55",
	"title": "The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Simon",
	"middle": [],
	"last": "Winchester",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 2003,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Winchester, Simon. 2003. The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford.",
	"links": null
	},
	"BIBREF56": {
	"ref_id": "b56",
	"title": "Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology",
	"authors": [
	{
	"first": "Goerge",
	"middle": [
	"K"
	],
	"last": "Zipf",
	"suffix": ""
	}
	],
	"year": 1972,
	"venue": "",
	"volume": "",
	"issue": "",
	"pages": "",
	"other_ids": {},
	"num": null,
	"urls": [],
	"raw_text": "Zipf, Goerge K. 1972. Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. Hafner, New York (facsimile of 1949 edition, Addison-Wesley).",
	"links": null
	}
	},
	"ref_entries": {
	"FIGREF0": {
	"num": null,
	"text": "Plot of N s (number of words with s senses) against s for various monolingual English dictionaries.",
	"type_str": "figure",
	"uris": null
	},
	"FIGREF1": {
	"num": null,
	"text": "Plot of N s (number of words with s senses) against s for various monolingual French dictionaries.",
	"type_str": "figure",
	"uris": null
	},
	"FIGREF2": {
	"num": null,
	"text": "Plot of N s (number of entries with s senses) for four different dictionaries, each showing a nonexponential distribution.",
	"type_str": "figure",
	"uris": null
	},
	"FIGREF3": {
	"num": null,
	"text": "Number NT t of words in French with t translations in English, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese.",
	"type_str": "figure",
	"uris": null
	},
	"FIGREF4": {
	"num": null,
	"text": "Number NT t of words in language A with t translations in language B, for distant languages A and B.",
	"type_str": "figure",
	"uris": null
	},
	"FIGREF5": {
	"num": null,
	"text": "since the total expected increase in the number of words is r. Thus \u03b4 s = rP(s) = (1 \u2212 2t)P(s)/m (by equation",
	"type_str": "figure",
	"uris": null
	},
	"FIGREF6": {
	"num": null,
	"text": "Plots of the predicted values of N s for \u03b1 = 0, \u03b1 = 0.31, and \u03b1 = 1.0.",
	"type_str": "figure",
	"uris": null
	},
	"TABREF1": {
	"num": null,
	"content": "<table/>",
	"text": "Number N s of words with s senses in samples from the 1933 and the 1993 edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.",
	"type_str": "table",
	"html": null
	},
	"TABREF4": {
	"num": null,
	"content": "<table><tr><td>Dictionary</td><td>m</td><td>\u03b1</td><td>c</td></tr><tr><td>Larousse (English) [19]</td><td colspan=\"3\">1.67 0.41 1.27</td></tr><tr><td>Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (English) [32]</td><td colspan=\"3\">2.26 0.22 1.28</td></tr><tr><td>New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (English) [28]</td><td colspan=\"3\">2.26 0.24 1.30</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (English) [24] 2.04 0.31 1.32</td></tr><tr><td>Oxford Illustrated (English) [31]</td><td colspan=\"3\">2.46 0.22 1.32</td></tr><tr><td>Le Robert Junior (French) [23]</td><td colspan=\"3\">1.34 0.47 1.16</td></tr><tr><td>Acad\u00e9mie Fran\u00e7aise (French) [9]</td><td colspan=\"3\">1.64 0.29 1.19</td></tr><tr><td>Hachette (French) [12]</td><td colspan=\"3\">1.53 0.38 1.20</td></tr><tr><td>Le Petit Robert (French) [21]</td><td colspan=\"3\">1.83 0.28 1.23</td></tr><tr><td>Le Grand Robert (French) [20]</td><td colspan=\"3\">1.79 0.46 1.36</td></tr></table>",
	"text": "Average number m of meanings listed per word, concept-creation factor \u03b1, and average number c of concepts per word for various dictionaries.",
	"type_str": "table",
	"html": null
	},
	"TABREF6": {
	"num": null,
	"content": "<table><tr><td>Dictionary</td><td>m</td><td>\u03b1</td><td>c</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Oxford Advanced Learner's [29] 1.56 0.41 1.23</td></tr><tr><td>Collins Concise [4]</td><td colspan=\"3\">2.22 0.24 1.29</td></tr><tr><td>Collins Learner's [3]</td><td colspan=\"3\">1.74 0.39 1.29</td></tr><tr><td>Nelson [26]</td><td colspan=\"3\">1.72 0.43 1.31</td></tr><tr><td>Collins School [5]</td><td colspan=\"3\">1.64 0.56 1.36</td></tr><tr><td>Johnson [8]</td><td colspan=\"3\">1.55 1.00 1.55</td></tr></table>",
	"text": "Average number m of meanings per word, concept-creation factor \u03b1, and average number c of concepts per word for six English dictionaries.",
	"type_str": "table",
	"html": null
	}
	}
	}
	}