mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Meaning to Form: Measuring Systematicity as Information

arXiv 1906.05906 ↗First posted 13 Jun 2019cs.CLcited by 16

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

A longstanding debate in semiotics centers on the relationship between linguistic signs and their corresponding semantics: is there an arbitrary relationship between a word form and its meaning, or does some systematic phenomenon pervade? For instance, does the character bigram textitgl have any systematic relationship to the meaning of words like textitglisten, textitgleam and textitglow? In this work, we offer a holistic quantification of the systematicity of the sign using mutual information and recurrent neural networks. We employ these in a data-driven and massively multilingual approach to the question, examining 106 languages. We find a statistically significant reduction in entropy when modeling a word form conditioned on its semantic representation. Encouragingly, we also recover well-attested English examples of systematic affixes. We conclude with the meta-point: Our approximate effect size (measured in bits) is quite small---despite some amount of systematicity between form and meaning, an arbitrary relationship and its resulting benefits dominate human language.

Key facts. Cited by 16 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 13 Jun 2019.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 6; 2022: 3; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 2.

16 papers.

Sort: