Distributional Hypothesis
Firth's claim that you shall know a word by the company it keeps — the idea that meaning can be recovered from co-occurrence patterns, which is why a model trained only on text can represent meaning at all.
When not to use it
- As a complete theory of meaning. It is a working assumption that has proven productive, not a settled result.
- To explain failures on physical or spatial reasoning, where the relevant facts are rarely written down and distribution cannot capture them.
Reach for something else instead
- Symbolic semantics with hand-built lexical resources such as WordNet, which is precise, sparse and expensive to maintain.
- Grounded semantics, tying words to perception or action rather than to other words.
- Multimodal training, which supplements distribution with signal from other channels.
Sources & further reading
- Firth (1957), A synopsis of linguistic theory — the formulation the field quotes.
- Mikolov et al. (2013), Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space — word2vec, and the hypothesis at scale.
- Levy & Goldberg (2014), Neural Word Embedding as Implicit Matrix Factorization — the link between neural embeddings and the count-based tradition.
Primary sources, listed so you can check the claims on this page rather than take them on trust.
Where people go wrong
- Assuming embedding proximity means semantic similarity. Antonyms are distributionally near-identical and embed close together.
- Treating one embedding model as neutral. It encodes the distribution of whatever corpus produced it.
- Reading the hypothesis as proven because embeddings work. That it is useful is established; that it is sufficient is not.
At a glance
Where this sits
A destination. 7 concepts lead here, and nothing in the corpus depends on it.
Computed from the prerequisite graph, not assigned. How this works