Lexical semantics theories differ in advocating that the meaning of words is represented as an inference graph, a feature mapping or a cooccurrence vector, thus raising the question: is it the case that one of these approaches is superior to the others in representing lexical semantics appropriately? Or in its non antagonistic counterpart: could there be a unified account of lexical semantics where these approaches seamlessly emerge as (partial) renderings of (different) aspects of a core semantic knowledge base? In this paper, we contribute to these research questions with a number of experiments that systematically probe different lexical semantics theories for their levels of cognitive plausibility and of technological usefulness. The empirical findings obtained from these experiments advance our insight on lexical semantics as the feature-based approach emerges as superior to the other ones, and arguably also move us closer to finding answers to the research questions above.

Vectorial representations of meaning can be supported by empirical data from diverse sources and obtained with diverse embedding approaches. This paper aims at screening this experimental space and reports on an assessment of word embeddings supported (i) by data in raw texts vs. in lexical graphs, (ii) by lexical information encoded in association- vs. inference-based graphs, and obtained (iii) by edge reconstruction- vs. matrix factorisation vs. random walk-based graph embedding methods. The results observed with these experiments indicate that the best solutions with graph-based word embeddings are very competitive, consistently outperforming mainstream text-based ones.