Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2009 / A Thesaurus-Based Semantic Classification of English Collocations

A Thesaurus-Based Semantic Classification of English Collocations

Paper · 2009 · Chung-Chi Huang, Kate H. Kao, Chiung-Hui Tseng et al.

Summary

Collocation lookup tools such as JustTheWord can return hundreds of collocates for a single query word, which overwhelms second-language learners. The authors propose grouping these collocates into labelled thesaurus categories. For example, adjectives for "beach" split into a quality group (fine, lovely) and a material group (sandy, rocky). The model builds a weighted graph that links WordNet senses to the categories of a semantic thesaurus. It then runs random walks twice: first to choose the sense of each collocate given its pivot, then to assign a category label. The method covers A-N pairs clustered on adjectives, and V-N pairs clustered either on verbs or on nouns, 859 pairs in total. Test pivots come from the collocation usage boxes of the Macmillan English Dictionary.

Two human judges evaluated the output in two ways:

  • Cluster quality: 150 TOEFL-style synonym questions built from the clusters. The proposed system clearly beat the flat JustTheWord output in both precision and recall.
  • Label usefulness: a three-point rubric. About three quarters of the labels were rated adequate.

This matters because a meaning index over collocates makes reference tools far easier to navigate for learners and lexicographers.

Key points

  • Motivation cites learner-error data (Liu, 2002): 87% of miscollocations in Taiwanese learners' essays involved V-N pairs, and 96% of those came from choosing the wrong verb.
  • The knowledge source combines WordNet senses and semantic relations with thesaurus categories. WordNet links help cover words missing from the thesaurus's limited vocabulary.
  • The test set has 150 multiple-choice items, 50 per collocation type and 10 per collocation pair. Inter-judge agreement was 0.82.
  • Precision/recall for the proposed system was .79/.71 (judge 1) and .73/.67 (judge 2). JustTheWord scored roughly .57/.58–.59.
  • In the label usefulness rubric (3 = effective, 2 = somewhat helpful, 1 = misleading), about 75–77% of labels were judged adequate. The baseline offers no labels at all.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Sense choice and category assignment are separate random-walk passes over one shared graph, so the sense decision constrains the label decision instead of both being guessed together.
  • I2. Similarity is judged relative to a pivot word: "sandy" and "rocky" group together because both modify "beach", not because they are context-free synonyms.
  • I3. Gaps in a small curated thesaurus are bridged by walking WordNet relations from an uncovered word to a covered neighbour, rather than discarding the word.
  • I4. Clusters are evaluated by turning them into TOEFL-style multiple-choice items, where one option comes from the same cluster and the distractors come from elsewhere. Judges may pick several answers or none.
  • I5. A simple three-level usefulness rubric (helpful / partly helpful / misleading) rates label quality apart from cluster correctness.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (world): A similar two-pass walk over the WordNet-based ontology could first fix a word's sense and then attach the ontology class, with each pass leaving an inspectable path as its explanation.
  • I2 (frames): Verb-specific argument classes could be grouped this way, such as nouns filling the object slot of "fight", to build explainable selectional-preference groups for semantic roles.
  • I3 (world): When a lemma lacks a FrameNet or verb-class entry, hypernym or synonym hops could borrow the nearest covered class and record the hop chain as provenance.
  • I4 (learn): Induced clusters or repair rules could be checked with auto-generated forced-choice items whose distractors act as built-in negative controls, and allowing "none" catches degenerate clusters.
  • I5 (learn): Explanation labels produced by the pipeline could be graded on a similar scale by an LLM teacher tier, keeping the "misleading" rate as a separate metric.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 6The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Computer Science · 18,614 worksArtificial Intelligence · 17,965 worksArts and Humanities · 17,450 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 17,296 worksPsychology · 1,649 worksDevelopmental and Educational Psychology · 523 works

🧭 Topics 2Research subjects and languages the work is about.English · 2,379 worksIdioms & multiword expressions · 222 works

Cite

Cite as Chung-Chi Huang, Kate H. Kao, Chiung-Hui Tseng and Jason S. Chang. 2009. A Thesaurus-Based Semantic Classification of English Collocations. International Journal of Computational Linguistics & Chinese Language Processing, Volume 14, Number 3, September 2009.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

@article{huang2009thesaurus,
  title = {{A Thesaurus-Based Semantic Classification of English Collocations}},
  author = {Chung-Chi Huang, Kate H. Kao, Chiung-Hui Tseng and Jason S. Chang},
  journal = {International Journal of Computational Linguistics \& Chinese Language Processing, Volume 14, Number 3, September 2009},
  year = {2009},
  doi = {10.30019/ijclclp.200909.0002},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.30019/ijclclp.200909.0002}
}

References

44 references, 7 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Benson, M. (1985). Collocations and Idioms. In R. Ilson (Ed.), Dictionaries, Lexicography and Language Learning (ELT Documents 120; Oxford: Pergamon), 61-68. find
  2. Béjoint, H. (1994). Tradition and Innovation in Modern English Dictionaries. Oxford: Clarendon Press. find
  3. Brants, T. & Franz, A. (2006). Web 1T 5-gram corpus version 1.1. Technical report, Google Research. find
  4. Brin, S. & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. In Proceedings of WWW Conference. ↗
  5. Chen, Y. (2004). A corpus-based analysis of collocational errors in EFL Taiwanese High School students’ compositions. California State University, San Bernardino. June. find
  6. Pantel, P. & Chklovski, T. (2004). VerbOcean: Mining the Web for Fine-Grained Semantic Verb Relations. In Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 33-40. find
  7. Chen, J.-N. & Chang, J. S. (1998). Topical clustering of MRD senses based on information retrieval techniques, Computational Linguistics, 24(1), March 1998. find
  8. Downing, S. M., Baranowski, R. A. , Grosso, L.J., & Norcini, J. J. (1995). Item type and cognitive ability measured: the validity evidence for multiple true-false items in medical specialty certification. Appl Meas Educ, 8, 189-199. ↗
  9. Deerwester, S., Dumais, S. T., Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., & Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (JASIS), 41(6), 391-407. find
  10. Firth, J. R. (1957). The Semantics of Linguistics Science. Papers in linguistics 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press. find
  11. Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. find
  12. Hall, G. (1994). Review of The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and a Way Forward, by Michael Lewis. ELT Journal, 44, 48. find
  13. Heimlich, J. E. & Pittelman, S. D. (1986). Semantic mapping: Classroom applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. find
  14. Hindle, D. (1990). Noun classification from predicate-argument structures. In Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 268-275.
  15. Hatzivassiloglou, V., & McKeown, K. R. (1993). Towards the automatic identification of adjectival scales: Clustering adjectives according to meaning. In Proceedings of the 31st ACL, 172-182. find
  16. Jian, J.-Y., Chang, Y.-C., & Chang, J. S. (2004). TANGO: Bilingual Collocational Concordancer, Post & demo in ACL 2004, Barcelona. find
  17. Johnson, D. D., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). Teaching reading vocabulary. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. find
  18. Kilgarriff, A. (1997). I Don’t Believe in Word Senses, In: Computers and the Humanities. 31(2), 91-113(23).
  19. Kilgarriff, A. & Tugwell, D. (2001). “WORD SKETCH: Extraction and Display of Significant Collocations for Lexicography”. In Proceedings of COLLOCATION: Computational Extraction, Analysis and Exploitation workshop, 32-38. find
  20. Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1994). Developing evaluation instruments. In: Designing Effective Instruction. New York, NY: MacMillan College Publishing Company, 180-213. find
  21. Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications. find
  22. Lewis, M. (2000). Language in the Lexical Approach. In. M. Lewis (ed.) Teaching Collocation: Further development in the Lexical Approach. London, Language Teaching Publications. find
  23. Landauer, T. & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211-240. ↗
  24. Lesk, M. E. (1986). Automatic sense disambiguation using machine readable dictionaries: How to tell a pine cone from an ice cream cone. In Proceedings of ACM SIGDOC ’86, 24-26. find
  25. Lin, D. (1997). Using syntactic dependency as local context to resolve word sense ambiguity. In Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 64-71. find
  26. Liu, L. E. (2002). A corpus-based lexical semantic investigation of vernb-noun miscollocations in Taiwan learners’ English. Tamkang University, Taipei, January. find
  27. Morris, J. & Hirst, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text. Computational Linguistics, 17(1), 21-48.
  28. Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  29. Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223-242. ↗
  30. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. ↗
  31. Nirenburg, S. & Raskin, V. (1987). The subworld concept lexicon and the lexicon management system, Computational Linguistics, v. 13, December 1987. find
  32. Nastase, V. & Szpakowicz, S. (2003). Exploring noun–modifier semantic relations. In Fifth International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-5), 285-301. find
  33. Padó, S. & Lapata, M. (2007). Dependency-Based Construction of Semantic Space Models. Computational Linguistics, 33(2), 161-199. ↗
  34. Roediger, H. L., III, & Marsh, E. J. (2005). The positive and negative consequence of multiple-choice testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1155-159. find
  35. Readence, J. E., & Searfoss, L.W. (1986). Teaching strategies for vocabulary development. In E. K. Dishner, T. W. Bean, J. E. Readence, & D. W. Moore (Eds.), Reading in the content areas: Improving classroom instruction (2nd ed., pp. 183-188). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/ Hunt. find
  36. Rehder, B., Schreiner, M. E., Wolfe, M. B. W., Laham, D., Landauer, T. K., & Kintsch, W. (1998). Using latent semantic analysis to assess knowledge: Some technical considerations. Discourse Processes, 25, 337-354. ↗
  37. Scholfield, P. (1982). Using the English dictionary for comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 185-194. ↗
  38. Salton, G. (1989). Automatic Text Processing: The transformation, analysis, and retrieval of information by computer. Addidon-Wesley. find
  39. Sinatra, R., Beaudry, I., Pizzo, I., & Geishart, G. (1994). Using a computer-based semantic mapping, reading and writing approach with at-risk fourth graders. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5, 93-112. find
  40. Tono, Y. (1984). On the Dictionary User's Reference Skills. Unpublished B.Ed. Thesis. Tokyo: Tokyo Gakugei University. find
  41. Tono, Y. (1992). The Effect of Menus on EFL Learners' Look-up Processes. LEXICOS 2 (AFRILEX Series) Stellenbosch: Buro Van de Watt. find
  42. Taba, H. (1967). Teacher's handbook for elementary social studies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. find
  43. Turney, P. D. (2002). Thumbs up or thumbs down? Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 417-424.
  44. Turney, P. D. (2006). Similarity of Semantic Relations. Computational Linguistics, 32(3), 379-416. ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/huang-2009-thesaurus-based-semantic-classification-english/