---
title: "A Thesaurus-Based Semantic Classification of English Collocations"
description: "The authors propose grouping these collocates into labelled thesaurus categories. 44 references, cited by 3 papers here."
authors: ["Chung-Chi Huang", "Kate H. Kao", "Chiung-Hui Tseng", "Jason S. Chang"]
year: 2009
venue: "International Journal of Computational Linguistics & Chinese Language Processing, Volume 14, Number 3, September 2009"
source: "https://aclanthology.org/O09-5002/"
licence: "CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (ACL Anthology, before 2016)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/huang-2009-thesaurus-based-semantic-classification-english/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/huang-2009-thesaurus-based-semantic-classification-english/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2009](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2009/page/2/) / A Thesaurus-Based Semantic Classification of English Collocations

# A Thesaurus-Based Semantic Classification of English Collocations

**Authors:** Chung-Chi Huang, Kate H. Kao, Chiung-Hui Tseng and Jason S. Chang · **Year:** 2009 · **Venue:** [International Journal of Computational Linguistics & Chinese Language Processing, Volume 14, Number 3, September 2009](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/rocling/) ([ROCLING 2009](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/rocling/2009/)) · **Licence:** [CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (ACL Anthology, before 2016)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://aclanthology.org/O09-5002/) · [PDF](https://aclanthology.org/O09-5002.pdf) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2130835759)

**Citations:** 3 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) · 3 in our library, of the 149,439 papers whose bibliographies we read

## 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
- 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.
- Similarity is judged relative to a pivot word: "sandy" and "rocky" group together because both modify "beach", not because they are context-free synonyms.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.*

📚 Shelves (6): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 18,614 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 17,965 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 17,450 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 17,296 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 1,649 works · [💭 Developmental and Educational Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/developmental-and-educational-psychology/) · 523 works

🧭 Topics (2): [English](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/english/) · 2,379 works · [🧷 Idioms & multiword expressions](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/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.

```bibtex
@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}
}
```

- [← previous From Lexical Entailment to Recognizing Textual Entailment Using Linguistic Resources](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/ofoghi-2009-lexical-entailment-recognizing-textual-entailment/)
- [next → Towards Unsupervised Recognition of Dialogue Acts](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/novielli-2009-unsupervised-recognition-dialogue-acts/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2009](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2009/page/2/)

## 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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Benson%2C+M%2E+%281985%29%2E+Collocations+and+Idioms%2E+In+R%2E+Ilson+%28Ed%2E%29%2C+Dictionaries%2C+Lexicography+and+Language+Learning+%28ELT+Documents+120%3B+Oxford%3A+Pergamon%29%2C+61%2D68%2E)
2. Béjoint, H. (1994). Tradition and Innovation in Modern English Dictionaries. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=B%C3%A9joint%2C+H%2E+%281994%29%2E+Tradition+and+Innovation+in+Modern+English+Dictionaries%2E+Oxford%3A+Clarendon+Press%2E)
3. Brants, T. & Franz, A. (2006). Web 1T 5-gram corpus version 1.1. Technical report, Google Research. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brants%2C+T%2E+%26+Franz%2C+A%2E+%282006%29%2E+Web+1T+5%2Dgram+corpus+version+1%2E1%2E+Technical+report%2C+Google+Research%2E)
4. Brin, S. & Page, L. (1998). [The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/brin-1998-anatomy-large-scale-hypertextual-web/). In Proceedings of WWW Conference. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-7552(98)00110-x)
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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chen%2C+Y%2E+%282004%29%2E+A+corpus%2Dbased+analysis+of+collocational+errors+in+EFL+Taiwanese+High+School+students%E2%80%99+compositions%2E+California+State+University%2C+San+Bernardino%2E+June%2E)
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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pantel%2C+P%2E+%26+Chklovski%2C+T%2E+%282004%29%2E+VerbOcean%3A+Mining+the+Web+for+Fine%2DGrained+Semantic+Verb+Relations%2E+In+Proceedings+of+Conference+on+Empirical+Methods+in+Natural+Language+Processing%2C+33%2D40%2E)
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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chen%2C+J%2E%2DN%2E+%26+Chang%2C+J%2E+S%2E+%281998%29%2E+Topical+clustering+of+MRD+senses+based+on+information+retrieval+techniques%2C+Computational+Linguistics%2C+24%281%29%2C+March+1998%2E)
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. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0802_5)
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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Deerwester%2C+S%2E%2C+Dumais%2C+S%2E+T%2E%2C+Furnas%2C+G%2E+W%2E%2C+Landauer%2C+T%2E+K%2E%2C+%26+Harshman%2C+R%2E+%281990%29%2E+Indexing+by+latent+semantic+analysis%2E+Journal+of+the+American+Society+for+Information+Science+%28JASIS%29%2C+41%286%29%2C+391%2D)
10. Firth, J. R. (1957). The Semantics of Linguistics Science. Papers in linguistics 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Firth%2C+J%2E+R%2E+%281957%29%2E+The+Semantics+of+Linguistics+Science%2E+Papers+in+linguistics+1934%2D1951%2E+London%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
11. Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fellbaum%2C+C%2E+%281998%29%2E+WordNet%3A+An+Electronic+Lexical+Database%2E+MIT+Press%2C+Cambridge%2C+MA%2E)
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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hall%2C+G%2E+%281994%29%2E+Review+of+The+Lexical+Approach%3A+The+State+of+ELT+and+a+Way+Forward%2C+by+Michael+Lewis%2E+ELT+Journal%2C+44%2C+48%2E)
13. Heimlich, J. E. & Pittelman, S. D. (1986). Semantic mapping: Classroom applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Heimlich%2C+J%2E+E%2E+%26+Pittelman%2C+S%2E+D%2E+%281986%29%2E+Semantic+mapping%3A+Classroom+applications%2E+Newark%2C+DE%3A+International+Reading+Association%2E)
14. Hindle, D. (1990). [Noun classification from predicate-argument structures](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/hindle-1990-noun-classification-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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hatzivassiloglou%2C+V%2E%2C+%26+McKeown%2C+K%2E+R%2E+%281993%29%2E+Towards+the+automatic+identification+of+adjectival+scales%3A+Clustering+adjectives+according+to+meaning%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+31st+ACL%2C+172%2D182%2E)
16. Jian, J.-Y., Chang, Y.-C., & Chang, J. S. (2004). TANGO: Bilingual Collocational Concordancer, Post & demo in ACL 2004, Barcelona. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jian%2C+J%2E%2DY%2E%2C+Chang%2C+Y%2E%2DC%2E%2C+%26+Chang%2C+J%2E+S%2E+%282004%29%2E+TANGO%3A+Bilingual+Collocational+Concordancer%2C+Post+%26+demo+in+ACL+2004%2C+Barcelona%2E)
17. Johnson, D. D., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). Teaching reading vocabulary. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Johnson%2C+D%2E+D%2E%2C+%26+Pearson%2C+P%2E+D%2E+%281984%29%2E+Teaching+reading+vocabulary%2E+New+York%3A+Holt%2C+Rinehart+%26+Winston%2E)
18. Kilgarriff, A. (1997). [I Don’t Believe in Word Senses, In: Computers and the Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kilgarriff-1997-word-senses/). 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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kilgarriff%2C+A%2E+%26+Tugwell%2C+D%2E+%282001%29%2E+%E2%80%9CWORD+SKETCH%3A+Extraction+and+Display+of+Significant+Collocations+for+Lexicography%E2%80%9D%2E+In+Proceedings+of+COLLOCATION%3A+Computational+Extraction%2C+Analysis+and+Exploitat)
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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kemp%2C+J%2E+E%2E%2C+Morrison%2C+G%2E+R%2E%2C+%26+Ross%2C+S%2E+M%2E+%281994%29%2E+Developing+evaluation+instruments%2E+In%3A+Designing+Effective+Instruction%2E+New+York%2C+NY%3A+MacMillan+College+Publishing+Company%2C+180%2D213%2E)
21. Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lewis%2C+M%2E+%281997%29%2E+Implementing+the+lexical+approach%2E+Hove%2C+England%3A+Language+Teaching+Publications%2E)
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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lewis%2C+M%2E+%282000%29%2E+Language+in+the+Lexical+Approach%2E+In%2E+M%2E+Lewis+%28ed%2E%29+Teaching+Collocation%3A+Further+development+in+the+Lexical+Approach%2E+London%2C+Language+Teaching+Publications%2E)
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. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.104.2.211)
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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lesk%2C+M%2E+E%2E+%281986%29%2E+Automatic+sense+disambiguation+using+machine+readable+dictionaries%3A+How+to+tell+a+pine+cone+from+an+ice+cream+cone%2E+In+Proceedings+of+ACM+SIGDOC+%E2%80%9986%2C+24%2D26%2E)
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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lin%2C+D%2E+%281997%29%2E+Using+syntactic+dependency+as+local+context+to+resolve+word+sense+ambiguity%2E+In+Meeting+of+the+Association+for+Computational+Linguistics%2C+64%2D71%2E)
26. Liu, L. E. (2002). A corpus-based lexical semantic investigation of vernb-noun miscollocations in Taiwan learners’ English. Tamkang University, Taipei, January. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Liu%2C+L%2E+E%2E+%282002%29%2E+A+corpus%2Dbased+lexical+semantic+investigation+of+vernb%2Dnoun+miscollocations+in+Taiwan+learners%E2%80%99+English%2E+Tamkang+University%2C+Taipei%2C+January%2E)
27. Morris, J. & Hirst, G. (1991). [Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/morris-1991-lexical-cohesion-computed-thesaural-relations/). Computational Linguistics, 17(1), 21-48.
28. Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nattinger%2C+J%2E+R%2E%2C+%26+DeCarrico%2C+J%2E+S%2E+%281992%29%2E+Lexical+Phrases+and+Language+Learning%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
29. Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223-242. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.223)
30. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524759)
31. Nirenburg, S. & Raskin, V. (1987). The subworld concept lexicon and the lexicon management system, Computational Linguistics, v. 13, December 1987. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nirenburg%2C+S%2E+%26+Raskin%2C+V%2E+%281987%29%2E+The+subworld+concept+lexicon+and+the+lexicon+management+system%2C+Computational+Linguistics%2C+v%2E+13%2C+December+1987%2E)
32. Nastase, V. & Szpakowicz, S. (2003). Exploring noun–modifier semantic relations. In Fifth International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-5), 285-301. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Nastase%2C+V%2E+%26+Szpakowicz%2C+S%2E+%282003%29%2E+Exploring+noun%E2%80%93modifier+semantic+relations%2E+In+Fifth+International+Workshop+on+Computational+Semantics+%28IWCS%2D5%29%2C+285%2D301%2E)
33. Padó, S. & Lapata, M. (2007). [Dependency-Based Construction of Semantic Space Models](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/pado-2007-dependency-based-construction-semantic-space/). Computational Linguistics, 33(2), 161-199. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2007.33.2.161)
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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Roediger%2C+H%2E+L%2E%2C+III%2C+%26+Marsh%2C+E%2E+J%2E+%282005%29%2E+The+positive+and+negative+consequence+of+multiple%2Dchoice+testing%2E+Journal+of+Experimental+Psychology%3A+Learning%2C+Memory%2C+and+Cognition%2C+31%2C+1155%2D159%2E)
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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Readence%2C+J%2E+E%2E%2C+%26+Searfoss%2C+L%2EW%2E+%281986%29%2E+Teaching+strategies+for+vocabulary+development%2E+In+E%2E+K%2E+Dishner%2C+T%2E+W%2E+Bean%2C+J%2E+E%2E+Readence%2C+%26+D%2E+W%2E+Moore+%28Eds%2E%29%2C+Reading+in+the+content+areas%3A+Improving+cl)
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. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545031)
37. Scholfield, P. (1982). Using the English dictionary for comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 185-194. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/3586791)
38. Salton, G. (1989). Automatic Text Processing: The transformation, analysis, and retrieval of information by computer. Addidon-Wesley. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Salton%2C+G%2E+%281989%29%2E+Automatic+Text+Processing%3A+The+transformation%2C+analysis%2C+and+retrieval+of+information+by+computer%2E+Addidon%2DWesley%2E)
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](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sinatra%2C+R%2E%2C+Beaudry%2C+I%2E%2C+Pizzo%2C+I%2E%2C+%26+Geishart%2C+G%2E+%281994%29%2E+Using+a+computer%2Dbased+semantic+mapping%2C+reading+and+writing+approach+with+at%2Drisk+fourth+graders%2E+Journal+of+Computing+in+Childhood+Educati)
40. Tono, Y. (1984). On the Dictionary User's Reference Skills. Unpublished B.Ed. Thesis. Tokyo: Tokyo Gakugei University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tono%2C+Y%2E+%281984%29%2E+On+the+Dictionary+User%27s+Reference+Skills%2E+Unpublished+B%2EEd%2E+Thesis%2E+Tokyo%3A+Tokyo+Gakugei+University%2E)
41. Tono, Y. (1992). The Effect of Menus on EFL Learners' Look-up Processes. LEXICOS 2 (AFRILEX Series) Stellenbosch: Buro Van de Watt. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tono%2C+Y%2E+%281992%29%2E+The+Effect+of+Menus+on+EFL+Learners%27+Look%2Dup+Processes%2E+LEXICOS+2+%28AFRILEX+Series%29+Stellenbosch%3A+Buro+Van+de+Watt%2E)
42. Taba, H. (1967). Teacher's handbook for elementary social studies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Taba%2C+H%2E+%281967%29%2E+Teacher%27s+handbook+for+elementary+social+studies%2E+Reading%2C+MA%3A+Addison%2DWesley%2E)
43. Turney, P. D. (2002). [Thumbs up or thumbs down? Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/turney-2002-thumbs-up-or-thumbs-down/). In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 417-424.
44. Turney, P. D. (2006). [Similarity of Semantic Relations](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/turney-2006-similarity-semantic-relations/). Computational Linguistics, 32(3), 379-416. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2006.32.3.379)

*Updated 1 November 2026*