A multi-dimensional comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of association measures in collocation
extraction
Because of the ubiquity and importance of collocations in language use/learning, how to effectively and
efficiently identify collocations has been a topic of interest. Although some studies have evaluated many of the existing
association measures (AMs) used in the automatic identification of collocations, the results so far have been inconsistent and
unclear due to various limitations of the existing studies. Hence, this study makes a multi-dimensional evaluation of the
effectiveness and efficiency of seven major AMs in the identification of three types of collocations across five genres and seven
corpora of different sizes. The results indicate that while a few AMs, such as Log Likelihood Ratio and Cubic Mutual Information
(MI3), are consistently more effective and efficient than the other five AMs being examined, no one AM alone may be
adequate in the identification of different types of collocations across different genres and corpus sizes. Research implications
are also discussed.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background and rationale: Key issues regarding collocation definition/identification
- 2.1Definition and types of collocations
- 2.2Existing AMs and studies on the effectiveness and efficiency of AMs
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1AMs and factors included for evaluation and comparison
- 3.2Corpora used
- 3.3Tools and procedures used for data analysis and AM evaluation/comparison
- 4.Results and discussion
- 4.1Results for Research Question 1: Variations among AMs in the general corpus
- 4.2Results for Research Question 2: Effects of genres
- 4.3Results for Research Question 3: Effects of collocation types
- 4.4Results for Research Question 4: Effects of text length
- 4.5Summary discussion
- 5.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Note
-
References