Vassiliki Rentoumi
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Intuition dictates that figurative language and especially metaphorical expressions should convey sentiment. It is the aim of this work to validate this intuition by showing that figurative language (metaphors) appearing in a sentence drive the polarity of that sentence. Towards this target, the current article proposes an approach for sentiment analysis of sentences where figurative language plays a dominant role. This approach applies Word Sense Disambiguation aiming to assign polarity to word senses rather than tokens. Sentence polarity is determined using the individual polarities for metaphorical senses as well as other contextual information. Experimental evaluation shows that the proposed method achieves high scores in comparison with other state-of-the-art approaches tested on the same corpora. Finally, experimental results provide supportive evidence that this method is also well suited for corpora consisting of literal and figurative language sentences.
- Andreevskaia, A. and Bergler, S. 2007. Clac and clac-nb: Knowledge-based and corpus-based approaches to sentiment tagging. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval). 119--120. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Andreevskaia, A. and Bergler, S. 2008. When specialists and generalists work together: Overcoming domain dependence in sentiment tagging. In Proceedings of ACL HLT. 290--298.Google Scholar
- Attardi, G. and Simi, M. 2007. Blog mining through opinionated words. In Proceedings of the 15th Text Retrieval Conference (TREC).Google Scholar
- Balahur, A., Steinberger, R., Kabadjov, M., Zavarella, V., Van Der Goot, E., Halkia, M., Pouliquen, B., and Belyaeva, J. 2010. Sentiment analysis in the news. In Proceedings of LREC. Vol. 10.Google Scholar
- Choi, Y., Breck, E., and Cardie, C. 2006. Joint extraction of entities and relations for opinion recognition. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 431--439. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Clore, G. and Ortony, A. 1988. The semantics of the affective lexicon. In Cognitive Perspectives on Emotion and Motivation. V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower, and N. H. Frijda Eds., 367--397.Google Scholar
- Clore, G., Ortony, A., and Foss, M. 1987. The psychological foundations of the affective lexicon. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 53, 4, 751--766.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Esuli, A. and Sebastiani, F. 2006. Sentiwordnet: A publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. In Proceedings of LREC. Vol. 6. 417--422.Google Scholar
- Fainsilber, L. and Ortony, A. 1987. Metaphorical uses of language in the expression of emotions. Metaphor Symbol 2, 4, 239--250.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 2008. Rethinking metaphor. In Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. R. Gibbs Ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 53--66.Google Scholar
- Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cog. Sci. 7, 2, 155--170.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Giannakopoulos, G., Karkaletsis, V., Vouros, G., and Stamatopoulos, P. 2008. Summarization system evaluation revisited: N-gram graphs. ACM Trans. Speech Lang. Process. 5, 3. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Giannakopoulos, G., Vouros, G., and Karkaletsis, V. 2010. Mudos-ng: Multi-document summaries using n-gram graphs. Tech. rep. CoRR abs/1012.2042.Google Scholar
- Gibbs, R. and Gerrig, R. 1989. How context makes metaphor comprehension seem ‘special’. Metaphor Symbol 4, 3, 145--158.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gil-García, R., Badía-Contelles, J., and Pons-Porrata, A. 2003. Extended star clustering algorithm. In Progress in Pattern Recognition, Speech and Image Analysis, Lecture Notes in Compuer Science, Vol. 2905, 480--487.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Group, P. 2007. Mip: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor Symbol 22, 1, 1--39.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gunawardana, A., Mahajan, M., Acero, A., and Platt, J. 2005. Hidden conditional random fields for phone classification. In Proceedings of 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology.Google Scholar
- Hu, M. and Liu, B. 2004. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 168--177. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ikeda, D., Takamura, H., Ratinov, L., and Okumura, M. 2008. Learning to shift the polarity of words for sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP).Google Scholar
- Jacobson, R. 1960. Linguistics and poetics. In Style in Language. T. A. Sebeok Ed., Wiley, NY.Google Scholar
- Kim, S. and Hovy, E. 2004. Determining the sentiment of opinions. In Proceedings of COLING 4, 1367--1373. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lafferty, J., McCallum, A., and Pereira, F. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proceedings of the Machine Learning International Workshop. 282--289. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 2001. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Leacock, C., Miller, G., and Chodorow, M. 1998. Using corpus statistics and Wordnet relations for sense identification. Comput. Ling. 24, 1, 147--165. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mao, Y. and Lebanon, G. 2007. Isotonic conditional random fields and local sentiment flow. Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst. 19, 961.Google Scholar
- Martín-Wanton, T., Pons-Porrata, A., Montoyo-Guijarro, A., and Balahur, A. 2009. Opinion Polarity Detection.Google Scholar
- Martín-Wanton, T., Balahur-Dobrescu, A., Montoyo-Guijarro, A., and Pons-Porrata, A. 2010. Word sense disambiguation in opinion mining: Pros and cons. Natural Lang. Process. Appl. (Special issue), 119.Google Scholar
- McDonald, R., Hannan, K., Neylon, T., Wells, M., and Reynar, J. 2007. Structured models for fine-to-coarse sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Association For Computational Linguistics. Vol. 45, 432.Google Scholar
- Motsiou, V. 1994. Stoicheia Lexikologias: Eisagōgē Stē Neoellēnikē Lexikologia. Ekdoseis Nephelē.Google Scholar
- Müller, C. 2008. Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking: A Dynamic View. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Palmer, M., Dang, H., and Fellbaum, C. 2007. Making fine-grained and coarse-grained sense distinctions, both manually and automatically. Natural Lang. Eng. 13, 2, 137--163.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pang, B. and Lee, L. 2005. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 115--124. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pedersen, T. and Kolhatkar, V. 2009. WordNet:: SenseRelate:: AllWords: A broad coverage word sense tagger that maximizes semantic relatedness. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Companion Volume: Demonstration Session). 17--20. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pedersen, T., Banerjee, S., and Patwardhan, S. 2005. Maximizing semantic relatedness to perform word sense disambiguation. Rep. UMSI 25, Supercomputing Institute Research.Google Scholar
- Polanyi, L. and Zaenen, A. 2004. Contextual valence shifters. In Computing Attitude and Affect in Text: Theory and Applications, 1--9.Google Scholar
- Quattoni, A., Collins, M., and Darrell, T. 2004. Conditional random fields for object recognition. In Proceedings of NIPS.Google Scholar
- Rentoumi, V., Karkaletsis, V., Vouros, G., and Mozer, A. 2008. Sentiment analysis exploring metaphorical and idiomatic senses: A word sense disambiguation approach. In Proccedings of the International Workshop on Computational Aspects of Affectual and Emotional Interaction (CAFFEi).Google Scholar
- Rentoumi, V., Giannakopoulos, G., Karkaletsis, V., and Vouros, G. 2009. Sentiment analysis of figurative language using a word sense disambiguation approach. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP). The Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
- Riloff, E. and Wiebe, J. 2003. Learning extraction patterns for subjective expressions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 105--112. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rumbell, T., Barnden, J., Lee, M., and Wallington, A. 2008. Affect in metaphor: Developments with WordNet. In Proceedings of the AISB Convention on Communication, Interaction and Social Intelligence. Vol. 1, 21.Google Scholar
- Sadamitsu, K., Sekine, S., and Yamamoto, M. 2008. Sentiment analysis based on probabilistic models using inter-sentence information. In Proceedings of the 6th International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC).Google Scholar
- Strapparava, C. and Mihalcea, R. 2007. SemEval-2007 Task 14: Affective Text. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval). 70--74. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Veale, T. 2004. A Non-Distribution Approach to Polysemy Detection in Wordnet.Google Scholar
- Wallington, A., Agerri, R., Barnden, J., Lee, M., and Rumbell, T. 2008. Affect transfer by metaphor for an intelligent conversational agent. In Proceedings of the LREC Workshop on Sentiment Analysis: Emotion, Metaphor, Ontology and Terminology (EMOT). 102--107.Google Scholar
- Wiebe, J., Wilson, T., and Cardie, C. 2005. Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. Lang. Resource Eval. 39, 2, 165--210.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., and Hoffmann, P. 2005. Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 354. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yu, H. and Hatzivassiloglou, V. 2003. Towards answering opinion questions: Separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences. In Proceedings of EMNLP 3. 129--136. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhang, L. 2009. Exploration of affect sensing from speech and metaphorical text. In Learning by Playing. Game-Based Education System Design and Development, 251--262. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Investigating Metaphorical Language in Sentiment Analysis: A Sense-to-Sentiment Perspective
Recommendations
Word sense disambiguation based sentiment lexicons for sentiment classification
Sentiment analysis has attracted much attention from both researchers and practitioners as word-of-mouth (WOM) has a significant influence on consumer behavior. One core task of sentiment analysis is the discovery of sentimental words. This can be done ...
Sentiment analysis of urdu language: handling phrase-level negation
MICAI'11: Proceedings of the 10th Mexican international conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence - Volume Part IThe paper investigates and proposes the treatment of the effect of the phrase-level negation on the sentiment analysis of the Urdu text based reviews. The negation acts as the valence shifter and flips or switches the inherent sentiments of the ...
Automatic Indonesian Sentiment Lexicon Curation with Sentiment Valence Tuning for Social Media Sentiment Analysis
Special issue on Deep Learning for Low-Resource Natural Language Processing, Part 1 and Regular PapersA novel Indonesian sentiment lexicon (SentIL -- Sentiment Indonesian Lexicon) is created with an automatic pipeline; from creating sentiment seed words, adding new words with slang words, emoticons, and from the given dictionary and sentiment corpus, ...
Comments