Elamur Research
☰
home / papers / 2011 / Lexicon-Based Methods for Sentiment Analysis

Lexicon-Based Methods for Sentiment Analysis

Written for the Research library (claude-opus-5-5) from the paper text, in our own words: the license "CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (ACL Anthology, before 2016)" does not allow redistributing the text itself. Original — aclanthology.org/J11-2001.pdf

Summary

The paper addresses document-level polarity classification, which means deciding whether a text, typically a review, expresses a positive or negative stance toward its main topic. The authors argue that supervised classifiers such as SVMs score well within their training domain but degrade sharply on other domains. They also tend to learn spurious cues like names, function words or genre facts. As an alternative, they present the Semantic Orientation CALculator (SO-CAL), a lexicon-based system. It relies on hand-built dictionaries in which adjectives, verbs, nouns and adverbs carry a polarity and a strength value. Word scores are adjusted for context through intensifiers, downtoners, negation and irrealis markers, then aggregated into a single text score. The dictionaries were checked against other manual and automatic lexicons and against human judgments collected via Mechanical Turk. SO-CAL performs consistently across review types and on unseen data. Its manually built dictionaries generally outperform the alternatives. This matters because it shows a transparent, training-free method can achieve the domain robustness that statistical classifiers struggle to reach.

Key points

  • SO-CAL extends earlier adjective-only versions to several parts of speech. It treats negation and intensification as general operations, so they apply to any scored word rather than being learned separately for each word.
  • A motivating experiment on the Polarity Dataset (2,000 movie reviews) examined an SVM with 85.1% accuracy. Many of its top features proved domain-specific or misleading, such as "2", "video" and "tv" acting as negative indicators.
  • The authors credit their dictionaries' quality to deliberate selection choices. They leave out ambiguous words and favor a smaller, carefully ranked vocabulary over broad coverage.
  • Dictionary rankings broadly agreed with human ratings gathered through Mechanical Turk. The current SO-CAL is a statistically significant improvement over its earlier versions.
  • Without retraining, SO-CAL has been applied to blog posts, video game reviews and sentence-level polarity. A Spanish version was built about as quickly as text classifiers for that language and outperformed them.

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: Natural language processing

Cited by

271 papers of our library cite it (of the 140673 whose bibliographies we read); 4 of them have a page here, 267 not yet.

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.1162/coli_a_00049

@article{taboada2011lexicon,
  title = {{Lexicon-Based Methods for Sentiment Analysis}},
  author = {Taboada, Maite and Brooke, Julian and Tofiloski, Milan and Voll, Kimberly and Stede, Manfred},
  journal = {Computational Linguistics},
  year = {2011},
  doi = {10.1162/coli\_a\_00049},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00049}
}

References

122 references, 2 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Akkaya, Cem, Alexander Conrad, Janyce Wiebe, and Rada Mihalcea. 2010. Amazon Mechanical Turk for subjectivity word sense disambiguation. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, pages 195–203, Los Angeles, CA. find
  2. Andreevskaia, Alina and Sabine Bergler. 2006. Mining WordNet for fuzzy sentiment: Sentiment tag extraction from WordNet glosses. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL-2006, pages 209–216, Trento. find
  3. Andreevskaia, Alina and Sabine Bergler. 2008. When specialists and generalists work together: Domain dependence in sentiment tagging. In Proceedings of 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 290–298, Columbus, OH. find
  4. Asher, Nicholas, Farah Benamara, and Yvette Yannick Mathieu. 2008. Distilling opinion in discourse: A preliminary study. In Proceedings of COLING, pages 7–10, Manchester. find
  5. Asher, Nicholas, Farah Benamara, and Yvette Yannick Mathieu. 2009. Appraisal of opinion expressions in discourse. Linguisticae Investigationes, 32(2):279–292. find
  6. Aue, Anthony and Michael Gamon. 2005. Customizing sentiment classifiers to new domains: A case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, Borovets, Bulgaria. find
  7. Baccianella, Stefano, Andrea Esuli, and Fabrizio Sebastiani. 2010. SentiWordNet 3.0: An enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10), pages 2200–2204, Valletta. find
  8. Bartlett, Jake and Russ Albright. 2008. Coming to a theater near you! Sentiment classification techniques using SAS Text Miner. In SAS Global Forum 2008, San Antonio, TX. find
  9. Batson, C. Daniel, Laura L. Shaw, and Kathryn C. Oleson. 1992. Differentiating affect, mood, and emotion: Toward functionally based conceptual distinctions. In Margaret S. Clark, editor, Emotion. Review of Personality and Social Psychology. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pages 294–326. find
  10. Bednarek, Monika. 2009. Language patterns and attitude. Functions of Language, 16(2):165–192. find
  11. Benamara, Farah, Carmine Cesarano, Antonio Picariello, Diego Reforgiato, and VS Subrahmanian. 2007. Sentiment analysis: Adjectives and adverbs are better than adjectives alone. In Proceedings of International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM, Boulder, CO. find
  12. Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11(1):1–34. find
  13. Blitzer, John, Mark Dredze, and Fernando Pereira. 2007. Biographies, Bollywood, boom-boxes and blenders: Domain adaptation for sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pages 440–447, Prague. find
  14. Bloom, Kenneth, Navendu Garg, and Shlomo Argamon. 2007. Extracting appraisal expressions. In Proceedings of HLT/NAACL, pages 308–315, Rochester, NY. find
  15. Boiy, Erik, Pieter Hens, Koen Deschacht, and Marie-Francine Moens. 2007. Automatic sentiment analysis of on-line text. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Electronic Publishing, pages 349–360, Vienna. find
  16. Boucher, Jerry D. and Charles E. Osgood. 1969. The Pollyanna hypothesis. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 8:1–8. find
  17. Brill, Eric. 1992. A simple rule-based part of speech tagger. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, pages 152–155, Trento. find
  18. Brooke, Julian. 2009. A Semantic Approach to Automatic Text Sentiment Analysis. M.A. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada. find
  19. Brooke, Julian and Matthew Hurst. 2009. Patterns in the stream: Exploring the interaction of polarity, topic, and discourse in a large opinion corpus. In Proceedings of 1st International CIKM Workshop on Topic-Sentiment Analysis for Mass Opinion Measurement, pages 1–8, Hong Kong. find
  20. Brooke, Julian, Milan Tofiloski, and Maite Taboada. 2009. Cross-linguistic sentiment analysis: From English to Spanish. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, pages 50–54, Borovets. find
  21. Bruce, Rebecca F. and Janyce M. Wiebe. 2000. Recognizing subjectivity: A case study of manual tagging. Natural Language Engineering, 5(2):187–205. find
  22. Cabral, Luı́s and Ali Hortaçsu. 2010. The dynamics of seller reputation: Evidence from eBay. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 58(1):54–78. find
  23. Callison-Burch, Chris. 2009. Fast, cheap and creative: Evaluating translation quality using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 286–295, Singapore. find
  24. Chafe, Wallace and Johanna Nichols. 1986. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Ablex, Norwood, NJ. find
  25. Chaovalit, Pinvadee and Lina Zhou. 2005. Movie review mining: A comparison between supervised and unsupervised classification approaches. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. find
  26. Choi, Yejin and Claire Cardie. 2008. Learning with compositional semantics as structural inference for subsentential sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 793–801, Honolulu, HI. find
  27. Conrad, Susan and Douglas Biber. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Geoff Thompson, editor, Evaluation in Text: Authorial Distance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pages 56–73. find
  28. Councill, Isaac G., Ryan McDonald, and Leonid Velikovich. 2010. What’s great and what’s not: Learning to classify the scope of negation for improved sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Negation and Speculation in Natural Language Processing, pages 51–59, Uppsala. find
  29. Dang, Yan, Yulei Zhang, and Hsinchun Chen. 2010. A lexicon enhanced method for sentiment classification: An experiment on online product reviews. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 25(4):46–53. find
  30. Dasgupta, Sajib and Vincent Ng. 2009. Mine the easy, classify the hard: A semi-supervised approach to automatic sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 701–709, Singapore. find
  31. Dave, Kushal, Steve Lawrence, and David M. Pennock. 2003. Mining the peanut gallery: Opinion extraction and semantic classification of product reviews. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), pages 519–528, Budapest. find
  32. Devitt, Ann and Khurshid Ahmad. 2007. Sentiment polarity identification in financial news: A cohesion-based approach. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 984–991, Prague. find
  33. Esuli, Andrea and Fabrizio Sebastiani. 2006. SentiWordNet: A publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), pages 417–422, Genoa. find
  34. Fellbaum, Christiane, editor. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. find
  35. Finn, Aidan and Nicholas Kushmerick. 2003. Learning to classify documents according to genre. In Proceedings of IJCAI Workshop on Computational Approaches to Text Style and Synthesis, Acapulco. find
  36. Fletcher, Jeremy and Jon Patrick. 2005. Evaluating the utility of appraisal hierarchies as a method for sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Workshop, pages 134–142, Sydney. find
  37. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. find
  38. Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2001. Varieties of polarity items and the (non)veridicality hypothesis. In Ton van der Wouden, editor, Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pages 99–127. find
  39. Goldberg, Andrew B. and Xiaojin Zhu. 2006. Seeing stars when there aren’t many stars: Graph-based semi-supervised learning for sentiment categorization. In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2006 Workshop on Textgraphs: Graph-based Algorithms for Natural Language Processing, pages 45–52, New York. find
  40. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. Mouton, The Hague. find
  41. Greene, Stephan and Philip Resnik. 2009. More than words: Syntactic packaging and implicit sentiment. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 find
  42. Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL, pages 503–511, Boulder, CO. find
  43. Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Arnold, London, 1st edition. find
  44. Hatzivassiloglou, Vasileios and Kathleen McKeown. 1997. Predicting the semantic orientation of adjectives. In Proceedings of 35th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 174–181, Madrid. find
  45. Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. find
  46. Hu, Minqing and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-2004), pages 168–177, Seattle, WA. find
  47. Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo. 2007. Negativity bias in language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3):417–443. find
  48. Kennedy, Alistair and Diana Inkpen. 2006. Sentiment classification of movie and product reviews using contextual valence shifters. Computational Intelligence, 22(2):110–125. find
  49. Ketal, R. 1975. Affect, mood, emotion, and feeling: Semantic considerations. American Journal of Psychiatry, 132:1215–1217. find
  50. Kilgarriff, Adam. 2007. Googleology is bad science. Computational Linguistics, 33(1):147–151. find
  51. Kim, Soo-Min and Eduard Hovy. 2004. Determining the sentiment of opinions. In Proceedings of COLING 2004, pages 1367–1373, Geneva. find
  52. Koppel, Moshe and Jonathan Schler. 2005. Using neutral examples for learning polarity. In Proceedings of IJCAI 2005, pages 1616–1617, Edinburgh. find
  53. Langacker, Ronald W. 1985. Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In John Haiman, editor, Iconicity in Syntax. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pages 109–150. find
  54. Li, Shoushan, Chu-Ren Huang, Guodong Zhou, and Sophia Yat Mei Lee. 2010. Employing personal/impersonal views in supervised and semi-supervised sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 414–423, Uppsala. find
  55. Liu, Jingjing and Stephanie Seneff. 2009. Review sentiment scoring via a parse-and-paraphrase paradigm. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 161–169, Singapore. find
  56. Lyons, John. 1981. Language, Meaning and Context. Fontana, London. find
  57. Mann, William C. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243–281. find our card
  58. Martin, James R. and Peter R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. Palgrave, New York. find
  59. Mellebeek, Bart, Francesc Benavent, Jens Grivolla, Joan Codina, Marta R. Costa-jussà, and Rafael Banchs. 2010. Opinion mining of Spanish customer comments with non-expert annotations on Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon’s… find
  60. Mohammad, Saif, Bonnie Dorr, and Cody Dunne. 2009. Generating high-coverage semantic orientation lexicons from overtly marked words and a thesaurus. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2009), pages 599–608, Singapore. find
  61. Mohammad, Saif and Peter Turney. 2010. Emotions evoked by common words and phrases: Using Mechanical Turk to create an emotion lexicon. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Analysis and Generation of Emotion in Text, pages 26–34, Los Angeles, CA. find
  62. Moilanen, Karo and Stephen Pulman. 2007. Sentiment composition. In Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, pages 27–29, Borovets. find
  63. Moilanen, Karo, Stephen Pulman, and Yue Zhang. 2010. Packed feelings and ordered sentiments: Sentiment parsing with quasi-compositional polarity sequencing and compression. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis (WASSA 2010), pages 36–43… find
  64. Mullen, Tony and Nigel Collier. 2004. Sentiment analysis using support vector machines with diverse information sources. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 412–418, Barcelona. find
  65. Murray, Gabriel, Shafiq Joty, Giuseppe Carenini, and Raymond Ng. 2008. The University of British Columbia at TAC 2008. In Proceedings of TAC 2008, Gaithersburg, MD. find
  66. Ng, Vincent, Sajib Dasgupta, and S. M. Niaz Arifin. 2006. Examining the role of linguistic knowledge sources in the identification and classification of reviews. In Proceedings of the COLING/ ACL 2006 Main Conference Poster Sessions, pages 611–618, Sydney. find
  67. Ortony, Andrew, Gerald L. Clore, and Allan Collins. 1988. The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. find
  68. Osgood, Charles E. and Meredith Martin Richards. 1973. From Yang and Yin to and or but. Language, 49(2):380–412. find
  69. Osgood, Charles E., George Suci, and Percy Tannenbaum. 1957. The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. find
  70. Paltoglou, Georgios and Mike Thelwall. 2010. A study of information retrieval weighting schemes for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1386–1395, Uppsala. find
  71. Pang, Bo and Lillian Lee. 2004. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 271–278, Barcelona. find
  72. Pang, Bo and Lillian Lee. 2005. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proceedings of ACL 2005, pages 115–124, Ann Arbor, MI. find
  73. Pang, Bo and Lillian Lee. 2008. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1-2):1–135. find
  74. Pang, Bo, Lillian Lee, and Shivakumar Vaithyanathan. 2002. Thumbs up? Sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in NLP, pages 79–86, Philadelphia, PA. find
  75. Polanyi, Livia and Annie Zaenen. 2006. Contextual valence shifters. In Janyce Wiebe, editor, Computing Attitude and Affect in Text: Theory and Applications. Springer, Dordrecht, pages 1–10. find
  76. Prabowo, Rudy and Mike Thelwall. 2009. Sentiment analysis: A combined approach. Journal of Informetrics, 3(1):143–157. find
  77. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. find
  78. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London. find
  79. Rao, Delip and Deepak Ravichandran. 2009. Semi-supervised polarity lexicon induction. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the ACL, pages 675–682, Athens. find
  80. Read, Jonathon and John Carroll. 2009. Weakly supervised techniques for domain-independent sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the First International CIKM Workshop on Topic-Sentiment Analysis for Mass Opinion Measurement, pages 45–52, Hong Kong. find
  81. Riloff, Ellen and Janyce Wiebe. 2003. Learning extraction patterns for subjective expressions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 25–32, Sapporo. find
  82. Salton, Gerard and Michael J. McGill. 1983. Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. McGraw-Hill, New York. find
  83. Salvetti, Franco, Christoph Reichenbach, and Stephen Lewis. 2006. Opinion polarity identification of movie reviews. In Janyce Wiebe, editor, Computing Attitude and Affect in Text: Theory and Applications. Springer, Dordrecht, pages 303–316. find
  84. Saurı́, Roser. 2008. A Factuality Profiler for Eventualities in Text. Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA. find
  85. Scheibman, Joanne. 2002. Point of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American English. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia. find
  86. Schilder, Frank. 2002. Robust discourse parsing via discourse markers, topicality, and position. Natural Language Engineering, 8(2/3):235–255. find
  87. Snow, Rion, Brendan O’Connor, Daniel Jurafsky, and Andrew Y. Ng. 2008. Cheap and fast—But is it good? Evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in NLP (EMNLP), pages 254–263, Waikiki, HI. find
  88. Sokolova, Marina and Guy Lapalme. 2008. Verbs speak loud: Verb categories in learning polarity and strength of opinions. In Sabine Bergler, editor, Canadian AI 2008. Springer, Berlin, pages 320–331. find
  89. Sokolova, Marina and Guy Lapalme. 2009a. Classification of opinions with non-affective adverbs and adjectives. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, pages 416–420, Borovets. find
  90. Sokolova, Marina and Guy Lapalme. 2009b. Opinion learning without emotional words. In Proceedings of the 22nd Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 253–256, Kelowna. find
  91. Soricut, Radu and Daniel Marcu. 2003. Sentence level discourse parsing using syntactic and lexical information. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology and North American Association for Computational Linguistics Conference (HLT-NAACL’03), pages 149–156, Edmonton. find our card
  92. Stone, Philip J. 1997. Thematic text analysis: New agendas for analyzing text content. In Carl Roberts, editor, Text Analysis for the Social Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pages 35–54. find
  93. Stone, Philip J., Dexter C. Dunphy, Marshall S. Smith, and Daniel M. Ogilvie. 1966. The General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. find
  94. Strappavara, Carlo and Rada Mihalcea. 2007. SemEval-2007 Task 14: Affective Text. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Semantic Evaluations (SemEval 2007), Prague. find
  95. Subba, Rajen and Barbara Di Eugenio. 2009. An effective discourse parser that uses rich linguistic information. In Proceedings of HLT-ACL 2009, pages 566–574, Boulder, CO. find
  96. Subrahmanian, V. S. and Diego Reforgiato. 2008. Ava: Adjective-verb-adverb combinations for sentiment analysis. Intelligent Systems, 23(4):43–50. find
  97. Taboada, Maite, Caroline Anthony, and Kimberly Voll. 2006. Creating semantic orientation dictionaries. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), pages 427–432, Genoa. find
  98. Taboada, Maite, Julian Brooke, and Manfred Stede. 2009. Genre-based paragraph classification for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGDIAL Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 62–70, London. find
  99. Taboada, Maite, Mary Ann Gillies, and Paul McFetridge. 2006. Sentiment classification techniques for tracking literary reputation. In Proceedings of the LREC Workshop, “Towards Computational Models of Literary Analysis,” pages 36–43, Genoa. find
  100. Taboada, Maite, Mary Ann Gillies, Paul McFetridge, and Robert Outtrim. 2008. Tracking literary reputation with text analysis tools. In Meeting of the Society for Digital Humanities, Vancouver. find
  101. Taboada, Maite and Jack Grieve. 2004. Analyzing appraisal automatically. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text (AAAI Technical Report SS-04-07), pages 158–161, Stanford, CA. find
  102. Thelwall, Mike, Kevan Buckley, Georgios Paltoglou, Di Cai, and Arvid Kappas. 2010. Sentiment strength detection in short informal text. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12):2544–2558. find
  103. Thet, Tun Thura, Jin-Cheon Na, Christopher S. G. Khoo, and Subbaraj Shakthikumar. 2009. Sentiment analysis of movie reviews on discussion boards using a linguistic approach. In Proceedings of the First International CIKM Workshop on Topic-Sentiment Analysis for Mass Opinion Measurement, pages 81–84,… find
  104. Tong, Richard M. 2001. An operational system for detecting and tracking opinions in on-line discussions. In Working Notes of the ACM SIGIR 2001 Workshop on Operational Text Classification, pages 1–6, New York, NY. find
  105. Turney, Peter. 2002. Thumbs up or thumbs down? Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In Proceedings of 40th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 417–424, Philadelphia, PA. find
  106. Turney, Peter. 2006. Similarity of semantic relations. Computational Linguistics, 32(3):379–416. find
  107. Turney, Peter and Michael Littman. 2003. Measuring praise and criticism: Inference of semantic orientation from association. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 21(4):315–346. find
  108. Velikovich, Leonid, Sasha Blair-Goldensohn, Kerry Hannan, and Ryan McDonald. 2010. The viability of Web-derived polarity lexicons. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the North American Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 777–785, Los Angeles, CA. find
  109. Voll, Kimberly and Maite Taboada. 2007. Not all words are created equal: Extracting semantic orientation as a function of adjective relevance. In Proceedings of the 20th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 337–346, Gold Coast. find
  110. Wan, Xiaojun. 2009. Co-training for cross-lingual sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 235–243, Singapore. find
  111. Whitelaw, Casey, Navendu Garg, and Shlomo Argamon. 2005. Using appraisal groups for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of ACM SIGIR Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 2005), pages 625–631, Bremen. find
  112. Wiebe, Janyce. 1994. Tracking point of view in narrative. Computational Linguistics, 20(2):233–287. find
  113. Wiebe, Janyce. 2000. Learning subjective adjectives from corpora. In Proceedings of 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 735–740, Austin, TX. find
  114. Wiebe, Janyce and Ellen Riloff. 2005. Creating subjective and objective sentence classifiers from unannotated texts. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing-2005), Mexico City. find
  115. Wiebe, Janyce, Theresa Wilson, Rebecca Bruce, Matthew Bell, and Melanie Martin. 2004. Learning subjective language. Computational Linguistics, 30(3):277–308. find
  116. Wiebe, Janyce, Theresa Wilson, and Claire Cardie. 2005. Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. Language Resources and Evaluation, 39(2-3):165–210. find
  117. Wilson, Theresa, Janyce Wiebe, and Paul Hoffmann. 2005. Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2005 Human Language Technology Conference and the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP-05), pages 347–354, Vancouver. find
  118. Wilson, Theresa, Janyce Wiebe, and Rebecca Hwa. 2004. Just how mad are you? Finding strong and weak opinion clauses. In AAAI 2004, pages 761–767, San Jose, CA. find
  119. Yano, Tae, Philip Resnik, and Noah A. Smith. 2010. Shedding (a thousand points of) light on biased language. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, pages 152–158, Los Angeles, CA. find
  120. Zaenen, Annie. to appear. Do give a penny for their thoughts. Natural Language Engineering. find
  121. Zaidan, Omar F. and Jason Eisner. 2008. Modeling annotators: A generative approach to learning from annotator rationales. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 31–40, Honolulu, HI. find
  122. Zwarts, Frans. 1995. Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis, 25(3/4):286–312. find