Refine
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Article (2)
- Book (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Keywords
- Lexikon (7) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (7) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (4)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (3)
In this paper we investigate the coverage of the two knowledge sources WordNet and Wikipedia for the task of bridging resolution. We report on an annotation experiment which yielded pairs of bridging anaphors and their antecedents in spoken multi-party dialog. Manual inspection of the two knowledge sources showed that, with some interesting exceptions, Wikipedia is superior to WordNet when it comes to the coverage of information necessary to resolve the bridging anaphors in our data set. We further describe a simple procedure for the automatic extraction of the required knowledge from Wikipedia by means of an API, and discuss some of the implications of the procedure’s performance.
Alleviating pain is good and abandoning hope is bad. We instinctively understand how words like alleviate and abandon affect the polarity of a phrase, inverting or weakening it. When these words are content words, such as verbs, nouns, and adjectives, we refer to them as polarity shifters. Shifters are a frequent occurrence in human language and an important part of successfully modeling negation in sentiment analysis; yet research on negation modeling has focused almost exclusively on a small handful of closed-class negation words, such as not, no, and without. A major reason for this is that shifters are far more lexically diverse than negation words, but no resources exist to help identify them. We seek to remedy this lack of shifter resources by introducing a large lexicon of polarity shifters that covers English verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Creating the lexicon entirely by hand would be prohibitively expensive. Instead, we develop a bootstrapping approach that combines automatic classification with human verification to ensure the high quality of our lexicon while reducing annotation costs by over 70%. Our approach leverages a number of linguistic insights; while some features are based on textual patterns, others use semantic resources or syntactic relatedness. The created lexicon is evaluated both on a polarity shifter gold standard and on a polarity classification task.
Lexicography
(2008)
Lexicon schemas and their use are discussed in this paper from the perspective of lexicographers and field linguists. A variety of lexicon schemas have been developed, with goals ranging from computational lexicography (DATR) through archiving (LIFT, TEI) to standardization (LMF, FSR). A number of requirements for lexicon schemas are given. The lexicon schemas are introduced and compared to each other in terms of conversion and usability for this particular user group, using a common lexicon entry and providing examples for each schema under consideration. The formats are assessed and the final recommendation is given for the potential users, namely to request standard compliance from the developers of the tools used. This paper should foster a discussion between authors of standards, lexicographers and field linguists.
We propose to use abusive emojis, such as the “middle finger” or “face vomiting”, as a proxy for learning a lexicon of abusive words. Since it represents extralinguistic information, a single emoji can co-occur with different forms of explicitly abusive utterances. We show that our approach generates a lexicon that offers the same performance in cross-domain classification of abusive microposts as the most advanced lexicon induction method. Such an approach, in contrast, is dependent on manually annotated seed words and expensive lexical resources for bootstrapping (e.g. WordNet). We demonstrate that the same emojis can also be effectively used in languages other than English. Finally, we also show that emojis can be exploited for classifying mentions of ambiguous words, such as “fuck” and “bitch”, into generally abusive and just profane usages.
Selten hat ein globales Ereignis nicht nur den Alltag sehr vieler Menschen weltweit schlagartig verändert und in einem längeren Zeitraum zu nachhaltigen Änderungen der Lebensumstände geführt, sondern auch direkte Spuren im Wortschatz und der Art und Weise des Kommunizierens hinterlassen, wie dies durch die Coronakrise der Fall war. Die Beiträge in diesem Band zeichnen diese Reflexionen nach und machen die Veränderungen auf Basis unterschiedlichen Materials (z.B. Pressetexte, Social-Media-Quellen, Gespräche) und zu einem breiten Themenspektrum (Arbeit, Schule, Wirtschaft usw.) nachvollziehbar. Ein deutlicher Fokus liegt dabei auf dem lexikalischen Wandel und zahlreichen Neologismen, die rund um die Coronapandemie aufgekommen sind.