Refine
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (7)
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Book (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (13)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (13)
Keywords
- Beleidigung (13) (remove)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (11)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (2)
Publisher
- Association for Computational Linguistics (4)
- Austrian Academy of Sciences (2)
- Gesellschaft für Sprachtechnologie und Computerlinguistik (2)
- German Society for Computational Linguistics & Language Technology und Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (1)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (1)
- Stroudsburg (1)
- The Association for Computational Linguistics (1)
- de Gruyter (1)
We address the task of distinguishing implicitly abusive sentences on identity groups (“Muslims contaminate our planet”) from other group-related negative polar sentences (“Muslims despise terrorism”). Implicitly abusive language are utterances not conveyed by abusive words (e.g. “bimbo” or “scum”). So far, the detection of such utterances could not be properly addressed since existing datasets displaying a high degree of implicit abuse are fairly biased. Following the recently-proposed strategy to solve implicit abuse by separately addressing its different subtypes, we present a new focused and less biased dataset that consists of the subtype of atomic negative sentences about identity groups. For that task, we model components that each address one facet of such implicit abuse, i.e. depiction as perpetrators, aspectual classification and non-conformist views. The approach generalizes across different identity groups and languages.
Implicitly abusive language – What does it actually look like and why are we not getting there?
(2021)
Abusive language detection is an emerging field in natural language processing which has received a large amount of attention recently. Still the success of automatic detection is limited. Particularly, the detection of implicitly abusive language, i.e. abusive language that is not conveyed by abusive words (e.g. dumbass or scum), is not working well. In this position paper, we explain why existing datasets make learning implicit abuse difficult and what needs to be changed in the design of such datasets. Arguing for a divide-and-conquer strategy, we present a list of subtypes of implicitly abusive language and formulate research tasks and questions for future research.
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.
We examine the task of detecting implicitly abusive comparisons (e.g. “Your hair looks like you have been electrocuted”). Implicitly abusive comparisons are abusive comparisons in which abusive words (e.g. “dumbass” or “scum”) are absent. We detail the process of creating a novel dataset for this task via crowdsourcing that includes several measures to obtain a sufficiently representative and unbiased set of comparisons. We also present classification experiments that include a range of linguistic features that help us better understand the mechanisms underlying abusive comparisons.
Editorial
(2020)
Journal for language technology and computational linguistics. Special Issue on offensive language
(2020)
Recent years have seen a sharp increase in studies of offensive language (and related notions such as abusive language, hate speech, verbal aggression etc.) as well as of patterns of online behavior such as cyberbullying and trolling. Multiple efforts have been launched for the exploration of computational approaches and the establishment of benchmark datasets for various languages (Basile et al. (2019), Wiegand et al. (2018), Zampieri et al. (2019)).
We present the second edition of the GermEval Shared Task on the Identification of Offensive Language. This shared task deals with the classification of German tweets from Twitter. Two subtasks were continued from the first edition, namely a coarse-grained binary classification task and a fine-grained multi-class classification task. As a novel subtask, we introduce the classification of offensive tweets as explicit or implicit.
The shared task had 13 participating groups submitting 28 runs for the coarse-grained
task, another 28 runs for the fine-grained task, and 17 runs for the implicit-explicit
task.
We evaluate the results of the systems submitted to the shared task. The shared task homepage can be found at https://projects.fzai.h-da.de/iggsa/
„Das Wort Beleidigung wird im Strafrecht in sehr verschiedener Bedeutung gebraucht", heißt es in einer Dissertation von 1933. Die Frage war mir gestellt: Was können Linguisten beitragen zur Rechtssprechung? Beleidigen scheint auf den ersten Blick ein kommunikativer Akt. Zu einem solchen hätte die Linguistik gewiss etwas zu sagen. Hier werden einige Ansatzpunkte für linguistische Fragestellungen am Beispiel des Beleidigens freigelegt. Grundlage für die Skizze ist eine Aktbeschreibung.
We discuss the impact of data bias on abusive language detection. We show that classification scores on popular datasets reported in previous work are much lower under realistic settings in which this bias is reduced. Such biases are most notably observed on datasets that are created by focused sampling instead of random sampling. Datasets with a higher proportion of implicit abuse are more affected than datasets with a lower proportion.