Open Access

The sentiment polarity of a phrase does not only depend on the polarities of its words, but also on how these are affected by their context. Negation words (e.g. not, no, never) can change the polarity of a phrase. Similarly, verbs and other content words can also act as polarity shifters (e.g. fail, deny, alleviate). While individually more sparse, they are far more numerous. Among verbs alone, there are more than 1200 shifters. However, sentiment analysis systems barely consider polarity shifters other than negation words. A major reason for this is the scarcity of lexicons and corpora that provide information on them. We introduce a lexicon of verbal polarity shifters that covers the entirety of verbs found in WordNet. We provide a fine-grained annotation of individual word senses, as well as information for each verbal shifter on the syntactic scopes that it can affect.

We examine different features and classifiers for the categorization of opinion words into actor and speaker view. To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive work to address sentiment views on the word level taking into consideration opinion verbs, nouns and adjectives. We consider many high-level features requiring only few labeled training data. A detailed feature analysis produces linguistic insights into the nature of sentiment views. We also examine how far global constraints between different opinion words help to increase classification performance. Finally, we show that our (prior) word-level annotation correlates with contextual sentiment views.

We describe the SemEval-2010 shared task on “Linking Events and Their Participants in Discourse”. This task is an extension to the classical semantic role labeling task. While semantic role labeling is traditionally viewed as a sentence-internal task, local semantic argument structures clearly interact with each other in a larger context, e.g., by sharing references to specific discourse entities or events. In the shared task we looked at one particular aspect of cross-sentence links between argument structures, namely linking locally uninstantiated roles to their co-referents in the wider discourse context (if such co-referents exist). This task is potentially beneficial for a number of NLP applications, such as information extraction, question answering or text summarization.

This dissertation investigates discourse-pragmatic differences between variably linked arguments appearing in alternating argument structure constructions in the sense of Goldberg (1995) and Kay (manuscript). The properties that are studied include givenness, pragmatic relation (topic/focus), salience of referents, animacy, and others. They derive from the literature on sentence-type constructions such as topicalization and from research on the referential properties of NP form types. The research carried out here has multiple uses. At the most basic level, it serves as an empirical check on existing characterizations of the pragmatic properties of the relevant arguments that are the result of syntactic and semantic analysis based on introspection alone. For instance, for the epistemic raising alternation involving verbs like seem, the predicted topicality difference between the subjects of the raised and unraised constructions (Langacker 1995) could not be confirmed. This dissertation also addresses the question what kinds of pragmatic factors, if any, are relevant to argument structure constructions. Based on the evidence of the dative alternation, it does not seem to be the case that the kind of pragmatic influences on argument structure constructions are different or limited compared to the ones found to be relevant to sentence-type constructions. The kind of research undertaken here can also inform the syntactic and semantic analysis of constructions. In the case of the dative alternation, the discourse-pragmatic characteristics of the variably linked arguments provide evidence that Basilico’s (1998) analysis of the difference between the alternates in terms of VP-shells and a difference between thetic and categorical ‘inner’ predication, on the one hand does not account for all the data and on the other can be re-stated in pragmatic terms other than the thetic-categorical distinction. In addition to studies of valence alternations, this dissertation also discusses various null instantiation phenomena, which provide further evidence for the need to specify discourse-pragmatic properties as part of argument structure constructions and lexical entries. Finally, it is suggested that the use of randomly sampled corpus data and statistical modelling throughout this dissertation improves both empirical and analytical coverage.

We examine predicative adjectives as an unsupervised criterion to extract subjective adjectives. We do not only compare this criterion with a weakly supervised extraction method but also with gradable adjectives, i.e. another highly subjective subset of adjectives that can be extracted in an unsupervised fashion. In order to prove the robustness of this extraction method, we will evaluate the extraction with the help of two different state-of-the-art sentiment lexicons (as a gold standard).