Computerlinguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (57)
- Part of a Book (12)
- Article (9)
- Working Paper (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Keywords
- Automatische Sprachanalyse (28)
- Computerlinguistik (14)
- Annotation (13)
- Semantische Analyse (13)
- Frame-Semantik (12)
- Deutsch (10)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (10)
- Propositionale Einstellung (10)
- Beleidigung (9)
- Natürliche Sprache (8)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (66)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (6)
- Postprint (4)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- Association for Computational Linguistics (13)
- European Language Resources Association (8)
- The Association for Computational Linguistics (8)
- German Society for Computational Linguistics & Language Technology und Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (4)
- European language resources association (ELRA) (3)
- Universität Hildesheim (3)
- EACL (2)
- Euralex (2)
- European Language Resources Association (ELRA) (2)
- INCOMA Ltd. (2)
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.
This article presents a discussion on the main linguistic phenomena which cause difficulties in the analysis of user-generated texts found on the web and in social media, and proposes a set of annotation guidelines for their treatment within the Universal Dependencies (UD) framework of syntactic analysis. Given on the one hand the increasing number of treebanks featuring user-generated content, and its somewhat inconsistent treatment in these resources on the other, the aim of this article is twofold: (1) to provide a condensed, though comprehensive, overview of such treebanks—based on available literature—along with their main features and a comparative analysis of their annotation criteria, and (2) to propose a set of tentative UD-based annotation guidelines, to promote consistent treatment of the particular phenomena found in these types of texts. The overarching goal of this article is to provide a common framework for researchers interested in developing similar resources in UD, thus promoting cross-linguistic consistency, which is a principle that has always been central to the spirit of UD.
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.
I’ve got a construction looks funny – representing and recovering non-standard constructions in UD
(2020)
The UD framework defines guidelines for a crosslingual syntactic analysis in the framework of dependency grammar, with the aim of providing a consistent treatment across languages that not only supports multilingual NLP applications but also facilitates typological studies. Until now, the UD framework has mostly focussed on bilexical grammatical relations. In the paper, we propose to add a constructional perspective and discuss several examples of spoken-language constructions that occur in multiple languages and challenge the current use of basic and enhanced UD relations. The examples include cases where the surface relations are deceptive, and syntactic amalgams that either involve unconnected subtrees or structures with multiply-headed dependents. We argue that a unified treatment of constructions across languages will increase the consistency of the UD annotations and thus the quality of the treebanks for linguistic analysis.
Editorial
(2020)
Authors like Fillmore 1986 and Goldberg 2006 have made a strong case for regarding argument omission in English as a lexical and construction-based affordance rather than one based on general semantico-pragmatic constraints. They do not, however, address the question of how grammatical restrictions on null complementation might interact with broader narrative conventions, in particular those of genre. In this paper, we attempt to remedy this oversight by presenting a comprehensive overview of genre-based argument omissions and offering a construction-based analysis of genre-based omission conventions. We consider five genre-based omission types: instructional imperatives (Culy 1996, Bender 1999), labelese, diary style (Haegeman 1990), match reports (Ruppenhofer 2004) and quotative clauses. We show that these omission types share important traits; all, for example, have anaphoric rather than indefinite construals. We also show, however, that the omission types differ from each other in idiosyncratic ways. We then address several interrelated representational problems posed by the grammatical treatment of genre-based omissions. For example, the constructions that represent genre-based omission conventions must interact with the lexical entries of verbs, many of which do not generally permit omitted arguments. Accordingly, we offer constructional analyses of genre-based omissions that allow constructions to override lexical valence constraints.
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.