Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (6) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (4)
- Article (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6) (remove)
Keywords
- Beleidigung (3)
- Beschimpfung (3)
- abusive language (3)
- Datensatz (2)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (2)
- Lexikon (2)
- Ambiguität (1)
- Automatische Sprachanalyse (1)
- Computerunterstützte Kommunikation (1)
- Crowdsourcing (1)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (5)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
Auf dem Weg zu einer Kartographie: automatische und manuelle Analysen am Beispiel des Korpus ISW
(2021)
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.
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.
Who is we? Disambiguating the referents of first person plural pronouns in parliamentary debates
(2021)
This paper investigates the use of first person plural pronouns as a rhetorical device in political speeches. We present an annotation schema for disambiguating pronoun references and use our schema to create an annotated corpus of debates from the German Bundestag. We then use our corpus to learn to automatically resolve pronoun referents in parliamentary debates. We explore the use of data augmentation with weak supervision to further expand our corpus and report preliminary results.
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.
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.