Advertisement

Progress in Artificial Intelligence

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 111–121 | Cite as

SLANGZY: a fuzzy logic-based algorithm for English slang meaning selection

  • Anshita Gupta
  • Sanya Bathla Taneja
  • Garima Malik
  • Sonakshi VijEmail author
  • Devendra K. Tayal
  • Amita Jain
Regular Paper
  • 120 Downloads

Abstract

The text present on online forums and social media platforms conventionally does not follow a standard sentence structure and uses words that are commonly termed as slang or Internet language. Online text mining involves a surfeit of slang words; however, there is a distinct lack of reliable resources available to find accurate meanings of these words. We aim to bridge this gap by introducing SLANGZY, a fuzzy logic-based algorithm for English slang meaning selection which uses a mathematical factor termed as “slang factor” to judge the accuracy of slang word definitions found in Urban Dictionary, the largest Slang Dictionary on the Internet. This slang factor is used to rank definitions of English slang words retrieved from over 4 million unique words on popular social media platforms such as Twitter, YouTube and Reddit. We investigate the usefulness of SLANGZY over Urban Dictionary to find meanings of slang words in social media text and achieve encouraging results due to recognizing the importance of multiple criteria in the calculation of slang factor in the algorithm over successive experiments. The performance of SLANGZY with optimum weights for each criterion is further assessed using the accuracy, error rate, F-Score as well as a difference factor for English slang word definitions. To further illustrate the results, a web portal is created to display the contents of the Slang Dictionary consisting of definitions ranked according to the calculated slang factors.

Keywords

Slang Fuzzy logic Urban Dictionary Text analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Fellbaum, C.: WordNet. Wiley, New York (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mukherjee, S., Bhattacharyya, P.: Sentiment analysis in twitter with lightweight discourse analysis. Proc. COLING 2012, 1847–1864 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353 (1965)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wortham, J.: A lexicon of instant argot. The New York Times, 3 Jan 2014Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swerdfeger, B.A.: Assessing the viability of the Urban Dictionary as a resource for slang. http://www.cs.ubc.ca/ (2012)
  6. 6.
    Dhuliawala, S., Kanojia, D., Bhattacharyya, P.: SlangNet: a WordNet like resource for English Slang. In: LREC (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ni, K., Wang, W.Y.: Learning to explain non-standard English words and phrases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.09254 (2017)
  8. 8.
    Wu, L., Morstatter, F., Liu, H.: SlangSD: building and using a sentiment dictionary of slang words for short-text sentiment classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.05129 (2016)
  9. 9.
    Kundi, F.M., Ahmad, S., Khan, A., Asghar, M.Z.: Detection and scoring of internet slangs for sentiment analysis using SentiWordNet. Life Sci. J. 11(9), 66–72 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chawla, K., Ramteke, A., Bhattacharyya, P.: Iitb-sentiment-analysts: participation in sentiment analysis in twitter semeval 2013 task. In: Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM), Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2013), vol. 2, pp. 495–500 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pal, A.R., Saha, D.: Detection of slang words in e-data using semi-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.04241 (2015)
  12. 12.
    Gouws, S., Metzler, D., Cai, C., Hovy, E.: Contextual bearing on linguistic variation in social media. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Languages in Social Media, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 20–29 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baldwin, T., Cook, P., Lui, M., MacKinlay, A., Wang, L.: How noisy social media text, How different social media sources? In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pp. 356–364 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cook, P., Stevenson, S.: An unsupervised model for text message normalization. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Linguistic Creativity, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 71–78 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Han, B., Baldwin, T.: Lexical normalisation of short text messages: Makn sens a# twitter. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, vol. 1, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 368–378 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adreevskaia, A., Bergler, S.: Mining wordnet for a fuzzy sentiment: sentiment tag extraction from wordnet glosses. In: 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sun, J., Karray, F., Basir, O., Kamel, M.: Fuzzy logic-based natural language processing and its application to speech recognition. In: 3rd WSES International Conference on Fuzzy Sets and Systems (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tong, R.M., Bonissone, P.P.: A linguistic approach to decision making with fuzzy sets. In: Readings in Fuzzy Sets for Intelligent Systems, pp. 777–784 1993Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klir, G.J., Yuan, B.: Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mandal, S.N., Choudhury, J.P., Chaudhuri, S.B.: In search of suitable fuzzy membership function in prediction of time series data. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues 9(3), 293–302 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Calculus of fuzzy restrictions. In: Zadeh, L.A., Fu, K.-S., Tanaka, K., Shimura, M. (eds.) Fuzzy Sets and their Applications to Cognitive and Decision Processes, pp. 1–40. Academic Press Inc., New-York (1975)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhao, J., Bose, B.K.: Evaluation of membership functions for fuzzy logic controlled induction motor drive. In: Proceedings of 28th Annual IECON Conference, vol. 1, IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, pp. 229–234 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Provost, F.J., Fawcett, T., Kohavi, R.: The case against accuracy estimation for comparing induction algorithms. ICML 1998(98), 445–453 (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mukherjee, S., Malu, A., et al.: TwiSent: a multistage system for analyzing sentiment in twitter. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Maui, Hawaii, USA, ACM, pp. 2531–2534 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sokolova, M., Lapalme, G.: A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks. Inf. Process. Manage. 45(4), 427–437 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Su, B.H., Shen, M.Y., Esposito, E.X., Hopfinger, A.J., Tseng, Y.J.: In silico binary classification QSAR models based on 4D-fingerprints and MOE descriptors for prediction of hERG blockage. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50(7), 1304–1318 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Singh, H., Gupta, M.M., Meitzler, T., Hou, Z.G., Garg, K.K., Solo, A.M.G., Zadeh, L.A.: Real-life applications of fuzzy logic. Adv. Fuzzy Syst. 2013, Article ID 581879, 3p (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bonissone, P.P.: A fuzzy sets based linguistic approach: theory and applications. In: Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Winter Simulation, IEEE Press, pp. 99–111 (1980)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CSEIndira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for WomenDelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of CSEAmbedkar Institute of Advanced Communication Technologies and ResearchDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations