Contextual Valence Shifters

  • Livia Polanyi
  • Annie Zaenen
Part of the The Information Retrieval Series book series (INRE, volume 20)


In addition to describing facts and events, texts often communicate information about the attitude of the writer or various participants towards material being described. The most salient clues about attitude are provided by the lexical choice of the writer but, as discussed below, the organization of the text also contributes information relevant to assessing attitude. We argue that the current work in this area that concentrates mainly on the negative or positive attitude communicated by individual terms (Edmonds and Hirst, 2002; Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown, 1997; Turney and Littman, 2002; Wiebe et al., 2001) is incomplete and often gives the wrong results when implemented directly. We then describe how the base attitudinal valence of a lexical item is modified by lexical and discourse context and propose a simple, “proof of concept” implementation for some contextual shifters.


attitude discourse valence shifters genre structure multiple constraints calculating valence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

5. Bibliography

  1. Das, S. and Chen, M. (2001) Yahoo! For Amazon: extracting market sentiment from stock message boards. Paper presented in the 8th Asia Pacific Finance Association Annual Conference, Bankok, Thailand.Google Scholar
  2. Edmonds, P. and Hirst, G. (2002) Near-synonymy and lexical choice. Computational Linguistics, 28(2), 105–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Grosz, B. and Sidner, C. (1986) Attention, Intention, and the Structure of Discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.Google Scholar
  4. Hatzivassiloglou, V. and McKeown K. (1997) Predicting the Semantic Orientation of Adjectives. Computational Linguistics, 174–181.Google Scholar
  5. Hatzivassiloglou, V. and Wiebe, J. (2000) Effects of Adjective Orientation and Gradability on Sentence Subjectivity. Paper presented at Coling 2000. Saarbrucken.Google Scholar
  6. Mann, W. and Thompson, S. (1988) Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3), 243–281.Google Scholar
  7. Pang, B. Lee, L. and Vaithyanathan, V. (2002) Thumbs up? Sentiment Classification using Machine Learning Techniques. In Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods on Natural Language Processing. 79–86.Google Scholar
  8. Polanyi, L. and Scha, R. (1984) A Syntactic Approach to Discourse Semantics. Paper presented at 6th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Riloff, E. and Wiebe, J. (2003) Learning Extraction Patterns for Subjective Expressions. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 105–112.Google Scholar
  10. Tong, R. (2001) An operational system for detecting and tracking opinions in on-line discussion. Paper presented at the SIGIR Workshop on Operational Text Classification.Google Scholar
  11. Turney, P. and Littman, M. (2002) Unsupervised Learning of Semantic Orientation from a Hundred-Billion-Word Corpus. Technical Report, National Research Council Canada, Institute for Information Technology, ERB-1094, NRC-44929.Google Scholar
  12. Wiebe, J., Wilson, T., and Bell, M. (2001) Identifying Collocations for Recognizing Opinions. Paper presented at the ACL/EACL’ 01 Workshop on Collocation, Toulouse, France, July 2001.Google Scholar
  13. Wiebe, J., Wilson, T., Bruce, R., Bell, M., and Martin, M. (2004) Learning subjective language. Computational Linguistics 30(3).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Livia Polanyi
    • 1
  • Annie Zaenen
    • 2
  1. 1.FXPALPalo Alto
  2. 2.PARCPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations