Advertisement

Generating More-Positive and More-Negative Text

  • Diana Zaiu Inkpen
  • Ol’ga Feiguina
  • Graeme Hirst
Part of the The Information Retrieval Series book series (INRE, volume 20)

Abstract

We present experiments on modifying the semantic orientation of the near-synonyms in a text. We analyze a text into an interlingual representation and a set of attitudinal nuances, with particular focus on its near-synonyms. Then we use our text generator to produce a text with the same meaning but changed semantic orientation (more positive or more negative) by replacing, wherever possible, words with near-synonyms that differ in their expressed attitude.

Keywords

near-synonyms lexical nuances text generation attitude semantic orientation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

11. Bibliography

  1. Allan, K. and Burridge, K. (1991) Euphemism and Dysphemism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, F. and Hirst, G. (2004) Collocations as cues to semantic orientation. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  3. Charniak, E. (2000) A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 6th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (NAACL-ANLP 2000), 132–139. Seattle.Google Scholar
  4. Edmonds, P. and Hirst, G. (2002) Near-synonymy and lexical choice. Computational Linguistics 28(2):105–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elhadad, M., McKeown, K., and Robin, J. (1997) Floating constraints in lexical choice. Computational Linguistics 22(4):1–44.Google Scholar
  6. Glickman, O. and Dagan, I. (2003) Identifying lexical paraphrases from a single corpus: A case study for verbs. In Proceedings of the International Conference RANLP-2003 (Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing), 166–173. Borovets, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
  7. Hayakawa, S.I. (1994) Choose the Right Word. Second Edition, revised by Eugene Ehrlich. HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Hovy, E. (1990) Pragmatics and language generation. Artificial Intelligence 43:153–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Inkpen, D.Z. and Hirst, G. (2001) Building a lexical knowledge-base of near-synonym differences. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Word Net and Other Lexical Resources, Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL 2001), 47–52. Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  10. Inkpen, D.Z. and Hirst, G. (2002) Acquiring collocations for lexical choice between nearsynonyms. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Unsupervised Lexical Acquisition, 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2002), 67–76. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  11. Inkpen, D.Z. and Hirst, G. (2003) Near-synonym choice in natural language generation. In Proceedings of the International Conference RANLP-2003 (Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing), 204–211. Borovets, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
  12. Inkpen, D. (2003) Building a Lexical Knowledge-Base of Near-Synonym Differences. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  13. Knight, K. and Luk, S. (1994) Building a large knowledge base for machine translation. In Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), 773–778. Seattle.Google Scholar
  14. Langkilde, I. and Knight, K. (1998) Generation that exploits corpus-based statistical knowledge. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics joint with 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (ACL-COLING’ 98), 704–712. Montreal.Google Scholar
  15. Langkilde-Geary, I. (2002) A Foundation for a General-Purpose Natural Language Generation: Sentence Realization Using Probabilistic Models of Language. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  16. Lin, D., Zhao, S., Qin, L., and Zhou, M. (2003) Identifying synonyms among distributionally similar words. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Joint International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-03), 1492–1493. Acapulco.Google Scholar
  17. Pang, B., Lee, L., and Vaithyanathan, S. (2002) Thumbs up? Sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. In Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-02), 79–86. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  18. Polanyi, L. and Zaenen, A. (2004) Contextual valence shifters. In this volume.Google Scholar
  19. 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 (EMNLP-03), 105–112. Sapporo.Google Scholar
  20. Stone, P.J., Dunphy, D.C., Smith, M.S., Ogilvie, D.M., and associates. (1966) The General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Turney, P. (2002) Thumbs up or thumbs down? Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2002), 417–424. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  22. Yu, H. and Hatzivassiloglou, V. (2003) Towards answering opinion questions: Separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-03), 129–136. Sapporo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana Zaiu Inkpen
    • 1
  • Ol’ga Feiguina
    • 2
  • Graeme Hirst
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations