Opinion Analysis in Social Networks Using Antonym Concepts on Graphs

  • Hiram CalvoEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9446)


In sentiment analysis a text is usually classified as positive, negative or neutral; in this work we propose a method for obtaining the relatedness or similarity that an opinion about a particular subject has with regard to a pair of antonym concepts. In this way, a particular opinion is analyzed in terms of a set of features that can vary depending on the field of interest. With our method, it is possible, for example, to determine the balance of honesty, cleanliness, interestingness, or expensiveness that is expressed in an opinion. We used the standard similarity measures Hirst-St-Onge, Jiang-Conrath and Resnik from WordNet; however, finding that these measures are not well-suitable for working with all Parts-of-Speech, we additionally proposed a new measure based on graphs, to properly handle adjectives. We validated our results with a survey to a sample of 20 individuals, obtaining a precision above 82 % with our method.


Sentiment analysis Opinion mining Adjective similarity measure Wordnet Antonyms 


  1. 1.
    Pang, B., Lee, L., Vaithyanathan, S.: Thumbs up? Sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. In: EMNLP-2002, pp. 79–86 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bermingham, A., Smeaton, A.: Classifying sentiment in microblogs: is brevity and advantage? In: ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agarwal, A., Xie, B., Vovsha, I., Rambow, O., Passonneau, R.: Sentiment analysis of Twitter data. In: Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Languages in Social Media, pp. 30–38 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kouloumpis, E., Wilson, T., Moore, J.: Twitter sentiment analysis: the good the bad and the omg. In: Proceedings of the ICWSM 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peng, Q., Zhao, L., Yu, Y., Fang, W.: A new measure of word semantic similarity based on WordNet hierarchy and DAG theory. In: International Conference on Web Information Systems and Mining, Shanghai, China (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCarthy, D., Koeling, R., Weeds, J., Carroll, J.: Unsupervised acquisition of predominant word senses. Comput. Linguist. 33(4), 553–590 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hirst, G., St-Onge, D.: Lexical chains as representation of context for the detection and correction of malapropisms. In: Fellbaum, C. (ed.) WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database, Chap. 13, pp. 305–332. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jiang, J.J., Conrath, D.W.: Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Research in Computational Linguistics, Taiwan, pp. 19–33 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Resnik, P.: Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montréal, Québec (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro de Investigación en Computación, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Center for Computing ResearchNational Polytechnic InstituteVallejoMexico

Personalised recommendations