An Unification-Based Model for Attitude Prediction

  • Manfred KlennerEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10415)


Attitude prediction strives to determine whether an opinion holder is positive or negative towards a given target. We cast this problem as a lexicon engineering task in the context of deep linguistic grammar formalisms such as LFG or HPSG. Moreover, we demonstrate that attitude prediction can be accomplished solely through unification of lexical feature structures. It is thus possible to use our model without altering existing grammars, only the lexicon needs to be adapted. In this paper, we also show how our model can be combined with dependency parsers. This makes our model independent of the availability of deep grammars, only unification as a processing mean is needed.


Sentiment Opinion inference Lexical functional grammar 


  1. 1.
    Butt, M., King, T.H., Masuichi, H., Rohrer, C.: The parallel grammar project. In: Carroll, N.J., Sutcliffe, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Grammar Engineering and Evaluation, COLING 2002, pp. 1–7 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deng, L., Wiebe, J.: Joint prediction for entity/event-level sentiment analysis using probabilistic soft logic models. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 179–189 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaplan, R.M., Bresnan, J.: Lexical-functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In: The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaplan, R.M., King, T.H., Maxwell III, J.T.: Adapting existing grammars: the XLE approach. In: Carroll, N.J., Sutcliffe, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Grammar Engineering and Evaluation, COLING 2002, pp. 29–35 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karttunen, L.: Simple and phrasal implicatives. In: Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pp. 124–131. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klenner, M., Amsler, M.: Sentiframes: a resource for verb-centered German sentiment inference. In: Calzolari, N., Choukri, K., Declerck, T., Goggi, S., Grobelnik, M., Maegaard, B., Mariani, J., Mazo, H., Moreno, A., Odijk, J., Piperidis, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Portoro, Slovenia, pp. 2888–2891 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klenner, M., Clematide, S.: How factuality determines sentiment inferences. In: Gardent, C., Raffaella Bernardi, I.T. (eds.) Proceedings of *SEM 2016: The Fifth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Berlin, Germany, pp. 75–84, August 2016Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rashkin, H., Singh, S., Choi, Y.: Connotation frames: a data-driven investigation. In: Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Berlin, Germany, pp. 311–32, August 2016Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saurí, R., Pustejovsky, J.: FactBank: a corpus annotated with event factuality. Lang. Resour. Eval. 43(3), 227–268 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sennrich, R., Schneider, G., Volk, M., Warin, M.: A new hybrid dependency parser for German. In: Proceedings of the German Society for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology (GSCL), Potsdam, Germany, pp. 115–124 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computational LinguisticsUniversity of ZurichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations