Words often convey affect -- emotions, feelings, and attitudes. Lexicons of word-affect association have applications in automatic emotion analysis and natural language generation. However, existing lexicons indicate only coarse categories of affect association. Here, for the first time, we create an affect intensity lexicon with real-valued scores of association. We use a technique called best-worst scaling that improves annotation consistency and obtains reliable fine-grained scores. The lexicon includes terms common from both general English and terms specific to social media communications. It has close to 6,000 entries for four basic emotions. We will be adding entries for other affect dimensions shortly.
There is a large body of work on creating valence or sentiment lexicons, including the General Inquirer @cite_2 , ANEW @cite_0 @cite_4 , MPQA @cite_11 , and norms lexicon by . The work on creating lexicons for categorical emotions such as joy, sadness, fear, etc, is comparatively small. WordNet Affect Lexicon @cite_18 has a few hundred words annotated with the emotions they evoke. http: wndomains.fbk.eu wnaffect.html It was created by manually identifying the emotions of a few seed words and then marking all their WordNet synonyms as having the same emotion. The NRC Emotion Lexicon was created by crowdsourcing and it includes entries for about 14,000 words and eight Plutchik emotions @cite_24 @cite_19 . http: www.purl.org net saif.mohammad research It also includes entries for positive and negative sentiment.
@cite_18 @cite_4 @cite_0 @cite_24 @cite_19 @cite_2 @cite_11
2160250477 2131305515 2136961259 2040467972
Sentiment analysis often relies on a semantic orientation lexicon of positive and negative words. A number of approaches have been proposed for creating such lexicons, but they tend to be computationally expensive, and usually rely on significant manual annotation and large corpora. Most of these methods use WordNet. In contrast, we propose a simple approach to generate a high-coverage semantic orientation lexicon, which includes both individual words and multi-word expressions, using only a Roget-like thesaurus and a handful of affixes. Further, the lexicon has properties that support the Polyanna Hypothesis. Using the General Inquirer as gold standard, we show that our lexicon has 14 percentage points more correct entries than the leading WordNet-based high-coverage lexicon (SentiWordNet). In an extrinsic evaluation, we obtain significantly higher performance in determining phrase polarity using our thesaurus-based lexicon than with any other. Additionally, we explore the use of visualization techniques to gain insight into the our algorithm beyond the evaluations mentioned above. The explosion of Web opinion data has made essential the need for automatic tools to analyze and understand people's sentiments toward different topics. In most sentiment analysis applications, the sentiment lexicon plays a central role. However, it is well known that there is no universally optimal sentiment lexicon since the polarity of words is sensitive to the topic domain. Even worse, in the same domain the same word may indicate different polarities with respect to different aspects. For example, in a laptop review, "large" is negative for the battery aspect while being positive for the screen aspect. In this paper, we focus on the problem of learning a sentiment lexicon that is not only domain specific but also dependent on the aspect in context given an unlabeled opinionated text collection. We propose a novel optimization framework that provides a unified and principled way to combine different sources of information for learning such a context-dependent sentiment lexicon. Experiments on two data sets (hotel reviews and customer feedback surveys on printers) show that our approach can not only identify new sentiment words specific to the given domain but also determine the different polarities of a word depending on the aspect in context. In further quantitative evaluation, our method is proved to be effective in constructing a high quality lexicon by comparing with a human annotated gold standard. In addition, using the learned context-dependent sentiment lexicon improved the accuracy in an aspect-level sentiment classification task. While many lexica annotated with words polarity are available for sentiment analysis, very few tackle the harder task of emotion analysis and are usually quite limited in coverage. In this paper, we present a novel approach for extracting - in a totally automated way - a high-coverage and high-precision lexicon of roughly 37 thousand terms annotated with emotion scores, called DepecheMood. Our approach exploits in an original way 'crowd-sourced' affective annotation implicitly provided by readers of news articles from rappler.com. By providing new state-of-the-art performances in unsupervised settings for regression and classification tasks, even using a na " ve approach, our experiments show the beneficial impact of harvesting social media data for affective lexicon building. Even though considerable attention has been given to the polarity of words (positive and negative) and the creation of large polarity lexicons, research in emotion analysis has had to rely on limited and small emotion lexicons. In this paper, we show how the combined strength and wisdom of the crowds can be used to generate a large, high-quality, word–emotion and word–polarity association lexicon quickly and inexpensively. We enumerate the challenges in emotion annotation in a crowdsourcing scenario and propose solutions to address them. Most notably, in addition to questions about emotions associated with terms, we show how the inclusion of a word choice question can discourage malicious data entry, help to identify instances where the annotator may not be familiar with the target term (allowing us to reject such annotations), and help to obtain annotations at sense level (rather than at word level). We conducted experiments on how to formulate the emotion-annotation questions, and show that asking if a term is associated with an emotion leads to markedly higher interannotator agreement than that obtained by asking if a term evokes an emotion.