Most social media platforms are largely based on text, and users often write posts to describe where they are, what they are seeing, and how they are feeling. Because written text lacks the emotional cues of spoken and face-to-face dialogue, ambiguities are common in written language. This problem is exacerbated in the short, informal nature of many social media posts. To bypass this issue, a suite of special characters called "emojis," which are small pictograms, are embedded within the text. Many emojis are small depictions of facial expressions designed to help disambiguate the emotional meaning of the text. However, a new ambiguity arises in the way that emojis are rendered. Every platform (Windows, Mac, and Android, to name a few) renders emojis according to their own style. In fact, it has been shown that some emojis can be rendered so differently that they look "happy" on some platforms, and "sad" on others. In this work, we use real-world data to verify the existence of this problem. We verify that the usage of the same emoji can be significantly different across platforms, with some emojis exhibiting different sentiment polarities on different platforms. We propose a solution to identify the intended emoji based on the platform-specific nature of the emoji used by the author of a social media post. We apply our solution to sentiment analysis, a task that can benefit from the emoji calibration technique we use in this work. We conduct experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of the mapping in this task.
Before emojis were commonplace, there was a long history of trying to better represent and understand text, both formal and informal. One of the most influential resources is WordNet @cite_0 , which represents words not only by their definitions, but also provides a graph of the relationship between the words. Extensions to this approach abound, but perhaps the most relevant one to our work is SentiWordNet @cite_30 , which considers the sentiment of the words when building the resource. In the context of informal text, SlangSD @cite_21 provides a sentiment resource for mapping slang words to sentiment scores by leveraging Urban Dictionary's data. Crowdsourcing has also been used to extract the emotional meanings for words @cite_22 .
@cite_0 @cite_22 @cite_21 @cite_30
2368278370 1904892614 193524605 2122522916
We propose a supervised model for expanding an opinion lexicon for Twitter.We combine automatically annotated tweets with existing hand-made opinion lexicons.We use POS tags and associations between words and sentiment as word-level features.Expanded words are mapped to a positive, negative, and neutral distribution.We outperform the performance obtained by using PMI semantic orientation alone. Opinion lexicons, which are lists of terms labeled by sentiment, are widely used resources to support automatic sentiment analysis of textual passages. However, existing resources of this type exhibit some limitations when applied to social media messages such as tweets (posts in Twitter), because they are unable to capture the diversity of informal expressions commonly found in this type of media.In this article, we present a method that combines information from automatically annotated tweets and existing hand-made opinion lexicons to expand an opinion lexicon in a supervised fashion. The expanded lexicon contains part-of-speech (POS) disambiguated entries with a probability distribution for positive, negative, and neutral polarity classes, similarly to SentiWordNet.To obtain this distribution using machine learning, we propose word-level attributes based on (a) the morphological information conveyed by POS tags and (b) associations between words and the sentiment expressed in the tweets that contain them. We consider tweets with both hard and soft sentiment labels. The sentiment associations are modeled in two different ways: using point-wise-mutual-information semantic orientation (PMI-SO), and using stochastic gradient descent semantic orientation (SGD-SO), which learns a linear relationship between words and sentiment. The training dataset is labeled by a seed lexicon formed by combining multiple hand-annotated lexicons.Our experimental results show that our method outperforms the three-dimensional word-level polarity classification performance obtained by using PMI-SO alone. This is significant because PMI-SO is a state-of-the-art measure for establishing world-level sentiment. Additionally, we show that lexicons created with our method achieve significant improvements over SentiWordNet for classifying tweets into polarity classes, and also outperform SentiStrength in the majority of the experiments. Deriving prior polarity lexica for sentiment analysis – where positive or negative scores are associated with words out of context – is a challenging task. Usually, a trade-off between precision and coverage is hard to find, and it depends on the methodology used to build the lexicon. Manually annotated lexica provide a high precision but lack in coverage, whereas automatic derivation from pre-existing knowledge guarantees high coverage at the cost of a lower precision. Since the automatic derivation of prior polarities is less time consuming than manual annotation, there has been a great bloom of these approaches, in particular based on the SentiWordNet resource. In this paper, we compare the most frequently used techniques based on SentiWordNet with newer ones and blend them in a learning framework (a so called ‘ensemble method’). By taking advantage of manually built prior polarity lexica, our ensemble method is better able to predict the prior value of unseen words and to outperform all the other SentiWordNet approaches. Using this technique we have built SentiWords , a prior polarity lexicon of approximately 155,000 words, that has both a high precision and a high coverage. We finally show that in sentiment analysis tasks, using our lexicon allows us to outperform both the single metrics derived from SentiWordNet and popular manually annotated sentiment lexica. In this work we present SENTIWORDNET 3.0, a lexical resource explicitly devised for supporting sentiment classification and opinion mining applications. SENTIWORDNET 3.0 is an improved version of SENTIWORDNET 1.0, a lexical resource publicly available for research purposes, now currently licensed to more than 300 research groups and used in a variety of research projects worldwide. Both SENTIWORDNET 1.0 and 3.0 are the result of automatically annotating all WORDNET synsets according to their degrees of positivity, negativity, and neutrality. SENTIWORDNET 1.0 and 3.0 differ (a) in the versions of WORDNET which they annotate (WORDNET 2.0 and 3.0, respectively), (b) in the algorithm used for automatically annotating WORDNET, which now includes (additionally to the previous semi-supervised learning step) a random-walk step for refining the scores. We here discuss SENTIWORDNET 3.0, especially focussing on the improvements concerning aspect (b) that it embodies with respect to version 1.0. We also report the results of evaluating SENTIWORDNET 3.0 against a fragment of WORDNET 3.0 manually annotated for positivity, negativity, and neutrality; these results indicate accuracy improvements of about 20 with respect to SENTIWORDNET 1.0. There is a new generation of emoticons, called emojis, that is increasingly being used in mobile communications and social media. In the past two years, over ten billion emojis were used on Twitter. Emojis are Unicode graphic symbols, used as a shorthand to express concepts and ideas. In contrast to the small number of well-known emoticons that carry clear emotional contents, there are hundreds of emojis. But what are their emotional contents? We provide the first emoji sentiment lexicon, called the Emoji Sentiment Ranking, and draw a sentiment map of the 751 most frequently used emojis. The sentiment of the emojis is computed from the sentiment of the tweets in which they occur. We engaged 83 human annotators to label over 1.6 million tweets in 13 European languages by the sentiment polarity (negative, neutral, or positive). About 4 of the annotated tweets contain emojis. The sentiment analysis of the emojis allows us to draw several interesting conclusions. It turns out that most of the emojis are positive, especially the most popular ones. The sentiment distribution of the tweets with and without emojis is significantly different. The inter-annotator agreement on the tweets with emojis is higher. Emojis tend to occur at the end of the tweets, and their sentiment polarity increases with the distance. We observe no significant differences in the emoji rankings between the 13 languages and the Emoji Sentiment Ranking. Consequently, we propose our Emoji Sentiment Ranking as a European language-independent resource for automated sentiment analysis. Finally, the paper provides a formalization of sentiment and a novel visualization in the form of a sentiment bar.