Understanding how social power structures affect the way we interact with one another is of great interest to social scientists who want to answer fundamental questions about human behavior, as well as to computer scientists who want to build automatic methods to infer the social contexts of interactions. In this paper, we employ advancements in extra-propositional semantics extraction within NLP to study how author commitment reflects the social context of an interaction. Specifically, we investigate whether the level of commitment expressed by individuals in an organizational interaction reflects the hierarchical power structures they are part of. We find that subordinates use significantly more instances of non-commitment than superiors. More importantly, we also find that subordinates attribute propositions to other agents more often than superiors do --- an aspect that has not been studied before. Finally, we show that enriching lexical features with commitment labels captures important distinctions in social meanings.
Most existing annotation schemes for hedging were created to aid in the automatic identification of hedges in formal language styles, such as used in scholarly prose. Language with informal tone, typical in much web content, poses a challenge and provides illuminating case studies for the analysis of the use of hedges. We have analysed conversations from a web forum and identified the manners individuals express hedging through expressions which differ slightly regarding to their lexical form from hedges used in formal writing. Based on these observations, we propose an annotation scheme composed of three main categories of hedges where the main class comprises first person epistemic expressions that explicitly note an individual’s involvement in what they express. We provide here an overview of our insights obtained by annotating a dataset of web forum posts according to this scheme. These observations will be useful in the design of automatic methods for the detection of hedges in texts in informal language.    The CoNLL-2010 Shared Task was dedicated to the detection of uncertainty cues and their linguistic scope in natural language texts. The motivation behind this task was that distinguishing factual and uncertain information in texts is of essential importance in information extraction. This paper provides a general overview of the shared task, including the annotation protocols of the training and evaluation datasets, the exact task definitions, the evaluation metrics employed and the overall results. The paper concludes with an analysis of the prominent approaches and an overview of the systems submitted to the shared task. Understanding the ways in which participants in public discussions frame their arguments is important in understanding how public opinion is formed. In this paper, we adopt the position that it is time for more computationally-oriented research on problems involving framing. In the interests of furthering that goal, we propose the following specific, interesting and, we believe, relatively accessible question: In the controversy regarding the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture, do pro- and anti-GMO articles differ in whether they choose to adopt a "scientific" tone? Prior work on the rhetoric and sociology of science suggests that hedging may distinguish popular-science text from text written by professional scientists for their colleagues. We propose a detailed approach to studying whether hedge detection can be used to understanding scientific framing in the GMO debates, and provide corpora to facilitate this study. Some of our preliminary analyses suggest that hedges occur less frequently in scientific discourse than in popular text, a finding that contradicts prior assertions in the literature. We hope that our initial work and data will encourage others to pursue this promising line of inquiry. This article explores a combination of deep and shallow approaches to the problem of resolving the scope of speculation and negation within a sentence, specifically in the domain of biomedical research literature. The first part of the article focuses on speculation. After first showing how speculation cues can be accurately identified using a very simple classifier informed only by local lexical context, we go on to explore two different syntactic approaches to resolving the in-sentence scopes of these cues. Whereas one uses manually crafted rules operating over dependency structures, the other automatically learns a discriminative ranking function over nodes in constituent trees. We provide an in-depth error analysis and discussion of various linguistic properties characterizing the problem, and show that although both approaches perform well in isolation, even better results can be obtained by combining them, yielding the best published results to date on the CoNLL-2010 Shared Task data. The last part of the article describes how our speculation system is ported to also resolve the scope of negation. With only modest modifications to the initial design, the system obtains state-of-the-art results on this task also.   Objective: Hedging is frequently used in both the biological literature and clinical notes to denote uncertainty or speculation. It is important for text-mining applications to detect hedge cues and their scope; otherwise, uncertain events are incorrectly identified as factual events. However, due to the complexity of language, identifying hedge cues and their scope in a sentence is not a trivial task. Our objective was to develop an algorithm that would automatically detect hedge cues and their scope in biomedical literature. Methodology: We used conditional random fields (CRFs), a supervised machine-learning algorithm, to train models to detect hedge cue phrases and their scope in biomedical literature. The models were trained on the publicly available BioScope corpus. We evaluated the performance of the CRF models in identifying hedge cue phrases and their scope by calculating recall, precision and F1-score. We compared our models with three competitive baseline systems. Results: Our best CRF-based model performed statistically better than the baseline systems, achieving an F1-score of 88 and 86 in detecting hedge cue phrases and their scope in biological literature and an F1-score of 93 and 90 in detecting hedge cue phrases and their scope in clinical notes. Conclusions: Our approach is robust, as it can identify hedge cues and their scope in both biological and clinical text. To benefit text-mining applications, our system is publicly available as a Java API and as an online application at http: hedgescope.askhermes.org. To our knowledge, this is the first publicly available system to detect hedge cues and their scope in biomedical literature. Uncertainty detection is essential for many NLP applications. For instance, in information retrieval, it is of primary importance to distinguish among factual, negated and uncertain information. Current research on uncertainty detection has mostly focused on the English language, in contrast, here we present the first machine learning algorithm that aims at identifying linguistic markers of uncertainty in Hungarian texts from two domains: Wikipedia and news media. The system is based on sequence labeling and makes use of a rich feature set including orthographic, lexical, morphological, syntactic and semantic features as well. Having access to annotated data from two domains, we also focus on the domain specificities of uncertainty detection by comparing results obtained in indomain and cross-domain settings. Our results show that the domain of the text has significant influence on uncertainty detection.  