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.
In this paper we present a linguistic resource for the lexical representation of affective knowledge. This resource (named WORDNETAFFECT) was developed starting from WORDNET, through a selection and tagging of a subset of synsets representing the affective  Sentiment analysis of microblogs such as Twitter has recently gained a fair amount of attention. One of the simplest sentiment analysis approaches compares the words of a posting against a labeled word list, where each word has been scored for valence, -- a 'sentiment lexicon' or 'affective word lists'. There exist several affective word lists, e.g., ANEW (Affective Norms for English Words) developed before the advent of microblogging and sentiment analysis. I wanted to examine how well ANEW and other word lists performs for the detection of sentiment strength in microblog posts in comparison with a new word list specifically constructed for microblogs. I used manually labeled postings from Twitter scored for sentiment. Using a simple word matching I show that the new word list may perform better than ANEW, though not as good as the more elaborate approach found in SentiStrength. 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. Even though considerable attention has been given to semantic orientation of words 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 we create a high-quality, moderate-sized emotion lexicon using Mechanical Turk. In addition to questions about emotions evoked by terms, we show how the inclusion of a word choice question can discourage malicious data entry, help identify instances where the annotator may not be familiar with the target term (allowing us to reject such annotations), and help obtain annotations at sense level (rather than at word level). We perform an extensive analysis of the annotations to better understand the distribution of emotions evoked by terms of different parts of speech. We identify which emotions tend to be evoked simultaneously by the same term and show that certain emotions indeed go hand in hand.  This paper describes a corpus annotation project to study issues in the manual annotation of opinions, emotions, sentiments, speculations, evaluations and other private states in language. The resulting corpus annotation scheme is described, as well as examples of its use. In addition, the manual annotation process and the results of an inter-annotator agreement study on a 10,000-sentence corpus of articles drawn from the world press are presented.