1 / 31

An Investigation of Implicatures in Chinese

An Investigation of Implicatures in Chinese. Lingjia Deng, Janyce Wiebe Intelligent Systems Program Department of Computer Science University of Pittsburgh. Outline. Introduction Implicature in Chinese Inference in Chinese Extracting Chinese GoodFor / BadFor

zenia
Télécharger la présentation

An Investigation of Implicatures in Chinese

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An Investigation ofImplicatures in Chinese Lingjia Deng, JanyceWiebe Intelligent Systems Program Department of Computer Science University of Pittsburgh

  2. Outline • Introduction • Implicature in Chinese • Inference in Chinese • Extracting Chinese GoodFor/BadFor • Chinese GoodFor/BadFor Words • Syntax of Chinese Agents/Objects • Chinese Sentiment Analysis • Conclusions

  3. Outline • Introduction • Implicature in Chinese • Inference in Chinese • Extracting Chinese GoodFor/BadFor • Chinese GoodFor/BadFor Words • Syntax of Chinese Agents/Objects • Chinese Sentiment Analysis • Conclusions

  4. Introduction Scenario: The government proposes the bill of Affordable Care Act. We want to analyze everyone’s opinion of it. We can collect opinions by doing survey, questionnaire, etc. We can also collect the writer’s stances by analyzing their posts online.

  5. Introduction what about bill? • “The bill will lower the skyrocketing healthcare costs.” • Explicit (Direct) Sentiment: • writer negative towardthe skyrocketing healthcare costs • The healthcare cost is too high. I cannot afford it. • Implicit (Inferred) Sentiment: • writer positivetoward the bill will lower costs • There is a chance that the costs could be decreased! I love it! • writer positivetoward the bill • The bill is able to do this! I’ll vote for it!

  6. GoodFor/BadFor Event Benefactive/Malefactive Event • “The bill will lower the skyrocketing healthcare costs.” • <bill, lower, healthcare costs> • GoodFor/BadFor Event (Deng et al., ACL 2013 short): • goodForevent: help, increase, etc • badFor event: lower, destroy, decrease, etc • <agent, goodFor/badFor event, object> • GoodFor/BadFor Corpus (Deng et al., ACL 2013 short): • 134 political editorials • e.g. <bill, lower, healthcare costs> • e.g. <positive, badFor, negative> • almost 20% sentences have clear goodFor/badFor events • available at mpqa.cs.pitt.edu

  7. Related Work Words/Phrases directly imply implicit opinions. (Zhang and Liu, 2011; Feng et al., 2013) Infer an overall polarity of a sentence by compositional semantics. (Choi and Cardie, 2008; Moilanen et al., 2010) Identify classes of goodFor/badFor terms, and carry out studies involving artificially constructed goodFor/badFortriples and corpus examples matching fixed linguistic templates. (Anand and Reschke 2010; 2011) Generate a lexicon of patient polarity verbs, which correspond to goodFor/badFor events whose spans are verbs. (Goyal et al., 2012) Investigate sarcasm where the writer holds a positive sentiment toward a negative situation. (Riloff et al., 2013)

  8. Our Work of GoodFor/BadFor TODAY TODAY An annotated goodFor/badFor Corpus. (Deng et al., ACL 2013 short) A sense-level goodFor/badFor lexicon. (Choi et al., WASSA 2014) Four inference rule schemas and a graph-based model for sentiment propagation. (Deng and Wiebe, EACL 2014) An optimization framework for joint sentiment inference and disambiguating goodFor/badFor components. (Deng et al., Coling 2014) A rule-based framework for representing and analyzing opinion implicatures. (Wiebeand Deng, arXiv2014; WASSA 2014)

  9. Motivation For This Work • This work is investigation of implicatures in Chinese. • People speaking different languages may express their opinions in different ways. • Before directly applying goodFor/badFor implicature in English to Chinese, we want to investigate: • whether such implicature also exists in Chinese; • whether the sentiment inference rules also apply to Chinese implicit opinions; • whether it is feasible to extract goodFor/badFor events and the corresponding components in Chinese.

  10. Outline • Motivation • Implicature in Chinese • Agreement Study • Inference in Chinese • Extracting Chinese GoodFor/BadFor • Chinese GoodFor/BadFor Words • Syntax of Chinese Agents/Objects • Chinese Sentiment Analysis • Conclusions

  11. Implicature in Chinese:Agreement Study An opinion-orientated, paragraph-paralleled corpus: Chinese version of the New York Times (http://cn.nytimes.com/). Select the English paragraphs containing English goodFor/badFor words. Present the parallel Chinese paragraphs.

  12. Implicature in Chinese:Agreement Study All the three annotators, including me, are Chinese graduate students in University of Pittsburgh. Annotate 60 paragraphs, 253 sentences. Conduct the agreement study in the same manner with (Deng et al., 2013).

  13. Implicature in Chinese:Agreement Study • Train with English manual (Deng et al., 2013) and several Chinese annotated examples. • Annotate: • (A). spans of the goodFor/badFor events • (B). spans of the agents and objects of the events • (C). polarities of the events: goodFor or badFor • (D). writer’s sentiments toward the agents and objects: positive, negative, neutral • Evaluate by the same metrics as (Deng et al., 2013): • for (A) & (B): percentage of span both annotate • for (C) & (D): kappa

  14. Implicature in Chinese:Agreement Study All the scores are good: trained by the English manual, the annotators are able to detect similar implicature in Chinese. Scores of (A) and (D) are lower than those in the English goodFor/badFor agreement study （Deng et al., 2014）.

  15. Implicature in Chinese:Agreement Study • For annotating (D) writer’s sentiments, the main disagreement comes from: • Anno 1 annotated as positive or negative • Anno 2 annotated as neutral • We conduct a phase-II agreement study on 10 editorials from the English corpus(Dengetal.,2013). • Three scores: • I. agreement scores in Chinese by three annotators • II. agreement scores in English by three annotators • III. previous agreement scores (Deng et al., 2013) • score I = score II; score I < score III; score II < score III • They have a similar understanding of implicatures in the two languages.

  16. Implicature in Chinese:Agreement Study • For annotating (A) goodFor/badFor events, the major disagreement comes from: • Anno 1 marks a goodFor/badFor span • Anno 2 doesn’t mark it because hethinksit violates the syntax rules we specified in the English manual. • Syntax rules are specified in the English manual to guide the annotators to focus on clear cases of goodFor/badFor events, e.g. • The object should be the major semantic object. • The goodFor/badFor polarity should be perceived within the triple.

  17. GoodFor/BadForCases Evoked by Chinese Syntax • The goodFor/badFor polarity should be perceived within the triple. • It will put the reform to die. • In English: this is NOT annotated as a goodFor/badFor event. • put is the verb • <it, put, reform> • put X to die: badFor X • put X to revive: goodFor X

  18. GoodFor/BadFor Cases Evoked by Chinese Syntax • The goodFor/badFor polarity should be perceived within the triple. • It will putthe reform to die. • 这将把改革置于死地。 • In Chinese: this can be represented as a clear goodFor/badFor case • “put” is not averb in the Chinese sentence • BA structure (Chao, 1968; Li and Thompson, 1989; Sybesma, 1992) • subject, BA, object, verb • it will BA kill the reform

  19. Implicature in Chinese:Conclusion • Such syntax is commonly seen in Chinese. • These goodFor/badFor events due to the Chinese syntax are clear enough in Chinese. • It will kill the reform. • In order to fully study the Chinese goodFor/badFor, the manual should be revised to provide guidance to annotate such events. • Overall, similar implicatures can be perceived in English and in Chinese.

  20. Outline • Motivation • Implicature in Chinese • Inference in Chinese • Graph Model for Sentiment Propagation (Deng and Wiebe, 2014) • Extracting Chinese GoodFor/BadFor • Chinese GoodFor/BadFor Words • Syntax of Chinese Agents/Objects • Chinese Sentiment Analysis • Conclusions

  21. Graph Model(Deng and Wiebe, 2014) agent goodFor/badFor object agent/object EXPLICIT sentiment detector goodFor badFor Encoding Inference Rules Loopy Belief Propagation

  22. Inference in Chinese: Graph Model Performance • Werunanisolatedevaluationofthegraphmodelitself(Dengand Wiebe,2014). • For a node, calculate how many times it is propagated correctly given any neighbor node being assigned with a correct sentiment label. • The scores in Chinese are lower than those in English (89% in (Deng and Wiebe, 2014)). • Blocked Inference

  23. Blocked Inference:In Chinese and English badFor • …a misreading which estimated the law would “reduce the amount of labor… • <law, reduce, labor> • The writer doesn’t believe <law, reduce, labor>. • “misreading” believes so. • The writer is negative toward “misreading”. • For events which the writer doesn’t believe it is true, the inference should be blocked. • It is not in the writer’s belief space (Wiebe and Deng, 2014).

  24. Inference in Chinese: Conclusion • Though there are cases where the inference rules are blocked, • The cases appear both in Chinese and in English. • We didn’t find evidence showing that the blocked inference only occurs in English. • Besidestheblockedinferences,thegoodcorrectnessscoresprovideevidencethatthe inference rules also apply to Chinese.

  25. Outline • Motivation • Implicature in Chinese • Inference in Chinese • Extract Chinese GoodFor/BadFor • Chinese GoodFor/BadFor Words • Syntax of Chinese Agents/Objects • Chinese Sentiment Analysis • English + Parallel Corpus? • Conclusions

  26. Chinese GoodFor/BadFor Words • Given we have an English goodFor/badFor lexicon (Choi et al., 2014), is it applicable to derive a bilingual goodFor/badFor lexicon from a parallel corpus? • We manually find the parallel spans in English corresponding to the annotated goodFor/badFor spans in the Chinese. • 76.25% annotated Chinese goodFor/badFor spans have parallel goodFor/badFor spans in English. • For the other Chinese annotated goodFor/badFor spans, there is no corresponding goodFor/badFor span in English, due to: • Chinese syntax; • paraphrasing.

  27. Chinese Agent/Object • We use the Stanford dependency parser to extract the agent/object in English (Deng et al., 2014). • nsubj-(event, agent) dobj-(event, object) • Can we use the same dependency labels to extract agent/object in Chinese? • We choose the Chinese Stanford dependency parser. • Some dependency labels exist both in Chinese and English. • There are more nsubj and dobj in Chinese data than in English data. • Some labels are especially designed for Chinese (Chang et al., 2009). • 19.57% in agents, 25.82% in objects. • They are similar to some labels in English.

  28. Chinese Sentiment Analysis • Sentiment Lexicon: • HowNet • NTU Sentiment Dictionary (Ku and Chen, 2007) • A sentiment lexicon from Tsinghua University (Li and Sun, 2007) • Bilingual and Multilingual Chinese Sentiment Analysis Research • Wan, 2008; Wan, 2009; Boyd-Graber and Resnik, 2010; Lu et al., 2011; etc. • Chinese Sentiment Analysis Tools • LingPipehttp://alias-i.com/lingpipe/ • Semantriahttps://semantria.com/

  29. Outline • Motivation • Implicature in Chinese • Inference in Chinese • Extracting Chinese GoodFor/BadFor • Conclusions

  30. Conclusions The implicatures that arise from explicit sentiment toward goodFor/badFor events exist in Chinese language and they are similar to those in English. The inference rules we developed for English apply to Chinese. There are several cases where the inferences are blocked and such cases exist both in Chinese and English. It is promising to develop systems automatically extracting Chinese goodFor/badFor events using the existing methods for English and leveraging the parallel corpus.

  31. Questions ? • Thank Fan Zhang and Changsheng Liu for annotations. • Part of References: • Jordan Boyd-Graber and Philip Resnik. 2010. Holis- tic sentiment analysis across languages: Multilingual supervised latent dirichlet allocation. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing. • Lingjia Deng and JanyceWiebe. 2014. Sentiment propagation via implicature constraints. In Meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. • Lingjia Deng, Yoonjung Choi, and JanyceWiebe. 2013. Benefactive/malefactive event and writer attitude annotation. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. • Lun-Wei Ku and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2007. Mining opinions from the web: Beyond relevance retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. • Jun Li and Maosong Sun. 2007. Experimental study on sentiment classification of chinese review using machine learning techniques. In Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering, 2007. • Bin Lu, Chenhao Tan, Claire Cardie, and Benjamin K Tsou. 2011. Joint bilingual sentiment classification with unlabeled parallel corpora. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. • Xiaojun Wan. 2008. Using bilingual knowledge and ensemble techniques for unsupervised Chinese sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. • Xiaojun Wan. 2009. Co-training for cross-lingual sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP. • Theresa Wilson and JanyceWiebe. 2003. Annotating opinions in the world press. In Proceedings of the 4th ACL SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue.

More Related