1 / 92

The emotional profile of words

The emotional profile of words. Tyler Schnoebelen Stanford University http://www.stanford.edu/~tylers/emotions . Welcome!. If you’re reading the presentation online, please make sure to check out the notes fields—they have content that supplements/explains the content of the main slides.

nariko
Télécharger la présentation

The emotional profile of words

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. The emotional profile of words Tyler Schnoebelen Stanford University http://www.stanford.edu/~tylers/emotions

  2. Welcome! • If you’re reading the presentation online, please make sure to check out the notes fields—they have content that supplements/explains the content of the main slides. • Any questions or comments? Please send them to me! • TylerS at Stanford dot edu.

  3. Some claims • Linguistics is about understanding human beings. • To understand human beings is to understand the variety and complexity of emotional experiences they have. • Linguistics can offer a lot by showing how linguistic resources are used in creating and coping with these experiences.

  4. But…

  5. Referential

  6. Persuasive

  7. Expressive

  8. Goals • Immediate goal: • What are the conceptual tools and actual methods to analyze language in terms of emotion? • Bigger goals: • What is the structure of the affective lexicon in English? • What about other languages?

  9. Classifying

  10. Classifying • Classification structures our body of knowledge. • Especially indispensable when it’s not clear where to begin.

  11. Typical sentiment analysis

  12. Approach, assumptions, hypotheses • Words are not just positive/negative • Sentences are not just objective/subjective, either • Words are better characterized by the types of emotional work they do • Items that occur in similar situations are alike • Though not in ways we understand yet • Placement in the network dictates which semantic shifts are possible

  13. Not markers…

  14. Not markers…makers

  15. The Experience Project • 31,675 “confession” stories • Tagged by readers with 27,187 tags • I understand 11,277 • You rock 3,781 • Sorry, hugs 3,733 • Teehee 3,545 • Wow, just wow 916

  16. An example • Are you missing me? Do you wish you could reach out and touch my face. Are you tossing and turning, or pacing back and forth? You know where I am and that I am alone. But what you may not know is how much I need you.

  17. Monroe et al 2009 • Log-odds with Bayesian priors • for a given word, • in a given topic, • do Democrats/Republics use it a lot more • taking into consideration how they use words OUTSIDE that topic

  18. “Teehee” • Funny topics • naked • poop • snoring • toilet • Metacues • ! • ha/haha/hahaha • lol • oh • omg • Appraisals • cool • funny • cute • naughty • cow • hot • loud • weird

  19. Other categories “Sorry, hugs” “I understand” feel hate wish • cancer • died • sorry “You rock” • amazing • angel • beautiful

  20. But is there structure? • There are 111 uses of omg • There are 2,332,769 tokens total, so omgmakes up 4.75e-05 of the data • There are 456,454 words marked for “hugs”, so if everything was random we’d expect: • 456,454 * 4.75e-05 = 21.72 occurrences of omg in the “hugs” category • Actually, there are 14—smaller than we’d expect • Is it significantly smaller? We use a g-test:

  21. Restrictions • I restrict myself to words that have 10 or more instances overall • Observed/Expected scores that are unusual • .5 standard deviation outside the mean for at least one category of a word • Are statistically significant by g-test • POS tagging keeps adjectives, adverbs, and discourse items (wow, omg, !, yup) • 1,297 words

  22. Constraints • We’ll set wow, just wow aside due to sparseness of the data and focus on the other four categories. • If we reduce down to just over-representation, under-representation and “as expected”, there are logically 3^4=81 patterns • Well, “-1, -1, -1, -1” and ‘1, 1, 1, 1” aren’t actually possible • And the technique describe above gets rid of “0, 0, 0, 0”. • But if all things were equally, we would still have 78 patterns

  23. We don’t • Instead of 78 patterns, there are 42 • Nor are words evenly divided

  24. IMDB—Internet Movie DataBase • 45,772 movies • 1.36 million reviews • 29 genres • 1-10 stars • (And “no rating”)

  25. Structure of stars

  26. Probabilities • Similar to what we did with the Experience Project, but an extra layer: • Expected=p(genre)*p(star-rating)*p(word)*total corpus size • Restricted to 12 genres that don’t overlap • Combined with Experience Project data

  27. Experience Project + IMDB • 812 words overlap • ugh • terrible • sucks • weird • lame • cute • interesting • meaningful • sooo • emotional

  28. Enthusiasm Trop bien, trop fort, excellent

  29. Surprise

  30. Rejection Pote, mongars, mec, putain

  31. Words can be infected… • Semantic dynamics, changes of meaning • E.g., semantic contempt can creep in to things from their use (Kaplan 1999)

  32. Baggage

  33. Not markers…makers

  34. 3 types of emotional meaning • Valence—positive/pleasant vs. negative/unpleasant • “happy” vs. “sad” • “psyched” vs. “disappointed” • Me-ness • Primarily about the speaker, identity work • Do ideophones go here, perhaps? • Us-ness • Relational—moving interlocutors closer or further away • Most intense emotional reactions will happen here

  35. Us-ness • Examples: • Pitch in Zapotec (Sicoli 2007) • Breathiness in Japanese (Campbell 2004) • Kinyarwanda diminutives • Diphthongs in Czech • Palatalization in Yiddish and Basque • Impersonating your listener

  36. Us-ness • Every context has a valence, it’s quickly set and assessed • Positive valence + us-ness: • Intimacy • Negative valence + us-ness: • Pejoration • Teasing and joking can bring us closer—or push us apart.

  37. What does this mean for fieldwork? • Most African languages don’t have enormous corpora like English • But the “observed vs. expected” thinking will keep you attuned to many different features, even if your counts are low. • And the patterns in Well-Studied-Languages-with-Giant-Corpora can serve as a template • What are the linguistic resources (lexical items as well as pitch, syntax, etc) that are used to convey these meanings? • How do valence, me-ness, and us-ness get conveyed? • What is the distribution of items in different categories? Are the categories themselves different?

  38. What I’m hoping for • You’ll get interested in adding emotion to your own fieldwork • You’ll tell me what you’ve already observed • (Especially about diminutives, by the way)

  39. Thanks for listening! http://www.stanford.edu/~tylers/emotions

  40. A world experienced without any affect would be a pallid, meaningless world. We would know that things happened, but we could not care whether they did or not. (Tomkins, 1995, p. 88)

  41. Some questions • Don’t worry about assigning a particular emotion—broadly speaking is a positive or negative emotion being communicated? • How explicit are the emotions? If the utterance isn’t as explicit as “I am happy”, does it indicate behavior or disposition (the difference between laughing at something and liking something)? • Is the emotion directed (the girl liked the teacher) or more mood-like (the girl was happy)? With ideophones, I suspect the object is often what the emotion is directed at. • How intense is it? (Like vs. love vs. adore)

More Related