Sarcastic Soulmates: Intimacy and irony markers in social media messaging

Sai Qian, P. D. Groote, M. Amblard
{"title":"Sarcastic Soulmates: Intimacy and irony markers in social media messaging","authors":"Sai Qian, P. D. Groote, M. Amblard","doi":"10.17026/DANS-24J-68QR","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Verbal irony, or sarcasm, presents a significant technical and conceptual challenge when it comes to automatic detection. Moreover, it can be a disruptive factor in sentiment analysis and opinion mining, because it changes the polarity of a message implicitly. Extant methods for automatic detection are mostly based on overt clues to ironic intent such as hashtags, also known as irony markers. In this paper, we investigate whether people who know each other make use of irony markers less often than people who do not know each other. We trained a machine-learning classifier to detect sarcasm in Twitter messages (tweets) that were addressed to specific users, and in tweets that were not addressed to a particular user. Human coders analyzed the top-1000 features found to be most discriminative into ten categories of irony markers. The classifier was also tested within and across the two categories. We find that tweets with a user mention contain fewer irony markers than tweets not addressed to a particular user. Classification experiments confirm that the irony in the two types of tweets is signaled differently. The within-category performance of the classifier is about 91% for both categories, while cross-category experiments yield substantially lower generalization performance scores of 75% and 71%. We conclude that irony markers are used more often when there is less mutual knowl edge between sender and receiver. Senders addressing other Twitter users less often use irony markers, relying on mutual knowledge which should lead the receiver to infer ironic intent from more implicit clues. With regard to automatic detection, we conclude that our classifier is able to detect ironic tweets addressed at another user as reliably as tweets that are not addressed at at a particular person.  -","PeriodicalId":218122,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Issues in Language Technology","volume":"170 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Issues in Language Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17026/DANS-24J-68QR","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Verbal irony, or sarcasm, presents a significant technical and conceptual challenge when it comes to automatic detection. Moreover, it can be a disruptive factor in sentiment analysis and opinion mining, because it changes the polarity of a message implicitly. Extant methods for automatic detection are mostly based on overt clues to ironic intent such as hashtags, also known as irony markers. In this paper, we investigate whether people who know each other make use of irony markers less often than people who do not know each other. We trained a machine-learning classifier to detect sarcasm in Twitter messages (tweets) that were addressed to specific users, and in tweets that were not addressed to a particular user. Human coders analyzed the top-1000 features found to be most discriminative into ten categories of irony markers. The classifier was also tested within and across the two categories. We find that tweets with a user mention contain fewer irony markers than tweets not addressed to a particular user. Classification experiments confirm that the irony in the two types of tweets is signaled differently. The within-category performance of the classifier is about 91% for both categories, while cross-category experiments yield substantially lower generalization performance scores of 75% and 71%. We conclude that irony markers are used more often when there is less mutual knowl edge between sender and receiver. Senders addressing other Twitter users less often use irony markers, relying on mutual knowledge which should lead the receiver to infer ironic intent from more implicit clues. With regard to automatic detection, we conclude that our classifier is able to detect ironic tweets addressed at another user as reliably as tweets that are not addressed at at a particular person.  -
讽刺的灵魂伴侣:社交媒体信息中的亲密和讽刺标记
当涉及到自动检测时,言语反讽或讽刺提出了一个重大的技术和概念挑战。此外,它可能是情绪分析和意见挖掘中的破坏性因素,因为它会隐式地改变消息的极性。现有的自动检测方法大多基于讽刺意图的明显线索,如标签,也称为讽刺标记。在本文中,我们调查了相互认识的人是否比不认识的人更少地使用反讽标记。我们训练了一个机器学习分类器来检测针对特定用户的Twitter消息(推文)中的讽刺,以及不针对特定用户的推文。人类编码员分析了前1000个最具歧视性的特征,将其分为十类讽刺标记。分类器也在两个类别内和之间进行了测试。我们发现,有用户提及的推文比没有针对特定用户的推文包含更少的讽刺标记。分类实验证实,这两种类型的推文中的讽刺是不同的信号。分类器在这两个类别中的分类性能约为91%,而跨类别实验的泛化性能得分则低得多,分别为75%和71%。我们得出的结论是,当发送者和接收者之间的相互知识较少时,反讽标记的使用频率更高。发送者对其他Twitter用户的称呼较少使用反讽标记,这依赖于相互了解,这应该会导致接收者从更隐含的线索中推断出反讽意图。关于自动检测,我们得出结论,我们的分类器能够检测针对另一个用户的讽刺推文,就像不针对特定用户的推文一样可靠。-
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信