Modelling SO-CAL in an Inheritance-based Sentiment Analysis Framework

Author F. Sharmila Satthar

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 2.16 MB
  • 8 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

F. Sharmila Satthar

Cite AsGet BibTex

F. Sharmila Satthar. Modelling SO-CAL in an Inheritance-based Sentiment Analysis Framework. In 2015 Imperial College Computing Student Workshop (ICCSW 2015). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 49, pp. 46-53, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2015)


Sentiment analysis is the computational study of people's opinions, as expressed in text. This is an active area of research in Natural Language Processing with many applications in social media. There are two main approaches to sentiment analysis: machine learning and lexicon-based. The machine learning approach uses statistical modelling techniques, whereas the lexicon-based approach uses 'sentiment lexicons' containing explicit sentiment values for individual words to calculate sentiment scores for documents. In this paper we present a novel method for modelling lexicon-based sentiment analysis using a lexical inheritance network. Further, we present a case study of applying inheritance-based modelling to an existing sentiment analysis system as proof of concept, before developing the ideas further in future work.
  • Sentiment analysis
  • NLP
  • Inheritance network
  • Lexicon-based


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Walter Daelemans, Koenraad De Smedt, and Gerald Gazdar. Inheritance in natural language processing. Computational Linguistics, 18(2):205-218, 1992. Google Scholar
  2. Xiaowen Ding, Bing Liu, and Philip S Yu. A holistic lexicon-based approach to opinion mining. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 231-240. ACM, 2008. Google Scholar
  3. Roger Evans. The extended lexicon: language processing as lexical description. In Proceedings of the International Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing RANLP 2013, pages 270-276, Hissar, Bulgaria, September 2013. RANLP 2011 Organising Committee. Google Scholar
  4. Roger Evans and Gerald Gazdar. DATR: A language for lexical knowledge representation. Computational Linguistics, 22(2):167-216, 1996. Google Scholar
  5. Alistair Kennedy and Diana Inkpen. Sentiment classification of movie reviews using contextual valence shifters. Computational intelligence, 22(2):110-125, 2006. Google Scholar
  6. Bing Liu and Lei Zhang. A survey of opinion mining and sentiment analysis. In Mining text data, pages 415-463. Springer, 2012. Google Scholar
  7. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, page 271. ACL, 2004. Google Scholar
  8. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and trends in information retrieval, 2(1-2):1-135, 2008. Google Scholar
  9. Livia Polanyi and Annie Zaenen. Contextual valence shifters. In Computing attitude and affect in text: Theory and applications, pages 1-10. Springer, 2006. Google Scholar
  10. Maite Taboada, Caroline Anthony, and Kimberly Voll. Methods for creating semantic orientation dictionaries. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’06), pages 427-432, 2006. Google Scholar
  11. Maite Taboada, Julian Brooke, Milan Tofiloski, Kimberly Voll, and Manfred Stede. Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis. Computational linguistics, 37(2):267-307, 2011. Google Scholar
  12. Maite Taboada and Jack Grieve. Analyzing appraisal automatically. In Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text (AAAI Technical Re#port SS# 04# 07), Stanford University, CA, pp. 158q161. AAAI Press, 2004. Google Scholar
  13. Peter D Turney. Thumbs up or thumbs down?: semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics, pages 417-424. ACL, 2002. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail