4.7 Article

Studying the Scope of Negation for Spanish Sentiment Analysis on Twitter

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AFFECTIVE COMPUTING
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 129-141

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TAFFC.2017.2693968

Keywords

Negation scope; sentiment analysis; twitter; spanish opinion mining; polarity classification; lexicon based system; statistical analysis

Funding

  1. Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte (MECD) [FPU014/00983]
  2. Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER)
  3. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [TIN2015-65136-C2-1-R]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Polarity classification is a well-known Sentiment Analysis task. However, most research has been oriented towards developing supervised or unsupervised systems without paying much attention to certain linguistic phenomena such as negation. In this paper we focus on this specific issue in order to demonstrate that dealing with negation can improve the final system. Although we can find some studies of negation detection, most of them deal with English documents. On the contrary, our study is focused on the scope of negation in Spanish Sentiment Analysis. Thus, we have built an unsupervised polarity classification system based on integrating external knowledge. In order to evaluate the influence of negation we have implemented a specific module for negation detection by applying several rules. The system has been tested considering and without considering negation, using a corpus of tweets written in Spanish. The results obtained reveal that the treatment of negation can greatly improve the accuracy of the final system. Moreover, we have carried out a comprehensive statistical study in order to demonstrate our approach. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work which statistically demonstrates that taking into account negation significantly improves the polarity classification of Spanish tweets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available