Sentiment Analysis based on Appraisal Theory and Functional Local ...

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
2.1 Types of attitudes in the MPQA corpus version 2.0 . . . . . . . 34
2.2 Examples of patterns for evaluative language in Hunston and Sinclair’s [72]
local grammar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.3 Evaluative parameters in Bednarek’s theory of evaluation . . . . 40
2.4 Opinion Categories in Asher et. al’s theory of opinion in discourse 41
2.5 A dictionary entry in Barnbrook’s local grammar . . . . . . . . 45
3.1 FLAG system architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.2 Different kinds of dependency parses used by FLAG. . . . . . . . 62
4.1 The Appraisal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.2 Martin and White’s subtypes of Affect versus Bednarek’s . . . 69
4.3 The Engagement system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.1 Types of attitudes in the MPQA corpus version 2.0 . . . . . . . 80
5.2 An example review from the UIC Review Corpus. The left column
lists the product features and their evaluations, and the right
column gives the sentences from the review. . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.3 Inconsistencies in the UIC Review Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.1 An intensifier increases the force of an attitude group. . . . . . . 107
6.2 The attitude type taxonomy used in FLAG’s appraisal lexicon. . . 110
6.3 A sample of entries in the attitude lexicon. . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.4 Shallow parsing the attitude group “not very happy”. . . . . . . 118
6.5 Structure of the MALLET CRF extraction model. . . . . . . . . 119
7.1 Three example linkage specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.2 Dependency parse of the sentence “It was an interesting read.” . . 135
7.3 Phrase structure parse of the sentence “It was an interesting read.” 135
7.4 Appraisal expression candidates found in the sentence “It was an
interesting read.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
x