Stereotypical language expresses widely-held beliefs about different social categories. Many stereotypes are overtly negative, while others may appear positive on the surface, but still lead to negative consequences. In this work, we present a computational approach to interpreting stereotypes in text through the Stereotype Content Model (SCM), a comprehensive causal theory from social psychology. The SCM proposes that stereotypes can be understood along two primary dimensions: warmth and competence. We present a method for defining warmth and competence axes in semantic embedding space, and show that the four quadrants defined by this subspace accurately represent the warmth and competence concepts, according to annotated lexicons. We then apply our computational SCM model to textual stereotype data and show that it compares favourably with survey-based studies in the psychological literature. Furthermore, we explore various strategies to counter stereotypical beliefs with anti-stereotypes. It is known that countering stereotypes with anti-stereotypical examples is one of the most effective ways to reduce biased thinking, yet the problem of generating anti-stereotypes has not been previously studied. Thus, a better understanding of how to generate realistic and effective anti-stereotypes can contribute to addressing pressing societal concerns of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination.

NLP research has attained high performances in abusive language detection as a supervised classification task. While in research settings, training and test datasets are usually obtained from similar data samples, in practice systems are often applied on data that are different from the training set in topic and class distributions. Also, the ambiguity in class definitions inherited in this task aggravates the discrepancies between source and target datasets. We explore the topic bias and the task formulation bias in cross-dataset generalization. We show that the benign examples in the Wikipedia Detox dataset are biased towards platform-specific topics. We identify these examples using unsupervised topic modeling and manual inspection of topics’ keywords. Removing these topics increases cross-dataset generalization, without reducing in-domain classification performance. For a robust dataset design, we suggest applying inexpensive unsupervised methods to inspect the collected data and downsize the non-generalizable content before manually annotating for class labels.

The state of being alone can have a substantial impact on our lives, though experiences with time alone diverge significantly among individuals. Psychologists distinguish between the concept of solitude, a positive state of voluntary aloneness, and the concept of loneliness, a negative state of dissatisfaction with the quality of one’s social interactions. Here, for the first time, we conduct a large-scale computational analysis to explore how the terms associated with the state of being alone are used in online language. We present SOLO (State of Being Alone), a corpus of over 4 million tweets collected with query terms solitude, lonely, and loneliness. We use SOLO to analyze the language and emotions associated with the state of being alone. We show that the term solitude tends to co-occur with more positive, high-dominance words (e.g., enjoy, bliss) while the terms lonely and loneliness frequently co-occur with negative, low-dominance words (e.g., scared, depressed), which confirms the conceptual distinctions made in psychology. We also show that women are more likely to report on negative feelings of being lonely as compared to men, and there are more teenagers among the tweeters that use the word lonely than among the tweeters that use the word solitude.

Bigrams (two-word sequences) hold a special place in semantic composition research since they are the smallest unit formed by composing words. A semantic relatedness dataset that includes bigrams will thus be useful in the development of automatic methods of semantic composition. However, existing relatedness datasets only include pairs of unigrams (single words). Further, existing datasets were created using rating scales and thus suffer from limitations such as in consistent annotations and scale region bias. In this paper, we describe how we created a large, fine-grained, bigram relatedness dataset (BiRD), using a comparative annotation technique called Best–Worst Scaling. Each of BiRD’s 3,345 English term pairs involves at least one bigram. We show that the relatedness scores obtained are highly reliable (split-half reliability r= 0.937). We analyze the data to obtain insights into bigram semantic relatedness. Finally, we present benchmark experiments on using the relatedness dataset as a testbed to evaluate simple unsupervised measures of semantic composition. BiRD is made freely available to foster further research on how meaning can be represented and how meaning can be composed.

We present the SemEval-2018 Task 1: Affect in Tweets, which includes an array of subtasks on inferring the affectual state of a person from their tweet. For each task, we created labeled data from English, Arabic, and Spanish tweets. The individual tasks are: 1. emotion intensity regression, 2. emotion intensity ordinal classification, 3. valence (sentiment) regression, 4. valence ordinal classification, and 5. emotion classification. Seventy-five teams (about 200 team members) participated in the shared task. We summarize the methods, resources, and tools used by the participating teams, with a focus on the techniques and resources that are particularly useful. We also analyze systems for consistent bias towards a particular race or gender. The data is made freely available to further improve our understanding of how people convey emotions through language.

In this paper, we propose a regression system to infer the emotion intensity of a tweet. We develop a multi-aspect feature learning mechanism to capture the most discriminative semantic features of a tweet as well as the emotion information conveyed by each word in it. We combine six types of feature groups: (1) a tweet representation learned by an LSTM deep neural network on the training data, (2) a tweet representation learned by an LSTM network on a large corpus of tweets that contain emotion words (a distant supervision corpus), (3) word embeddings trained on the distant supervision corpus and averaged over all words in a tweet, (4) word and character n-grams, (5) features derived from various sentiment and emotion lexicons, and (6) other hand-crafted features. As part of the word embedding training, we also learn the distributed representations of multi-word expressions (MWEs) and negated forms of words. An SVR regressor is then trained over the full set of features. We evaluate the effectiveness of our ensemble feature sets on the SemEval-2018 Task 1 datasets and achieve a Pearson correlation of 72% on the task of tweet emotion intensity prediction.

Automatic machine learning systems can inadvertently accentuate and perpetuate inappropriate human biases. Past work on examining inappropriate biases has largely focused on just individual systems. Further, there is no benchmark dataset for examining inappropriate biases in systems. Here for the first time, we present the Equity Evaluation Corpus (EEC), which consists of 8,640 English sentences carefully chosen to tease out biases towards certain races and genders. We use the dataset to examine 219 automatic sentiment analysis systems that took part in a recent shared task, SemEval-2018 Task 1 ‘Affect in Tweets’. We find that several of the systems show statistically significant bias; that is, they consistently provide slightly higher sentiment intensity predictions for one race or one gender. We make the EEC freely available.

Being able to predict whether people agree or disagree with an assertion (i.e. an explicit, self-contained statement) has several applications ranging from predicting how many people will like or dislike a social media post to classifying posts based on whether they are in accordance with a particular point of view. We formalize this as two NLP tasks: predicting judgments of (i) individuals and (ii) groups based on the text of the assertion and previous judgments. We evaluate a wide range of approaches on a crowdsourced data set containing over 100,000 judgments on over 2,000 assertions. We find that predicting individual judgments is a hard task with our best results only slightly exceeding a majority baseline, but that judgments of groups can be more reliably predicted using a Siamese neural network, which outperforms all other approaches by a wide margin.

Rating scales are a widely used method for data annotation; however, they present several challenges, such as difficulty in maintaining inter- and intra-annotator consistency. Best–worst scaling (BWS) is an alternative method of annotation that is claimed to produce high-quality annotations while keeping the required number of annotations similar to that of rating scales. However, the veracity of this claim has never been systematically established. Here for the first time, we set up an experiment that directly compares the rating scale method with BWS. We show that with the same total number of annotations, BWS produces significantly more reliable results than the rating scale.

Existing Arabic sentiment lexicons have low coverage―with only a few thousand entries. In this paper, we present several large sentiment lexicons that were automatically generated using two different methods: (1) by using distant supervision techniques on Arabic tweets, and (2) by translating English sentiment lexicons into Arabic using a freely available statistical machine translation system. We compare the usefulness of new and old sentiment lexicons in the downstream application of sentence-level sentiment analysis. Our baseline sentiment analysis system uses numerous surface form features. Nonetheless, the system benefits from using additional features drawn from sentiment lexicons. The best result is obtained using the automatically generated Dialectal Hashtag Lexicon and the Arabic translations of the NRC Emotion Lexicon (accuracy of 66.6%). Finally, we describe a qualitative study of the automatic translations of English sentiment lexicons into Arabic, which shows that about 88% of the automatically translated entries are valid for English as well. Close to 10% of the invalid entries are caused by gross mistranslations, close to 40% by translations into a related word, and about 50% by differences in how the word is used in Arabic.

Sentiment composition is the determining of sentiment of a multi-word linguistic unit, such as a phrase or a sentence, based on its constituents. We focus on sentiment composition in phrases formed by at least one positive and at least one negative word ― phrases like ‘happy accident’ and ‘best winter break’. We refer to such phrases as opposing polarity phrases. We manually annotate a collection of opposing polarity phrases and their constituent single words with real-valued sentiment intensity scores using a method known as Best―Worst Scaling. We show that the obtained annotations are consistent. We explore the entries in the lexicon for linguistic regularities that govern sentiment composition in opposing polarity phrases. Finally, we list the current and possible future applications of the lexicon.

We can often detect from a person’s utterances whether he/she is in favor of or against a given target entity (a product, topic, another person, etc.). Here for the first time we present a dataset of tweets annotated for whether the tweeter is in favor of or against pre-chosen targets of interest―their stance. The targets of interest may or may not be referred to in the tweets, and they may or may not be the target of opinion in the tweets. The data pertains to six targets of interest commonly known and debated in the United States. Apart from stance, the tweets are also annotated for whether the target of interest is the target of opinion in the tweet. The annotations were performed by crowdsourcing. Several techniques were employed to encourage high-quality annotations (for example, providing clear and simple instructions) and to identify and discard poor annotations (for example, using a small set of check questions annotated by the authors). This Stance Dataset, which was subsequently also annotated for sentiment, can be used to better understand the relationship between stance, sentiment, entity relationships, and textual inference.