Ontology-based view of natural language meaning: the case of humor detection

Original Research


This paper deals with computational detection of humor. It assumes that computational humor is an useful task for any number of reasons and in many applications. Besides these applications, it also shows that recognition of humor is a perfect test platform for an advanced level of language understanding by a computer. It discusses the computational linguistic/semantic preconditions for computational humor and an ontological semantic approach to the task of humor detection, based on direct and comprehensive access to meaning rather than on trying to guess it with statistical-cum-syntactical keyword methods. The paper is informed by the experience of designing and implementing a humor detection model, whose decent success rate confirmed some of the assumptions while its flaws made other ideas prominent, including the necessity of full text comprehension. The bulk of the paper explains how the comprehensive meaning access technology makes it possible for unstructured natural language text to be automatically translated into the ontologically defined text meaning representations that can be used then to detect humor in them, if any, automatically. This part is informed by the experience, subsequent to humor detection, of designing, implementing, and testing an ontological semantic text analyzer that takes an English sentence as input and outputs its text meaning representation (TMR). Every procedure mentioned in the paper has either been implemented or proven to be implementable within the approach.


Natural language Ontologies Semantics Humor detection Analyzer Text meaning representation 


  1. Attardo S (1994) Linguistic theories of humor. Mouton de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Attardo S, Raskin V (1994) Non-literalness and non-bona-fide in language: An approach to formal and computational treatments of humor. Pragmat Cogn 2(1):31–69Google Scholar
  3. Binsted K (1995) Using humour to make natural language interfaces more friendly. Workshop on AI, ALife and Entertainment. In: Int Jt Conf Artif IntellGoogle Scholar
  4. Binsted K, Bergen B, Coulson S, Nijholt A, Stock O, Strapparava S (2006) Computational humor. In: IEEE Intell Syst (special sub-issue), 21Google Scholar
  5. Deneire M (1995) Humor and foreign language teaching. Humor Int J Humor Res 8(3):285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gruber TR (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowl Acquis 5:199–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gruber TR (1995) Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. In: Guarino N, Poli R (eds) Special issue: The role of formal ontology in the information technology. Int J Hum Comput Stud 43(5–6):907–928Google Scholar
  8. Hempelmann CF (2003) Paronomasic puns: target recoverability towards automatic generation, Doctoral dissertation, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. Hempelmann CF (2008) Computational humor: going beyond the pun. In: Raskin V (ed) The primer of humor research. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Hempelmann CF, Raskin V (2008) Semantic search: content versus formalism. In: Proc LangTechGoogle Scholar
  11. Mihalcea R, Pulman S (2007) Characterizing humour: an exploration of features in humorous texts. In: Proc Conf Comput Linguist Intell Text Process (CICLing), Springer, Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  12. Mulder MP, Nijholt A (2002) Humour research: state of the art. University of Twente, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  13. Nijholt A (2002) Embodied agents: a new impetus to humor research. In: Stock O, Strapparava C, Nijholt A (eds), The April Fool’s Day Workshop on Computational HumorGoogle Scholar
  14. Nirenburg S, Raskin V (2004) Ontological Semantics. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Obrst L (2007) Ontology and ontologies: why it and they matter to the intelligence community. In: Proc Second Int Ontol Intell Commun ConfGoogle Scholar
  16. Raskin V (1985) Semantic mechanisms of humor. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  17. Raskin V (1996) Computer implementation of the general theory of verbal humor. In: Proc IWCH, Int Workshop Comput Humour, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  18. Raskin V (1998) From the editor. Humor: Int J Humor Res, 11 (1), 1–4Google Scholar
  19. Raskin V (2002) Quo Vadis computational humor? In: Stock O, Strapparava C, Nijholt A (eds) The April Fool’s Day Workshop on Computational Humor, 31–46Google Scholar
  20. Reilly M (2007) “Sharing a joke could help man and robot interact.” New Scientist, AugustGoogle Scholar
  21. Ritchie G (2001) Current directions in computational humour. Artif Intell Rev 16(2):119–135MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ritchie G, Manurung R, Pain H, Waller A, Black R, O’Mara D (2007) A practical application of computational humour. In: Proc 4th Int Joint Conf Comput Creat, pp 91–98Google Scholar
  23. Savignon SJ (1991) Communicative language teaching: state of the art. TESOL Quart 25(2):261–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schank R, Abelson RP (1977) Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures, ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  25. Stock O (1996) Password swordfish: verbal humour in the interface. In: Proc IWCH, Int Workshop Comput Humour, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  26. Stock O, Strapparava C (2002) HAHAcronym: humorous agents for humorous acronyms. In: Stock O, Strapparava C, Nijholt A, The April Fools’ Day Workshop on Computational Humor, 125–135Google Scholar
  27. Suls JM (1972) A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons. In: Goldstein PE, McGhee JH (eds) The psychology of humour: theoretical perspectives and empirical issues. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Taylor JM (2008) Towards informal computer human communication: detecting humor in a restricted domain, Doctoral dissertation, University of CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  29. Taylor JM Mazlack LJ (2007) An investigation into computational recognition of children’s jokes, In: 22nd Conf Artif IntellGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor JM, Raskin V (2010) Fuzzy ontology for natural language. Submitted to NAFIPS′10Google Scholar
  31. Taylor JM, Hempelmann CF, Raskin V (2010) On an automatic acquisition toolbox for ontologies and lexicons. In: Proc ICAI′10, Las VegasGoogle Scholar
  32. Vega G (1989) Humor competence: the fifth component. Unpublished Masters’ thesis. Purdue University, West LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  33. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RiverGlass Inc.ChampaignUSA
  2. 2.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations