Stance Classification in Texts from Blogs on the 2016 British Referendum

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10458)

Abstract

The problem of identifying and correctly attributing speaker stance in human communication is addressed in this paper. The data set consists of political blogs dealing with the 2016 British referendum. A cognitive-functional framework is adopted with data annotated for six notional stance categories: contrariety, hypotheticality, necessity, prediction, source of knowledge, and uncertainty. We show that these categories can be implemented in a text classification task and automatically detected. To this end, we propose a large set of lexical and syntactic linguistic features. These features were tested and classification experiments were implemented using different algorithms. We achieved accuracy of up to 30% for the six-class experiments, which is not fully satisfactory. As a second step, we calculated the pair-wise combinations of the stance categories. The contrariety and necessity binary classification achieved the best results with up to 71% accuracy.

Keywords

Stance-taking Text classification Political blogs BREXIT 

References

  1. 1.
    Anand, P., Walker, M., Abbott, R., Tree, J.E.F., Bowmani, R., Minor, M.: Cats rule and dogs drool!: classifying stance in online debate. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis, pp. 1–9. Association for Computational Linguistics, June 2011Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bird, S.: NLTK: the natural language toolkit. In: Proceedings of the COLING/ACL on Interactive presentation sessions, pp. 67–72. Association for Computational Linguistics (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Du Bois, J.W.: The stance triangle. In: Englebretson, R. (ed.) Stance taking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, pp. 139–182 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Englebretson, R. (ed.): Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, vol. 164. John Benjamins Publishing (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faulkner, A.: Automated classification of stance in student essays: an approach using stance target information and the Wikipedia link-based measure. Science 376(12), 86 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferreira, W., Vlachos, A.: Emergent: a novel data-set for stance classification. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics, June 2016Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Hasan, K.S., Ng, V.: Stance classification of ideological debates: data, models, features, and constraints. In: IJCNLP, pp. 1348–1356 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hasan, K.S., Ng, V.: Frame semantics for stance classification. In: CoNLL, pp. 124–13 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hasan, K.S., Ng, V.: Extra-linguistic constraints on stance recognition in ideological debates. ACL 2, 124–132 (2013c)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hasan, K.S., Ng, V.: Why are you taking this stance? identifying and classifying reasons in ideological debates. In: EMNLP, pp. 751–762, March 2014Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kucher, K., Kerren, A., Paradis, C., Sahlgren, M.: Visual analysis of text annotations for stance classification with ALVA. In: Poster Abstracts of the EG/VGTC Conference on Visualization (EuroVis 2016), pp. 49–51. Eurographics-European Association for Computer Graphics (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kucher, K., Schamp-Bjerede, T., Kerren, A., Paradis, C., Sahlgren, M.: Visual analysis of online social media to open up the investigation of stance phenomena. Inf. Visual. 15(2), 93–116 (2016b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mohammad, S.M., Sobhani, P., Kiritchenko, S.: Stance and sentiment in tweets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.01655 (2016)
  15. 15.
    Pang, B., Lee, L.: A sentimental education: sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 93–116. Association for Computational Linguistics, July 2004Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rajadesingan, A., Liu, H.: Identifying users with opposing opinions in Twitter debates. In: Kennedy, W.G., Agarwal, N., Yang, S.J. (eds.) SBP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8393, pp. 153–160. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05579-4_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simaki, V., Paradis, C., Skeppstedt, M., Sahlgren, M., Kucher, K., Kerren, A.: Annotating speaker stance in discourse: the Brexit Blog Corpus, forthcoming (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simaki, V., Mporas, I., Megalooikonomou, V.: Evaluation and sociolinguistic analysis of text features for gender and age identification. Am. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 9(4), 868–876 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simaki, V., Mporas, I., Megalooikonomou, V.: Age identification of twitter users: classification methods and sociolinguistic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, CICLing 2016 (2016, to appear)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Somasundaran, S., Wiebe, J.: Recognizing stances in ideological on-line debates. In: Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Analysis and Generation of Emotion in Text, pp. 116–124. Association for Computational Linguistics, June 2010Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sridhar, D., Getoor, L., Walker, M.: Collective stance classification of posts in online debate forums. In: Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2014, p. 109 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    StaViCTA project. http://cs.lnu.se/stavicta/
  23. 23.
    Taboada, M.: Sentiment analysis: an overview from linguistics. Ann. Rev. Linguist. 2, 325–347 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walker, M.A., Anand, P., Abbott, R., Grant, R.: Stance classification using dialogic properties of persuasion. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 592–596. Association for Computational Linguistics (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walker, M.A., Anand, P., Abbott, R., Tree, J.E.F., Martell, C., King, J.: That is your evidence?: Classifying stance in online political debate. Decis. Support Syst. 53(4), 719–729 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walker, M.A., Tree, J.E.F., Anand, P., Abbott, R., King, J.: A corpus for research on deliberation and debate. In: LREC, pp. 812–817 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wiebe, J., Wilson, T., Bruce, R., Bell, M., Martin, M.: Learning subjective language. Comput. Linguist. 30(3), 277–308 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Witten, I.H., Frank, E., Hall, M.A., Pal, C.J.: Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zheng, R., Li, J., Chen, H., Huang, Z.: A framework for authorship identification of online messages: writing-style features and classification techniques. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 57(3), 378–393 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vasiliki Simaki
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carita Paradis
    • 1
  • Andreas Kerren
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Languages and LiteratureLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceLinnaeus UniversityVäxjöSweden

Personalised recommendations