This article introduces a new general-purpose sentiment lexicon called WKWSCI Sentiment Lexicon and compares it with five existing lexicons: Hu & Liu Opinion Lexicon, Multi-perspective Question Answering (MPQA) Subjectivity Lexicon, General Inquirer, National Research Council Canada (NRC) Word-Sentiment Association Lexicon and Semantic Orientation Calculator (SO-CAL) lexicon. The effectiveness of the sentiment lexicons for sentiment categorisation at the document level and sentence level was evaluated using an Amazon product review data set and a news headlines data set. WKWSCI, MPQA, Hu & Liu and SO-CAL lexicons are equally good for product review sentiment categorisation, obtaining accuracy rates of 75%–77% when appropriate weights are used for different categories of sentiment words. However, when a training corpus is not available, Hu & Liu obtained the best accuracy with a simple-minded approach of counting positive and negative words for both document-level and sentence-level sentiment categorisation. The WKWSCI lexicon obtained the best accuracy of 69% on the news headlines sentiment categorisation task, and the sentiment strength values obtained a Pearson correlation of 0.57 with human-assigned sentiment values. It is recommended that the Hu & Liu lexicon be used for product review texts and the WKWSCI lexicon for non-review texts.
VapnikVNVapnikV.Statistical learning theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
3.
ZhangH.The optimality of naive Bayes. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth Florida artificial intelligence research society conference, Miami Beach, FL, 12–14 May 2004, pp. 562–567. Palo Alto, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence Press.
4.
WangSManningCD.Baselines and bigrams: simple, good sentiment and topic classification. In: Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea, 8–14 July 2012, pp. 90–94. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
5.
StonePJDunphyDCSmithMS. The general inquirer: a computer approach to content analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1966.
6.
TaboadaMBrookeJTofiloskiM. Lexicon based methods for sentiment analysis. Comput Linguist2011; 37: 267–307.
7.
HatzivassiloglouVMcKeownKR.Predicting the semantic orientation of adjectives. In: Proceedings of the 35th meeting of the association for computational linguistics, Madrid, 7–12 July 1997, pp. 174–181. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
8.
TurneyPLittmanM.Measuring praise and criticism: inference of semantic orientation from association. ACM T Inform Syst2003; 21(4): 315–346.
9.
EsuliASebastianiF.SentiWordNet: a publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2006), Genoa, 22–28 May 2006, pp. 417–422. Paris: European Language Resources Association.
10.
DasAGambäckB.Sentimantics: conceptual spaces for lexical sentiment polarity representation with contextuality. In: Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on computational approaches to subjectivity and sentiment analysis, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea, 12 July 2012, pp. 38–46. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
11.
ThelwallMBuckleyK.Topic-based sentiment analysis for the social web: the role of mood and issue-related words. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2013; 64: 1608–1617.
12.
ThetTTNaJCKhooCSG. Aspect based sentiment analysis of movie reviews on discussion boards. J Inform Sci2010; 36(6): 823–848.
13.
WiebeJWilsonTCardieC.Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. Lang Resour Eval2005; 39: 165–210.
14.
KhooCSGNourbakhshANaJC.Sentiment analysis of news text: a case study of appraisal theory. Online Inform Rev2012; 36(6): 858–878.
15.
StrapparavaCMihalceaR.SemEval-2007 task 14: affective text. In: Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on semantic evaluations, Prague, 23–24 June 2007, pp. 70–74. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
KhooCSGJohnkhanSBNaJC.Evaluation of a general-purpose sentiment lexicon on a product review corpus. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Asia-Pacific digital libraries, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 9–12 December 2015, pp. 82–93. Berlin: Springer.
18.
MohammadSMTurneyDP.Crowdsourcing a word-emotion association lexicon. Comput Intell2013; 29(3): 436–465.
19.
HongYKwakHBaekY. Tower of babel: a crowdsourcing game building sentiment lexicons for resource-scarce languages. In: Proceedings of the WWW 2013 companion, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13–17 May 2013. New York: ACM.
20.
ThisoneCCGhasemiAFaltingsB.Sentiment analysis using a novel human computation game. In: Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on the people’s web meets NLP, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea, 8–14 July 2012, pp. 1–9. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
21.
KampsJMarxMMokkenRJ. Using WordNet to measure semantic orientation of adjectives. In: Proceedings of the language resources and evaluation (LREC 2004), Lisbon, 26–28 May 2004, pp. 1115–1118. Paris: European Language Resources Association.
22.
ChurchKWHanksP.Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Comput Linguist1990; 16(1): 22–29.
23.
GlavašGŠnajderJBašićBD.Experiments on hybrid corpus based sentiment lexicon acquisition. In: Proceedings of the workshop on innovative hybrid approaches to the processing of textual data, Avignon, 23–27 April 2012, pp. 1–9. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
24.
LiFPanSJJinO. Cross-domain co-extraction of sentiment and topic lexicons. In: Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea, 8–14 July 2012, pp. 410–419. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
25.
QiuGLiuBBuJ. Expanding domain sentiment lexicon through double propagation. In: Proceedings of the 21st international joint conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 9, Pasadena, CA, 11–17 July 2009, pp. 1199–1204. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
26.
BahrainianSALiwickiMDengelA.Fuzzy subjective sentiment phrases: a context sensitive and self-maintaining sentiment lexicon. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/WIC/ACM international joint conferences on web intelligence (WI) and intelligent agent technologies (IAT), vol. 1, Warsaw, 11–14 August 2014, pp. 361–368. New York: IEEE.
27.
YatesAGoharianNYeeWG.Semi-supervised probabilistic sentiment analysis: merging labeled sentences with unlabeled reviews to identify sentiment. In: Proceedings of the 76th ASIS&T Annual Meeting, vol. 50, Montreal, QC, Canada, 1–6 November 2013, pp. 1–10. Silver Spring, MD: Association for Information Science and Technology
28.
XuXTanSLiuY. Towards jointly extracting aspects and aspect-specific sentiment knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on information and knowledge management, Maui, HI, 29 October 2012, pp. 1895–1899. New York: ACM.
RiloffEWiebeJ.Learning extraction patterns for subjective expressions. In: Proceedings of the 2003 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, Sapporo, Japan, 11–12 July 2003, pp. 105–112. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
36.
HuMLiuB.Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, Seattle, WA, 22–25 August 2004, pp. 168–177. New York: ACM.
BrantsTFranzA.Web 1T 5-gram version 1. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, 2006.
39.
StrapparavaCValituttiA.WordNet-affect: an affective extension of WordNet. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC-2004), Lisbon, 26–28 May 2004, pp. 1083–1086. Paris: European Language Resources Association.
40.
PangBLeeLVaithyanathanS.Thumbs up? Sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in NLP, Philadelphia, PA, 6–7 July 2002, pp. 79–86. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
41.
JindalNLiuB.Opinion spam and analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and data mining, Palo Alto, CA, 11–12 February 2008, pp. 219–230. New York: ACM.
42.
ManningCDSurdeanuMBauerJ. The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In: Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: system demonstrations, Baltimore, MD, 23 June 2014, pp. 55–60. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
43.
BirdSLoperEKleinE.Natural language processing with Python. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2009.
44.
NaJCKhooCSGWuPHJ. Use of negation phrases in automatic sentiment classification of product reviews. Libr Collect Acquisit Tech Serv2005; 29(2): 180–191.
45.
BaccianellaSEsuliASebastianiF.SENTIWORDNET 3.0: An enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10), 17–23 May 2010, pp. 2200–2204. Paris: European Language Resources Association.
