![](bga.png)
tives and adverbs having polarity valence, it is evident that the result certainly will
benefit by the improvement of the synsets. Anyway, the presence of the set of catego-
ries associated to synsets and the polarity values can bring relevant benefit in the
analysis of opinions. More in details, the distinction between subjective and factual
polarity adjectives and adverbs defined through their categories associated is an im-
plicit capability of FreeWordNet that produce, as a direct result, a relevant element in
the recognition and distinction of factual polarity and subjective sentences.
References
1. Benamara, F., Cesarano, C., Picariello, A., Reforgiato, D., Subrahmanian, V. S.: Sentiment
Analysis: Adjectives and Adverbs are better than Adjectives Alone. In Proceedings of In-
ternational Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, pp. 203-206 (2007).
2. Rentoumi, V., Giannakopoulos, G.: Sentiment analysis of figurative language using a word
sense disambiguation approach. In International Conference on Recent Advances in Natu-
ral Language Processing, Borovets, Bulgaria, ACL (2009).
3. Miller, G., A.: WordNet: A Lexical Database for English. Communications of the ACM
Vol. 38, No. 11: 39-41 (1995).
4. Lee, D., Jeong, O., Lee, S.: Opinion Mining of customer feedback data on the web. In
Proceedings of the 2nd ICUIMC '08 (2008).
5. Wiebe, J., Mihalcea, R.: Word Sense and Subjectivity. In Proceedings of the Annual Meet-
ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney, Australia (2006).
6. Esuli, A., Sebastiani, F.: PageRanking WordNet synsets: An application to Opinion Min-
ing. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguis-
tics Vol. 45, Publisher: Association for Computational Linguistics, p. 424-431 (2007).
7. Baccianella, S., Esuli, A., Sebastiani, F.: SentiWordNet 3.0: An Enhanced Lexical Re-
source for Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining. In Proceedings of LREC-10, 7th Con-
ference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Valletta, MT, pages 2200-2204 (2010).
8. Agerri, R., García-Serrano, A.: Q-WordNet: Extracting polarity from WordNet senses.
Seventh Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (2010).
9. Valitutti, A., Strapparava, C., Stock, O.: Developing affective lexical ressources. Psychnol-
ogy: 2 (2004).
10. Magnini, B., Strapparava, C., Pezzulo, G., Gliozzo, A.: The Role of Domain Information in
Word Sense Disambiguation. Natural Language Engineering, special issue on Word Sense
Disambiguation, 8(4), pp. 359-373, Cambridge University Press (2002).
11. Cerini, S., Compagnoni, V., Demontis, A., Formentelli, M., Gandini, C.: Micro-WNOp: A
gold standard for the evaluation of automatically compiled lexical resources for opinion
mining. A. Sanso, Language resources and linguistic theory, Franco Angeli, Italy (2007).
12. Angioni, M., Demontis, R., Tuveri, F.: A Semantic Approach for Resource Cataloguing
and Query Resolution. Communications of SIWN. Special Issue on Distributed Agent-
based Retrieval Tools. (2008).
13. Akkaya, C., Mihalcea, R., Wiebe, J.: Subjectivity Word Sense Disambiguation. Proceed-
ings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages
190–199, Singapore, ACL and AFNLP (2009).
14. Schmid, H.: Probabilistic Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Decision Trees. In Proceedings of
the International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, pp. 44-49 (1994).
15. Leacock, C., Chodorow, M.: Combining local context and WordNet similarity for word
sense identification. In Fellbaum, C. (ed.)1998, pp. 265-283 (1998).
73