請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/51182
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 謝舒凱 | |
dc.contributor.author | Ju-Han Chuang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 莊茹涵 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T13:26:54Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-03-09 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2016-03-09 | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2016-02-24 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Anand, P., Walker, M., Abbott, R., Tree, J. E. F., Bowmani, R., & Minor, M. (2011). Cats Rule and Dogs Drool!: Classifying Stance in Online Debate. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis.
Benveniste, E. (1971). Problems in General Linguistics (pp. 223-230): Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. Biber, D., & Finegan., E. (1989). Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect. Text, 9(1), 93-124. Bois, J. W. D. (2007). Stance Taking in Discourse. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), (pp. 139-182): John Benjamins. Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A Technique for Improving Student Writing. Journal of Research in the Teaching of English, 30(2), 149-181. Cobb, M. D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1997). Changing Minds: Political Arguments and Political Persuasion. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 88-121. Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/ Rhetorical Measure for International Persuasive Student Writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(1), 67-87. Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding Persuasive Essay Writing: A Linguistic/ Rhetorical Approach. Text, 5, 309-326. Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and His Readers: Exploring Interpersonal Metadiscourse as a Dimension of Ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91-112. Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The Pragmatic Role of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse MMarker in the Construction and Attainment of Persuasion: A Cross-linguistic Study of Newspaper Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95-113. Duffy, M. E., & Thorson, E. (2009). Health Communication in the New Media Landscape. In J. C. Parker & E. Thorson (Eds.), (pp. 93-116): New York: Springer. Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1982). The Speech Acts of Arguing and Convincing in Externalized Discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, 1-24. Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective: Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Endo, T. (2013). Epistemic stance in Mandarin conversation: the positions and functions of wo juede (I feel/think). In Y. Pan & D. Z. Kadar (Eds.), Chinese Discourse and Interaction: Theory and Practice (pp. 12-34). London: Equinox. Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking in Discourse. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), (pp. 1-25): John Benjamins. Faulkner, A. (2014). Automated Classification of Stance in Student Essays: An Approach Using Stance Target Information and the Wikipedia Link-Based Measure. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference. Ferris, D. R. (1994). Rhetorical Strategies in Student Persuasive Writing: Differences between Native and Non-Native English Speakers. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(1), 45-65. Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Velasco-Sacristán, M., Arribas-Baño, A., & Samaniego-Fernández, E. (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(8), 1291-1307. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language: London, Edward Arnold. Hasan, K. S., & Ng, V. (2013). Stance Classification of Ideological Debates: Data, Models, Features, and Constraints. Paper presented at the Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. Hasan, K. S., & Ng, V. (2014). Why are You Taking this Stance? Identifying and Classifying Reasons in Ideological Debates. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Hassan, A., Qazvinian, V., & Radev, D. (2010). What's with the Attitude? Identifying SSentence with Attitude in Online Discussions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Houston, J. B., Hansen, G. J., & Nisbett, G. S. (2011). Influence of User Comments on Perceptions of Media Bias and Third-Person Effect in Online News. Electronic News, 5(2), 79-92. Hyland, K. (1998a). Exploring Corporate Rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO's Letter. The Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224-245. Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455. Hyland, K. (2000). Talking to Students: Metadiscourse in Introductory Textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 3-26. Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing: London: Continuum. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible? : Chicago: Universit of Chicago Press. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that Matters: Television and American Opinion: Chicago: Universit of Chicago Press. J. B. Walther, D. D., J. Kim J. C. Anthony. (2010). The Influence of Online Comments on Perceptions of Antimarijuana Public Service Announcements on Youtube. Human Communication Research, 36, 469-492. J. N. Hays, K. M. B., & Chantry, K. H. (1988). The Impact of Friendly and Hostile Audiences on the Argumentative Writing of High School and College Students. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 391-416. Kӓrkkӓinen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on “I think”. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Le, E. (2004). Active Participation within Written Argumentation: Metadiscourse and Editorialist's Authority. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 687-714. Lee, E. J. (2006). When and How does Depersonalization Increase Conformity to Group Norms in Computer-mediated Communication. Communication Research, 33, 423-447. Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., & MacGill, A. (2007). Teens and Social Media. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2007/12/19/teens-and-social-media/ Lim, N.-E. (2009). Stance-taking with Wo Juede in conversational Chinese. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 21st North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL‐21). Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion: New York: Macmillan. Liu, T.-J. (2014). PTT Corpus: Construction and Application. (Master's Thesis), National Taiwan University, Taiwan. Lyons, J. (1994). Subjecthood and subjectivity. Malouf, R., & Mullen, T. (2008). Taking Sides: User Classification for Informal Online Political Discourse. Internet Research, 18(2), 177-190. n.d. (8 Augest, 2015). PTT Bulletin Board System. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTT_Bulletin_Board_System O'Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and Research: Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Penetration of leading social networks in Taiwan as of 4th quarter 2014. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/statistics/295611/taiwan-social-network-penetration/ Perelman, C. (1982). The Realm of Rhetoric: South Bend, IN: Notre Dame University Press. PTT Bulletin Board System. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTT_Bulletin_Board_System Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language: New York: Longman. Rafaeli, S. (1988). Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and IInterpersonal Processes. In J. M. Wiemann & S. Pingree (Eds.), (pp. 110-134): Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Reardon, K. K. (1990). Persuasion in Practice: Newbury Park, Calif: Sage. Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161-198. Reynolds, B. L., & Wang, S. (2014). An Investigation of the Role of Article Commendation and Critism in Taiwanese University Students' Heavy BBS Usage. Computers and Education, 78, 210-226. Riloff, E., & Wiebe, J. (2003). Learning Extraction Patterns for Subjective Expressions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Schriffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse. Sociological Inquiry: {Language and Social Interaction}, 50, 199-236. Shirky, C. (2011). The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28-41. Smith, M. J. (1982). Persuasion and Human Action: Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth. Somasundaran, S., Namata, G., Wiebe, J., & Getoor, L. (2009). Supervised and Unsupervised Methods in Employing Discourse Relations for Improving Opinion Polarity Classification. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Somasundaran, S., Ruppenhofer, J., & Wiebe, J. (2007). Detecting Arguing and Sentiment in Meetings. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue. Somasundaran, S., & Wiebe, J. (2010). Recognizing Stances in Ideological On-Line Debates. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the NAACL HLT Workshop on Computational Approaches to Analysis and Generation of Emotion in Text. Stubbs, M. (1986). A Matter of Prolonged Fieldwork: Notes towards a Modal Grammar of English. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 1-25. Survey shows that Taiwanese people love social networks. (2014). The China Post. Retrieved from http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2014/06/17/410347/Survey-shows.htm Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Terkildsen, N., & Schnell, F. (1997). How Media Frames Move Public Opinion: An Analysis of the Women's Movement. Political Research Quarterly, 50(4), 879-900. Thomas, M., Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2006). Get out the vote: Determining support or opposition from Congressional floor-debate transcripts. Paper presented at the Proceedings of EMNLP. Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 1-27). New York: Oxford University Press. Tidwell, A. C. (1994). Not Effective Communication but Effective Persuasion. Mediation Quarterly, 12(1), 3-14. Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82-93. Walker, M. A., Anand, P., Abbott, R., & Grant, R. (2012). Stance Classification using Dialogic Properties of Persuasion. Paper presented at the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Walker, M. A., Anand, P., Abbott, R., Tree, J. E. F., Martell, C., & King, J. (2012). That is Your Evidence?: Classifying Stance in Online Political Debate. Decision Support Systems, 53, 719-729. What is PTT? (n.d., May, 8, 2006). Retrieved from https://www.ptt.cc/index.html Wiebe, J. (1994). Tracking Point of View in Narrative. Computational Linguistics, 20(2), 233-287. Wiebe, J., Wilson, T., Bruce, R., Bell, M., & Martin, M. (2004). Learning Subjective Language. Computational Linguistics, 30(3), 277-308. Wiebe, J., Wilson, T., & Cardie, C. (2005). Annotating Expressions of Opinions and Emotions in Language. Language Resources and Evaluation, 39, 165-210. Williams, J. M. (1981). Style:Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace: Boston: Scott, Foresman. Wilson, T. (2008). Annotating Subjective Content in Meetings. Paper presented at the Proceedings of LREC. Wilson, T., Hoffmann, P., Somasundaran, S., Kessler, J., Wiebe, J., Choi, Y., . . . Patwardhan, S. (2005). Opinion Finder: A System for Subjectivity Analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of HLT/EMNLP Demonstration Abstracts. Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., & Hoffmann, P. (2005). Recognizing Contextual Polarity in Phrase-Level Sentiment Analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of HLT-EMNLP. Wu, Y.-A., & Hsieh, S.-K. (2014). Public Opinion Toward CSSTA: A Text Mining Approach. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 19, 19-28. 黃金蘭, Chung, C. K., Hui, N., 林以正, 謝亦泰, 程威詮, . . . Pennebaker, J. W. (2012). 中文版語文探索與字詞計算字典之建立. 中華心理學刊, 54, 185-201. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/51182 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 隨著社交網站的崛起與普及,資訊分享和傳播媒介已經大幅地改變,每一個個體在網路上傳播的資訊或發表的言論,都可能是造成某個運動成功、某個事件受到矚目、或者某件作品、影片在網路上大紅大紫的部分原因。我們在網路上的一言一行,都能夠影響到其他人的看法,也留下可供觀察的足跡,這些網路上的資料及其影響力,開啟了一連串關於網路行為的研究。站在語言學的角度,我們決定觀察使用者在網路上如何表達立場、以及如何說服他人。
本研究旨在網路上的立場表達行為,以批踢踢的回文作為觀察語料,建立使用上能夠透露發言者對於文章或是命題所採態度的語言線索。研究過程包含從批踢踢的推文和噓文當中,找出主觀性用語以及論辯用語,再以這些用語輔助文本自動分類,將自動立場分類的表現與基線(baseline)作比較,實驗結果顯示本研究所建立的語言線索能夠幫助分類器的表現提升,最高能達到百分之二十,後續研究若能持續擴大標記的語料筆數,並且能夠掌握語境與語言線索之間的關係,將能夠更大幅度地提升分類準確性。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | With the development of social networking services, information sharing and the form of media have been revolutionized. Each of us might be part of the reason why certain movements are able to take place, why several issues are finally noticed by the public, and how a video or a piece of work goes viral. What we say or do on the Internet has its influence on others, and leave traces that we can observe. Thus gave rise to studies that aim at understanding online behaviors. From a linguistic point of view, we find it worthwhile to observe how people take a stance online and their attempts to persuade others.
The current study aims at observing stance-taking behavior on short comments on PTT in order to establish resources on “linguistic cues” that reveal a speaker’s overall position on an article or on a proposition. Subjective cues and arguing cues are identified from extracted PTT positive and negative comments. The cues are then used to assist in automated stance classification to compare with baseline performance. Results indicate that the cues can help raise up to 20 percent of accuracy. The classifier can be better improved with larger tagging set and techniques that can identify context in future work. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T13:26:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-105-R00142002-1.pdf: 952930 bytes, checksum: 7df07c8938bb19ac14f44af03d9db57d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝詞 i
Abstract ii 摘要 iii Table of Contents iv List of Figures vi List of Tables vii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1. Background 1 1.2. Purpose 4 1.3. Organization 4 Chapter 2 Literature Review 5 2.1. Social media and online comments 5 2.2. Stance and subjectivity 7 2.2.1. Stance markers in previous studies 8 2.2.2. Metadiscourse as expression of stance 9 2.3. Argument and persuasion 12 2.4. Previous work on automatic stance classification 15 Chapter 3 Methodology 18 3.1. Data collection 18 3.1.1. PTT corpus 18 3.1.2. Data structure 22 3.2. Identifying subjective cues 25 3.2.1. Arguing cues 25 3.2.2. Subjective elements 30 3.2.3. Metadiscourse markers 32 3.3. Building a stance classifier 35 Chapter 4 Observations on PTT data 39 4.1. PTT boards and articles 39 4.1.1. Introduction of PTT and the selected boards 39 4.1.2. Categorization on the types of articles 43 4.2. PTT comments 48 4.2.1. Functions of the comments 50 4.2.2. Targets of the comments 52 Chapter 5 Automatic Stance Classification: Experiment Using the Compiled Lexical Resources 64 5.1. Result of the classification 64 5.2. Differences among the three sets of data 68 5.3. Error analysis 72 Chapter 6 Conclusion 80 References 82 Appendix—examples of the tagged cues 87 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 中文短回文立場分類 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Stance Classification on Short Text Comments in Chinese | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 104-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 謝佳玲,蘇以文 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 批踢踢,立場分類,語用學,語料庫語言學,線上回文, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | PTT,stance classification,pragmatics,corpus-linguistics,online comments, | en |
dc.relation.page | 88 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2016-02-24 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 語言學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 語言學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-105-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 930.6 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。