Skip to main content
Log in

Computational irony: A survey and new perspectives

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Irony is a fundamental rhetorical device. It is a uniquely human mode of communication, curious in that the speaker says something other than what he or she intends. Recently, computationally detecting irony has attracted attention from the natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) communities. While some progress has been made toward this end, I argue that current machine learning methods rely too heavily on shallow, unstructured, syntactic modeling of text to consistently discern ironic intent. Irony detection is an interesting machine learning problem because, in contrast to most text classification tasks, it requires a semantics that cannot be inferred directly from word counts over documents alone. To support this position, I survey the large body of existing philosophical/literary work investigating ironic communication. I then survey more recent computational efforts to operationalize irony detection in the fields of NLP and ML. I identify the disparities of the latter with respect to the former. Specifically, I highlight a major conceptual problem in all existing computational models of irony: none maintain an explicit model of the speaker/environment. I argue that without such an internal model of the speaker, irony detection is hopeless, as this model is necessary to represent expectations, which play a key role in ironic communication. I sketch possible means of embedding such models into computational approaches to irony detection. In particular, I introduce the pragmatic context model, which looks to operationalize computationally existing theories of irony. This work is a step toward unifying work on irony from literary, empirical and philosophical perspectives with modern computational models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A robot incapable of recognizing irony would be unable to communicate with humans naturally.

  2. More complex representations exist, but this is the canonical scheme for text classification. Furthermore, all text representations of which I am aware are, ultimately, functions over word counts.

  3. The other three are: Quantity, Relation and Manner; these are not immediately relevant to the discussion here.

  4. Variants on this method exist, including the popular term frequency/inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) scheme, but these, too, are ultimately some function over word counts in documents.

  5. ‘tweets’ are short messages posted to the internet for the consumption of friends or ‘followers’ via the web service Twitter.

  6. Amazon is an online marketplace.

  7. Recall here quantifies the total fraction of ironic sentences identified by the algorithm; precision refers to the fraction of sentences classified by the algorithm as ironic that in fact were.

  8. ‘emoticons’ are character patterns used in text communication to indicate emotions, e.g., :).

  9. Accuracy is the total fraction of utterances correctly classified. F-measure is a harmonic mean of precision and recall.

  10. The Onion is a satirical news source.

  11. I will restrict the discussion to utterances that tacitly address only a single aspect.

  12. http://yelp.com

  13. This is not to say that it will never be possible to infer irony from syntactic cues alone. However, subtle forms of irony may well be completely devoid of such cues.

  14. Very early work on this sort of thing exists, see, e.g., (Davey 1978).

References

  • Attardo S (2000) Irony as relevant inappropriateness. J Pragmat 32(6):793–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bethard S, Yu H, Thornton A, Hatzivassiloglou V, Jurafsky D (2004) Automatic extraction of opinion propositions and their holders. In: 2004 AAAI spring symposium on exploring attitude and affect in text, p 2224

  • Booth W (1975) A rhetoric of irony. University of Chicago Press, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Burfoot C, Baldwin T (2009) Automatic satire detection: are you having a laugh? In: Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 conference short papers, pp 161–164. Association for Computational Linguistics (2009)

  • Carvalho P, Sarmento L, Silva M, de Oliveira E (2009) Clues for detecting irony in user-generated contents: oh...!! it’s so easy;-) pp 53–56

  • Clark H, Gerrig R (1984) On the pretense theory of irony. J Exp Psychol 113:121–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colebrook C (2004) Irony. Routledge

  • Colston H (1997) Salting a wound or sugaring a pill: the pragmatic functions of ironic criticism. Discourse Process 23(1):25–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colston H (2001) On necessary conditions for verbal irony comprehension. Pragmatics & \(\#\) 38. Cognition 8(2):277–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Davey A (1978) Discourse production: a computer model of some aspects of a speaker. Edinburgh University Press

  • Davidov D, Rappoport A (2006) Efficient unsupervised discovery of word categories using symmetric patterns and high frequency words, pp 297–304

  • Davidov D, Tsur O, Rappoport A (2010) Semi-supervised recognition of sarcastic sentences in twitter and amazon. Conference on natural language learning (CoNLL) p 107

  • Greene E, Bodrumlu T, Knight K (2010) Automatic analysis of rhythmic poetry with applications to generation and translation. In: Proceedings of the 2010 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 524–533. Association for computational linguistics

  • Grice H (1975) Logic and conversation. pp 41–58

  • Grice H (1978) Further notes on logic and conversation pp 113–127

  • Guerra P, Veloso A, Meira Jr W, Almeida V (2011) From bias to opinion: a transfer-learning approach to real-time sentiment analysis. KDD

  • Halevy A, Norvig P, Pereira F (2009) The unreasonable effectiveness of data. IEEE Intell Syst 24(2):8–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hao Y, Veale T (2010) An ironic fist in a velvet glove: creative mis-representation in the construction of ironic similes. Minds and Machines pp 1–16

  • Hogg T (2010) Inferring preference correlations from social networks. Electron Commer Res Appl 9(1):29–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joachims T (1998) Text categorization with support vector machines: learning with many relevant features. Machine Learning: ECML-98 pp 137–142

  • Kanayama H, Nasukawa T (2006) Fully automatic lexicon expansion for domain-oriented sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2006 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 355–363. Association for computational linguistics

  • Kennedy A, Inkpen D (2006) Sentiment classification of movie reviews using contextual valence shifters. Comput Intell 22(2):110–125

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kumon-Nakamura S, Glucksberg S (1995) How about another piece of pie: the allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. J Exp Psychol Gen 124:3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D (1998) Naive (Bayes) at forty: the independence assumption in information retrieval. Machine Learning: ECML-98 pp 4–15

  • Pang B, Lee L (2004) A sentimental education: sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In: Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting on association for computational linguistics, p 271. Association for computational linguistics

  • Pexman P, Glenwright M (2007) How do typically developing children grasp the meaning of verbal irony? J Neurolinguistics 20(2):178–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puckette M (1996) Pure data: another integrated computer music environment. In: Proceedings of the second intercollege computer music concerts pp 37–41

  • Reiter E, Dale R (2000) Building natural language generation systems

  • Schaffer R (1982) Vocal cues for irony in english. Diss, (unveroff.), The Ohio State University

  • Scharrer L, Christmann U (2011) Voice modulations in german ironic speech. Lang Speech 54(4):435–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sindhwani V, Melville P (2009) Document-word co-regularization for semi-supervised sentiment analysis. In: Data Mining, 2008. ICDM’08. Eighth IEEE international conference on, pp 1025–1030. IEEE

  • Sperber D, Wilson D (1981) Irony and the use-mention distinction

  • Swift J (1955) A modest proposal for preventing the children of poor people in ireland from being a burden to their parents or country; and for making them beneficial to the public (1729). Irish Tracts pp 1728–1733

  • Tepperman J, Traum D, Narayanan S (2006) ”Yeah Right”: sarcasm recognition for spoken dialogue systems

  • Utsumi A (1996) A unified theory of irony and its computational formalization pp 962–967

  • Utsumi A (2000) Verbal irony as implicit display of ironic environment: distinguishing ironic utterances from nonirony. J Pragmat 32(12):1777–1806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson D, Sperber D (1992) On verbal irony. Lingua 87(1–2):53–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi J, Nasukawa T, Bunescu R, Niblack W (2003) Sentiment analyzer: extracting sentiments about a given topic using natural language processing techniques. In: ICDM, pp 427–434. IEEE

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Byron C. Wallace.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wallace, B.C. Computational irony: A survey and new perspectives. Artif Intell Rev 43, 467–483 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-012-9392-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-012-9392-5

Keywords

Navigation