Is this Question Real? Dataset Collection on Perceived Intentions and Implicit Attack Detection
Pages 2850 - 2859
Abstract
The proliferation of social media and online communication platforms has made social interactions more accessible, leading to a significant expansion of research into language use with a particular focus on toxic behavior and hate speech. Few studies, however, have focused on the tacit information that may imply a negative intention and the perspective that impacts the interpretation of such intention. Conversation is a joint activity that relies on coordination between what one party expresses and how the other party construes what has been expressed. Thus, how a message is perceived becomes equally important regardless of whether the sent message includes any form of explicit attack or offense. This study focuses on identifying the implicit attacks and negative intentions in text-based conversation from the reader’s point of view. We focus on questions in conversations and investigate the underlying perceived intention. We introduce our dataset that includes questions, intention polarity, and type of attacks. We conduct a meta-analysis on the data to demonstrate how a question may be used as a means of attack and how different perspectives can lead to multiple interpretations. We also report benchmark results of several models for detecting instances of tacit attacks in questions with the aim of avoiding latent or manifest conflict in conversations.
References
[1]
Nuha Albadi, Maram Kurdi, and Shivakant Mishra. 2018. Are they our brothers? analysis and detection of religious hate speech in the arabic twittersphere. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). IEEE, 69–76.
[2]
Marco Bastos and Dan Mercea. 2018. Parametrizing Brexit: mapping Twitter political space to parliamentary constituencies. Information, Communication & Society 21, 7 (2018), 921–939.
[3]
Shohini Bhattasali, Jeremy Cytryn, Elana Feldman, and Joonsuk Park. 2015. Automatic identification of rhetorical questions. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers). 743–749.
[4]
Daniel Braun, Adrian Hernandez Mendez, Florian Matthes, and Manfred Langen. 2017. Evaluating natural language understanding services for conversational question answering systems. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue. 174–185.
[5]
Ivano Caponigro and Jon Sprouse. 2007. Rhetorical questions as questions. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, Vol. 11. 121–133.
[6]
Tommaso Caselli, Valerio Basile, Jelena Mitrović, Inga Kartoziya, and Michael Granitzer. 2020. I feel offended, don’t be abusive! implicit/explicit messages in offensive and abusive language. In Proceedings of the 12th language resources and evaluation conference. 6193–6202.
[7]
Jonathan P Chang, Justin Cheng, and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. 2020. Don’t let me be misunderstood: Comparing intentions and perceptions in online discussions. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020. 2066–2077.
[8]
Jonathan P Chang and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. 2019. Trouble on the Horizon: Forecasting the Derailment of Online Conversations as they Develop. In Proceedings of EMNLP.
[9]
Herbert H Clark. 1996. Using language. Cambridge university press.
[10]
Peter T Coleman, Morton Deutsch, and Eric C Marcus. 2014. The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
[11]
Cassandre Creswell. 1996. Criticizing with a question. (1996).
[12]
Thomas Davidson, Dana Warmsley, Michael Macy, and Ingmar Weber. 2017. Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 11.
[13]
Allan de Barcelos Silva, Marcio Miguel Gomes, Cristiano André da Costa, Rodrigo da Rosa Righi, Jorge Luis Victoria Barbosa, Gustavo Pessin, Geert De Doncker, and Gustavo Federizzi. 2020. Intelligent personal assistants: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications 147 (2020), 113193.
[14]
Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers). 4171–4186.
[15]
Paula Fortuna and Sérgio Nunes. 2018. A survey on automatic detection of hate speech in text. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 51, 4 (2018), 1–30.
[16]
Alice F Freed. 1994. The form and function of questions in informal dyadic conversation. Journal of pragmatics 21, 6 (1994), 621–644.
[17]
Adam D Galinsky, William W Maddux, Debra Gilin, and Judith B White. 2008. Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological science 19, 4 (2008), 378–384.
[18]
Katharine Gelber and Luke McNamara. 2016. Evidencing the harms of hate speech. Social Identities 22, 3 (2016), 324–341.
[19]
Erving Goffman. 1967. On face-work. Interaction ritual (1967), 5–45.
[20]
Hongyu Gong, Alberto Valido, Katherine M Ingram, Giulia Fanti, Suma Bhat, and Dorothy L Espelage. 2021. Abusive Language Detection in Heterogeneous Contexts: Dataset Collection and the Role of Supervised Attention. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35. 14804–14812.
[21]
Michael Haugh. 2008. Intention in pragmatics. (2008).
[22]
Cullen S Hendrix and Idean Salehyan. 2019. Ethnicity, nonviolent protest, and lethal repression in Africa. Journal of peace research 56, 4 (2019), 469–484.
[23]
Rafal Jozefowicz, Wojciech Zaremba, and Ilya Sutskever. 2015. An empirical exploration of recurrent network architectures. In ICML’15. 2342–2350.
[24]
Mariya Kharaman, Manluolan Xu, Carsten Eulitz, and Bettina Braun. 2019. The processing of prosodic cues to rhetorical question interpretation: Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistics evidence. In Interspeech 2019. 1218–1222.
[25]
Samuel Kim, Fabio Valente, Maurizio Filippone, and Alessandro Vinciarelli. 2014. Predicting continuous conflict perceptionwith bayesian gaussian processes. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 5, 2 (2014), 187–200.
[26]
Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980(2014).
[27]
Geoffrey Leech. 2016. Principles of pragmatics. Routledge.
[28]
Maciek Lipinski-Harten and Romin W Tafarodi. 2013. Attitude moderation: A comparison of online chat and face-to-face conversation. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 6 (2013), 2490–2493.
[29]
Ping Liu, Joshua Guberman, Libby Hemphill, and Aron Culotta. 2018. Forecasting the presence and intensity of hostility on Instagram using linguistic and social features. In Twelfth international aaai conference on web and social media.
[30]
Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692(2019).
[31]
Steven Loria. 2018. textblob Documentation. Release 0.15 2(2018), 269.
[32]
Shervin Malmasi and Marcos Zampieri. 2017. Detecting Hate Speech in Social Media. In Proceedings of the International Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, RANLP 2017. 467–472.
[33]
Maryam Sadat Mirzaei, Qiang Zhang, Stef van der Struijk, Toyoaki Nishida, P Taalas, J Jalkanen, L Bradley, and S Thouësny. 2018. Language learning through conversation envisioning in virtual reality: a sociocultural approach. In Future-Proof CALL: Language Learning as Exploration and Encounters-Short Papers from EUROCALL. 207–213.
[34]
Hannes Mueller and Christopher Rauh. 2018. Reading between the lines: Prediction of political violence using newspaper text. American Political Science Review 112, 2 (2018), 358–375.
[35]
Chikashi Nobata, Joel Tetreault, Achint Thomas, Yashar Mehdad, and Yi Chang. 2016. Abusive language detection in online user content. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web. 145–153.
[36]
Ji Ho Park and Pascale Fung. 2017. One-step and Two-step Classification for Abusive Language Detection on Twitter. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online. 41–45.
[37]
Paul Pedersen. 2001. The cultural context of peacemaking. Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century (2001), 183–192.
[38]
Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In EMNLP’14. 1532–1543.
[39]
Isabella Poggi and Francesca D’Errico. 2018. Feeling offended: a blow to our image and our social relationships. Frontiers in Psychology 8 (2018), 2221.
[40]
Fabio Poletto, Valerio Basile, Manuela Sanguinetti, Cristina Bosco, and Viviana Patti. 2021. Resources and benchmark corpora for hate speech detection: a systematic review. Language Resources and Evaluation 55, 2 (2021), 477–523.
[41]
Fabio Poletto, Marco Stranisci, Manuela Sanguinetti, Viviana Patti, and Cristina Bosco. 2017. Hate speech annotation: Analysis of an italian twitter corpus. In 4th Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics, CLiC-it 2017, Vol. 2006. CEUR-WS, 1–6.
[42]
Silvia Quarteroni and Suresh Manandhar. 2007. A chatbot-based interactive question answering system. Decalog 2007 83(2007).
[43]
Hugo Rosa, Nádia Pereira, Ricardo Ribeiro, Paula Costa Ferreira, Joao Paulo Carvalho, Sofia Oliveira, Luísa Coheur, Paula Paulino, AM Veiga Simão, and Isabel Trancoso. 2019. Automatic cyberbullying detection: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior 93 (2019), 333–345.
[44]
Johannes Schäfer and Ben Burtenshaw. 2019. Offence in dialogues: A corpus-based study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2019). 1085–1093.
[45]
Tanya Stivers. 2010. An overview of the question–response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 10 (2010), 2772–2781.
[46]
Tanya Stivers and Nick J Enfield. 2010. A coding scheme for question–response sequences in conversation. Journal of pragmatics 42, 10 (2010), 2620–2626.
[47]
Mircea-Adrian Tanase, Dumitru-Clementin Cercel, and Costin Chiru. 2020. UPB at SemEval-2020 Task 12: Multilingual Offensive Language Detection on Social Media by Fine-tuning a Variety of BERT-based Models. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Semantic Evaluation. 2222–2231.
[48]
Zeerak Waseem, Thomas Davidson, Dana Warmsley, and Ingmar Weber. 2017. Understanding Abuse: A Typology of Abusive Language Detection Subtasks. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online. 78–84.
[49]
Zeerak Waseem and Dirk Hovy. 2016. Hateful symbols or hateful people? predictive features for hate speech detection on twitter. In Proceedings of the NAACL student research workshop. 88–93.
[50]
Henry M Wellman. 2014. Making minds: How theory of mind develops. Oxford University Press.
[51]
Michael Wojatzki, Tobias Horsmann, Darina Gold, and Torsten Zesch. 2018. Do Women Perceive Hate Differently: Examining the Relationship Between Hate Speech, Gender, and Agreement Judgments. In Proceedings of the Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS). 110–120.
[52]
Ellery Wulczyn, Nithum Thain, and Lucas Dixon. 2017. Ex machina: Personal attacks seen at scale. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web. 1391–1399.
[53]
Marcos Zampieri, Shervin Malmasi, Preslav Nakov, Sara Rosenthal, Noura Farra, and Ritesh Kumar. 2019. Predicting the type and target of offensive posts in social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09666(2019).
[54]
Justine Zhang, Jonathan Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Lucas Dixon, Yiqing Hua, Dario Taraborelli, and Nithum Thain. 2018. Conversations Gone Awry: Detecting Early Signs of Conversational Failure. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 1350–1361.
Index Terms
- Is this Question Real? Dataset Collection on Perceived Intentions and Implicit Attack Detection
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
The effects of perceived enjoyment and perceived risks on trust formation and intentions to use online payment systems
Electronic payments systems (EPS) still have a low adoption rate in Arabic countries.We study EPS in Kuwait using a trust-based model.We find customer trust and enjoyment influence Kuwait EPS adoption.We find risk has no influence on EPS ...
An inter-modal attention-based deep learning framework using unified modality for multimodal fake news, hate speech and offensive language detection
AbstractFake news, hate speech and offensive language are related evil triplets currently affecting modern societies. Text modality for the computational detection of these phenomena has been widely used. In recent times, multimodal studies in this ...
Highlights- A unified deep learning model can be used for multimodal fake news, hate speech and offensive language detection.
- Unifying modalities is useful for multimodal content understanding.
- Inter-modal attention mechanism is effective for ...
The Mediating of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use: The Case of Mobile Banking in Yemen
While there are a wide range of business opportunities available via mobile technologies, mobile banking services have not been widely accepted by bank clients in Yemen. This article aims to test the mediation effect of TAM core constructs between the ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
April 2022
3764 pages
ISBN:9781450390965
DOI:10.1145/3485447
Copyright © 2022 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 25 April 2022
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
WWW '22
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 279Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)39
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 08 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format