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.


Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
A robot incapable of recognizing irony would be unable to communicate with humans naturally.
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.
The other three are: Quantity, Relation and Manner; these are not immediately relevant to the discussion here.
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.
‘tweets’ are short messages posted to the internet for the consumption of friends or ‘followers’ via the web service Twitter.
Amazon is an online marketplace.
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.
‘emoticons’ are character patterns used in text communication to indicate emotions, e.g., :).
Accuracy is the total fraction of utterances correctly classified. F-measure is a harmonic mean of precision and recall.
The Onion is a satirical news source.
I will restrict the discussion to utterances that tacitly address only a single aspect.
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.
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
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
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
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
Colston H (2001) On necessary conditions for verbal irony comprehension. Pragmatics & \(\#\) 38. Cognition 8(2):277–324
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Wilson D, Sperber D (1992) On verbal irony. Lingua 87(1–2):53–76
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-012-9392-5