Download POC Sentiment Analysis

Sentiment Analysis Project | Imma’s Journal
Monday 24 th march 2014
Today Keith explained to me what the project is about. He has also shared with me the documents
I will have to work on and his research blog. I will go through it today.
Some terms I might have to work with are:

Sentiment shitfters [PDE 23]

Amplifiers (e.g., very) increase the semantic intensity of a neighboring lexical item [PDE
30] Quirk et al. (1985)

Downtoners (e.g., slightly) decrease it [PDE 30] Quirk et al. (1985)

Stopwords [PDE 53]
Some relevant quotes that caught my attention were:
From Feldman’s article (2013: 88-89):
“The final polarity of each aspect is determined by a weighted average of the polarities of all
sentiment expressions inversely weighted by the distance between the aspect and the sentiment
expression.”
Some lists of words that could be helpful are:

Negators, includingnot, none, nobody, never, and nothing, and other words, such as
without or lack (verb and noun). (Taboada p. 276)

Irrealis markers: Includes modals, conditional markers (if ), negative polarity items like any
and anything, certain (mostly intensional) verbs (expect, doubt), questions, and words enclosed in
1
quotes (which may be factual, but not necessarily reflective of the author’s opinion). (Taboada p.
279)
Questions for Keith:
1.
How shall we approach this?
“for instance, funny by itself is positive (+2), but if the phrase act funny appears, it is given a negative value
(−1). (Taboada p.273)” [PDE 30]
2.
How could we solve this?
One is the fact that there are negators, includingnot, none, nobody, never, and nothing, and other words,
such as without or lack (verb and noun), which have an equivalent effect, some of which might occur at a
significant distance from the lexical item which they affect; a backwards search is required to find these
negators, one that is tailored to the particular part of speech involved. (Taboada p. 276) [PDE 30]
3.
Are we going to do weighing?
Another feature that merits discussion in this article is weighting (in other words, giving different weights
to different parts of the text). [PDE 30]
4.
Regarding this: “[a] express both negative and positive opinions and [b] express implicit
negativity.” I think it is going to be easy to identify and score the first set. If I have suspicion that a
word could be used to express implicit negativity (and maybe positivity too?) I could use Nvivo to
explore its lexical context.
5.
How shall we score service features (treatment, staff, A & E, hospital, information, ambulance
service, care, ward etc)? [PDE 49] 1
6.
What about stemmers?
7.
I have created a Stop Word list from the list in the PDE 56. Shall we go over it and double
check the striked-through items?
2
8.
How shall we do this “So, I will differentiate between prior polarity and contextual
polarity.” [PDE 58]
9.
I should explore if there is any way of doing this with Nvivo’s auto-coding feature: “There
would be a lot of time saved if software on the fly could initially generate a wordlist of the whole
corpus (something we have done and can be done easily) and then apply to that worlist scores
which we haven’t done and are doing manually. One could POS tag words to help with this
process but deciding how to automate the fact that you are going to give excellent a score of + 4
and haphazard a score of -3 is not easy by any means unless we have some kind of ready prepared
enormous dictionary of scores.” [PDE 59]
Tuesday 25 th march 2014
 Creating wordlists and defining the scale: 30 minutes
 Introducing scores in the master document.
Edit: This table was just for reference. It was useful to see visually the possible scores I
could give, but some of the words here have changed scores as I went along.
Score
-5
-4
-3
-1
Negating
words list
never, didn’t
couldn’t
cannot
any
rather
sadly
Type of
word
Other
examples
-2
excruciating
death
diabolical
unacceptabl
e
disgusting
appalling
traumatic
dreadful
appalled
terrified
unbearable
terrible
wrong
concerned
upset
worried
suffering
angry
disgusted
rude
fear
impossible
pain
problem
infection
anxious
uncomforta
ble
shame
shocked
distress
tears
bad
old
complaining
waiting
wait
busy
poor
hard
poorly
unwell
impatient
0
Stop Word
list.
0.6
few
1
Nouns
(neutral)
Verbs
Service
features
(nurse, staff)
new
3
2
Adverbials
very
Everything
totally
highly
certainly
simply
huge
good
enough
clean
quite
right
nice
sure
discharged
quickly
sure
reassured
3
Something
very
positive but
that not
necessarily
expresses
sentiment,
such as
experience
or
professionalis
m
friendly
great
kind
lovely
better
support
respect
reassuring
confident
glad
4
Strong
positive
sentiment
excellent
helpful
caring
wonderful
brilliant
thank
happy
impressed
available
pleasant
absolutely
polite
amazing
corteous
5
Strong
remarkably
positive
sentiment.
fantastic
outstanding
perfect
best
efficient
examplary
love
Decide the score for:
-
Personal and possessive pronouns: me, my, her, their, etc. 0,60
-
Prepositions: but [Sentiment shifter, leave for later, SK (says Keith)], by, for, against,
over, etc. 0,60
-
Comparatives: as, like, etc. Leave for later, SK.
-
Irrealis markers: Includes modals (could, would), conditional markers (if ),
negative polarity items like any and anything, certain (mostly intentional) verbs (expect,
doubt), questions, and words enclosed in quotes (which may be factual, but not
necessarily reflective of the author’s opinion). (Taboada p. 279) Leave for later, SK.
-
Sentiment shitfters [PDE 23] (but, although, etc.) Leave for later, SK.
-
Amplifiers (e.g., very) increase the semantic intensity of a neighboring lexical item
[PDE 30] Quirk et al. (1985) +2
-
Downtoners (e.g., slightly) decrease it [PDE 30] Quirk et al. (1985) -2
-
Interrogative pronouns: who, what, which, etc. 0,60
-
Anything, something, nothing (negating words)... -2
-
Not neutral verbs: waiting, feel 1
-
Verb-noun polysemy: “needs” 1
-
Toponyms: Firmley, London, Manchester... 1
4
Some things to consider:
-
Many of the sentiment words might not be expressing opinion but illness.
-
Neutral words like ‘yellow’ 1 might express negative opinions, and the context would
need to be explored.
Wednesday 26 th march 2014
Tasks and time dedication:
 Asking Keith the questions above and giving 1 scores to entries 6.000-7.000: 30 minutes.
Thursday 27 th march 2014
Tasks and time dedication:
 Decide the score for:
o Everything, everyone, something, someone... score with a +2, as opposed to nothing
and no-one’s -2? No, with a 1
o Few (-1), enough (2) OK
o Conjugated verbs: I’m, You’re, She’s... 0.60, just like personal pronouns? Yes
o Adverbs like finally, eventually, currently, usually... We will think about these later,
says Keith.
o Thankfully +2
o Hopefully +2
o Apparently, possibly, likely, presumably We will think about these later, says Keith.
o Honestly, personally, basically We will think about these later, says Keith.
o Merely -1
5
o Occasionally We will think about these later, says Keith.
o Adverbs like already, yet... 1
o Adverbs like therefore... 1
o Urgent, -2 large, +2 close 1
o Received, positive connotation, so 2? No, a 1
 Some things to consider:
o If we give a 4 3 to terms like ‘impressed’, do the maths work out in a phrase like ‘I
was not impressed’? They do, SK.
o Dignity, duty, compassion, consideration, responsibility, sensitivity, courtesy. Possibly
used in a formally positive sentence to express a negative sentence such as: ‘I hope
she would have the dignity’. ( +2 ) Keith will come up for something to deal with this
inversion negation.
o Absolutely (4). If it is a 4, ‘It was absolutely 2 disgusting -4 ’ = positive score?
o Stop (-2) but ‘Stop the pain’?
o We have not given a score yet to modals (can, would), but we have given a -2 to
negating forms (can’t, wouldn’t). Later, says Keith.
o Regarding stemmers, concerned could get a -3 or -4 but, should concerns get the same
score, or can it be less (-2)? Give the same score for the stemmers.
o Same with professionalism (3) and unprofessional (-4) -3 Give the equivalent score to
opposites.
o I’m giving almost, and nearly and practically and barely and slightly -1 because it
implies something is not quite achieved (-2) but with a positive sentiment. Same for
6
brink. Same for hardly, as it is not quite a negation but has some negative implication.
But gave roughly and approx a 1. OK, SK.
o Mathematically, there are more negative values than positive.
o Mr, Mrs, Miss... +1
o Perhaphs, maybe, probably, supposed (-1)
o Negative, -2 (negating) or -5 (manifest negative sentiment)
o Painkillers -1
o Light 2 If light is a +2, so is bright.
o Acute, critical -2
o Briefly is a downtoner, but if we score -1 it will make a positive value negative.
o Biopsy +1, SK
o Dare -1
o Entire 2
o Utterly, utter – It has a strong negative profile and we are giving it a +2, KS.
However, in some cases utter will be used as a verb, and then the +2 might be too
high a score.
 Thursday 3rd th April 2014
I had thought about giving a term like ‘Thankful’ a +4 because it is both a positive term and
expresses a positive sentiment. However, Keith has suggested giving an adverb like
‘thankfully’ a +2 as an intensifier and we have agreed on giving words with the same stem
the same score, I am giving, after all, a +2 to ‘thankful’. I will revise all adverbs ending in –
7
fully later to make sure I haven’t given a score that is too high, even if it expresses
sentiment, so that the sentence scores are not altered the wrong way.
I had given terms like ‘compassion’ a +2. However, I had given more sentiment-charged
terms with the same stem like ‘compassionate’ a +3. Now, if we are going to give the same
score in words with the same stem, I will give a word like ‘compassionate’ a +2. Also,
following the rule we have agreed on about giving lexical opposite the same score but with
positive/negative value, I would give ‘incompassionate’ a -2.
Even if I give stemmers the same value and the opposite the with equivalent value in
positive/negative, in the case of, for example, professionalism, unprofessional and
profession, I have marked the first two with +3 and -3 but profession with just a 1 because it
is neutral.
I am a big fan of the creativity of the patients that came up with appsalutly and abserlootly.
We have given acute and critical a -3, because they have a negative profile and tend to
appear in negative lexical contexts. Should we give the same score to critical? I am also
wondering what would be the best way to proceed with terms that usually live in a lexical
context that expresses negative sentiment, because if we give the other negative term a
negative value and these intensifiers a negative value too, the result might turn positive. Or
will it?
We have decided to give utter and utterly, which have a strong negative profile, a +2. That
way the value with two negative words (utter and the negative term after it) won’t result
into a positive score. I should therefore identify all the words with a strong negative profile
and give them a positive value. I will write them down here so that I can double-check I
proceeded correctly. I might have to change some terms that I have given a negative score
to already because they conveyed a negative sentiment in themselves, even though they are
very likely followed by another negative term.
8
I wonder if terms like entire and entirety deserve to have the same score or not. I really don’t
know. I am inclined to think that terms that are modifying the following term have a
stronger sentiment charge than those used as a noun, which tend to be more neutral, but I
could be totally wrong.
 Friday 4 th April 2014
When a word is misspelled, I give it the score the the term with the correct spelling would
have. However, the ones that are hard or impossible to identify I have left without score for
now and have marked with a *
Arsed and arse are terms with a negative profile. I have given them a -1. Same with bollocked.
We decided to give medical conditions and processes a +1 because we are not evaluating
the discomfort of the pain the process produces, but the positive or negative charge of the
word in itself. I am therefore giving words like abscess and even ablation a 1, and Keith has
agreed we should do this, even if it means giving the names of diseases a neutral score. He
says, though that we will give a negative value, though, to terms related to death because
the experience the patient was involved in was necessarily traumatic. I have been using this
new guideline. I will check that there are no pathologies labelled as negative among the
terms that I gave a score to before we had this conversation.
A verb like abide can express different sentiment depending on its context. With no object it
is does not convey a negative sentiment. Some examples (not from the corpus) could be: ‘at
least one memory will abide’ or ‘I said I would abide by their decision’. However, in ‘if
there is one thing I cannot abide it is a lack of discipline’ the sentiment of the term abide and
of the sentence as a whole is clearly negative. I have given it a C so that I check its collocates
before deciding on a score. All the terms that I would like to see in context have been given
a C.
9
I would give abject a -2. But if we have given utter a +2 maybe we should think about it. If
we are giving negative terms like utter a positive value, we are trusting that the negativity
of the phrase will appear and get a score in another word. Although, I am just realising, as
utter almost always appears with a negative value it always ends up making the phrase it
appears in 2 times negative.
I think abysmal deserves around a -3, because it conveys a very negative sentiment and
because the word that comes after it can very easily be neutral. However, abysmally is
bound to be followed by a negative adjective. Should abysmally be a -2 as opposed to the +2
that positive intensifiers get? And abyss, should it get the same value or just a 1?
If abort and aborded get a -2 because they can act as negators, what about abortion? It has the
same stem but we agreed we would be giving clinical conditions, diagnoses and processes
a neutral 1, no matter how aggressive (even cancer would get +1 after all, KS). Before we
talked about giving medical conditions and treatments a neutral value I was giving serious
conditions a -3 and more trivial but unfortunate happenings a -2, but not anymore.
However, as we were going to give a negative value to death (-5), I think I am extending this
to abortion and I am giving it a -2, just as the other abort- terms.
Terms like abrasion, abrasive, abrasively. According to what we have said until now they
would deserve a 1. We might want to think about whether we want to revise this.
Accelerate and that whole lexical family can be positive or negative depending on the
context. I will give it a C for now. I will try not to give too many C and to score most terms
on the first round, though.
What about positive-leaning-to-neutral terms like acceptable? Should we leave them as a
neutral +1 or give them a slightly higher score as a +2 because they convey a positive
assessment of something?
10
Accumulation should probably get a 1, but maybe it can also act as an intensifier, as in ‘an
accumulation of disasters’ = many disasters, which would be scored as many +2 and
disasters -2 = -4. Or should it?
I think I should be giving words like ache and pain a -2.
When giving a score to modals and maybe taking care of the negation inversion (in phrases
as ‘I hope she would have the dignity’) we must bear in mind misspelled and contracted terms
in the database such as youd, you’d, wuld or wud. I have mFarked modals with a ‘Mod’ in the
score cell so than we can easily group them together and score them.
I am giving the verb achieve a +1 and therefore achievement a +1 too. Am I right or does
achievement deserve a more positive score?
What about interjections like ack, arghhh, etc.? They are negative for sure. I am giving them
a -1. I believe they tend to work in isolation, i.e., they are a self-contained mini phrase in
themselves and do not rely as much with other words in their context to transfer their
meaning, so I wonder if we should bear that in mind at some point or whether that is
totally irrelevant.
There are many typos in which the article has been typed together with the word with no
space in between. There are many terms starting with a such as acompetent or acomplete. I
have marked them with A- in the cell where the score is mean to be written, so that we can
then easily search and replace this with the right score, if any. It is worth revisiting as
otherwise some negative words like delay might get lost in the process as it has been typed
as adelay.
The misspellings that I haven’t been able to recognise or that are too cryptic for us to try
and venture to guess which word they are, such as Aau, bbng, etc. have been marked with a
* in the score cell. We can then go over them and give them a score doing some wild
guesses (Keith will deffinitely recognise some of the ones that I didn’t) or leave them
11
altogether. I have also marked it with a * terms that are actually two (or more) words which
have been typed or exported together and appear as a single term, such as aboutthe or
accidentscommunicationemergencymental. For some reason there is a ridiculous amount of
these starting with care-.
Some misspellings are easier to recognise such as the ones in which a letter has been
replaced by the one next to it in the keyboard accident instead of accident.
I have written an Adv in the cells of the adverbs mentioned above that Keith said we would
discuss further on.
I have found addensamenti, alcun and calcificazioni, which are Italian. Maybe there is some
random data in other languages? I have marked some other with an ‘It’. There are many of
them, and I also spotted some Latin and French terms. I have marked them all with ‘It’,
‘Lat’ and ‘Fr’. Also, the word adipisicim appears. Why can this be? It is a common word in
the typical graphic design filler text “Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing
elit”. Is there some text is the corpus that is not patient opinion?
A condition like addict or addiction should be negative, right? I had given it a -2 when I was
still scoring affections and minor diagnoses with a -2 and more severe conditions with a -3,
but we can change it if it’s not appropriate.
Additional, would it act as a conjunction +1 or as an intensifier +2?
Once I am done with all the scoring, I will go over the corpus organised by score to double
check whether some of the terms do not quite deserve the score given after getting a better
perspective and more refined guidelines about the whole corpus.
One might have a negative sentiment charge, as in a sentence like ‘There was only one
surgeon’, which is lexically a positively looking sentence but with a negative twist because
12
of the one, implying it one is not enough. The same would happen with only. Are we going
that deep into it?
I have given a +1 to acronyms such as AED (Anhidrotic Ectodermal Dysplasia), etc. There
are many of them.
 Saturday 5 th April 2014
I would give understand a +1, but surely understanding as an adjective deserves a better
score?
Without is not in the negators word list, but I have given it a -2.
As an intensifier I have given extremely a +2, but which should be the score for extreme?
Adverbs are the terms that give more opportunity for reflection as to what they really
express and to how they modify the rest of the phrase.
I have given afresh a +1. Most of the terms I have no doubt as to which score they deserve.
There are some, though, that i’d like to double check, so I am writing those here so that they
don’t get lost in the database.
Agog, does it convey a negative sentiment as in ‘ansioso/impaciente’ or positive as in
‘deseoso/amhelante’?
Agreable and agree have been given a +2, but agreement, does it deserve that high a score?
Some words marked with a C must be checked because they can be making reference to
totally unrelated things. The term AIMS can either be a verb or an affectionate way of
calling someone named Amy. They are all written in capital letters, so we cannot use that as
a criteria to differentiate anthroponyms from common names.
13
If we are giving light a +2, we should probably do the same with airiness, and the opposite
with airless -2. For airs I should maybe check the context, as it looks positive but the phrase
‘airs of superiority’ comes to mind.
The term akimbo might be neutral, but in body language the arms akimbo posture might be
conveying some meaning. I imagine we are definitely not going in there as it is too farfetched, but it made me think for a second that words that make reference to gestures
helped to convey a positive or negative sentiment.
Alarmingly, alarming and alarmed all get a -1 but alarms just a +1.
Alas should probably get the same score as unfortunately (-2), although it can also be
considered a sentiment shifter (or could it?), but we still haven’t decided the score for those.
I have given always, a +2 as an intensifier of whatever comes next.
I have marked the Sentiment Shifters with an SS. I have marked with a SS ~ (sort of
sentiment shifter) the terms that could possibly appear in sentiment shifting expressions,
such as spite from the construction ‘in spite of’.
Thousands, thousandth, hundreds, hundredth, etc. might be worth exploring in context too, as
they could be an intensifier used figuratively and not a literal allusion to a determined
number.
I am amazed at the different number of spellings for ambulance, doctor and Ibuprofen!
Ill can be both the health condition and a misspelling of I’ll. This might happen with other
words too. How can we overcome this?
Microscopic, could it be a hyperbole of small or is it literal? Check collocates.
 Monday 7 th April 2014
14
Alcoholic can be a +1, but what about the slang term alkie? As it is derogatory, does it
deserve a more negative score. -1?
Alternative and alteration +1 but alterated can either be neutral or negative. I am giving them
a +1 but I’d like to check it in context.
Ambivalent. +1
Amble is defined as “Walk or move at a slow, relaxed pace”. It is a positive word in as much
as it expresses a pleasant activity. However, could these positivity-conveying words be
used to express a negative sentiment? I think they can, and I can imagine someone saying
the nurses ‘we ambling along the corridors’. Ironic statements like this one might escape
the maths.
Then, words like ambush (-2) and artillery (1) and bastion (-1) should be neutral as they do
not express positive or negative sentiment, even though an ambush implies a context in
conflict and is not pleasant. However, neither are all the diseases and treatments that we
are giving a +1 to in the end, no matter how unpleasant they are. The difference is that
ambush can be used figuratively, and the diagnoses and medical processes are used to make
reference to their literal meaning.
Words like amplification, which imply ‘more of’ something… do they deserve to be in the +2
category with real intensifiers? While a ‘many’ does deserve a +2 because it multiplies the
semantic charge of what comes next, talking about amplification or amplified might not be
related to an intense sentiment of anything, so I wondered.
Amputate might be used figuratively, so I should check it in context too.
Antics (and maybe the misspelling antiques) can have a negative connotation. Check
context.
15
What about words like ants that might be describing an insalubrious recovery
environment?
I love the word lacklustre.
To lecture is often used ironically. Check context.
I have given like a +2, but it must have been used in a comparative construction for sure.
Reservation can be negative.
Cinderella, circus, tumbleweed... when patients use language creatively it is harder to make
their sentiment fit into a score, as the product of the maths is more than the multiplications
of the individual scores.
Anecdotal is the opposite of an intensifier (i.e. it does not always happen), but it cannot be
given a negative value. Maybe if we were adding and subtracting we could, but not when
we are multiplying. I am giving it a +1.
Sentences like There wasn’t anybody and There was somebody might make me think, as they
negate and affirm but through a double negative (which results in a positive when
multiplying) and a double positive (which remains positive) but that does not confer any
emphasis to its positivity. Another example: She wasn’t going anywhere.
Apology. Is it good or bad? I would give it a +2. If someone has been offered an apology is a
good thing for them, but we run the risk of having a sentence like “I demand an apology”,
which is very negative and yet it would get a positive, after doing the maths.
There’s also Russian words like APPARATCHIK. And many many foreign surnames.
Approachable could be a +2 (or +3), but surely approach should be just a 1?
Appropriate +2.
16
Aplomb. Positive o negative self-confidence?
Arbitrary or arbitrarily must have been used in negative sentiment sentences too.
Archaic must be derogatory. Giving it a -2.
Atmosphere is apparently neutral but it could be negative too. ‘There was a bit of an
atmosphere’ would be positively constructed but would express a negative sentiment. Something
similar could happen with attitude, I think.
Argue, arguing, argument -3 (although argument can be neutral too) but arguably +2 and I
believe argumentation and argumentative don’t deserve a negative score just to keep the coherence
with the stem, although I might be wrong.
And what about the neutral words that are used in positive or negative idioms? Ark
appears, so it might be in a phrase like “be out of (or have gone out with) the ark” = old-fashioned.
We lose the ssentiment they convey by analyzing the meaning of each word in isolation.
Ashtray might appear as a misspelling of astray?
If we agreed urgent is a -2, I am giving emergency the same score.
Well might be a misspelled we’ll. And same with hell and he’ll. Tricky stuff.
Why are elephants mentioned? Check context out of curiosity if I have the time.
Gem can also be a neutral woman’s name or a positive term.
 Tuesday 8 th April 2014
Attentive and attentively +2 but attention just a +1.
Atypical -2, although it could be making reference to a pathology (+1)
Audacity, apparently positive but also makes reference to “rude or disrespectful behaviour;
impudence”. Giving it a -3 but could checking collocates.
17
Auspices.
Another family that has different connotations within the same stem is author +1, authority
and authoritative -2 and authoritarian -2.
Austistic is a condition that might be used figuratively. Check it out.
Ass, assed, bothered, bovered, bebovard (-2).
Assertive, assertion +1. It is positive but does not convey a positive sentiment. It just states.
Astound, astounding, does it have a negative/positive connotation? Giving astounding and
astoundingly a +2.
What about astute?
Astronomical and astronomically +2 (as in hugely)
Assumptions has a slight negative connotation. I have given it a 1, but should it be -1?
Autopsy, +1 or negative?
I have given birth just a +1.
Badger, both neutral and negative. I have given it a -3. I will check collocates nonetheless.
Experience should be +1, but experienced can be both past participle (+1) or adjective (+3) to
talk about the medical staff in a positive way.
Balls, neutral or to express negative sentiment.
Punctuality. Even though it makes reference to a thing positively appreciated, the term is
totally neutral, so I have given it a +1.
 Wednesday 9 th April 2014
Bandit, negative or neutral (one-armed bandit or ‘tragaperras’). Check.
18
Bangers can be a sausage, an old car or a loud firework. I’ve given bang a -1, so bangers -1
too, but not happy about having to give a unique score to polysemyc words. I might check
collocates.
Banter. Would this be positive ‘cachondeo’ or negative ‘cotorreo’? I’m giving it a +1 for now.
And chaffing? And charade? (characdes appears too , although that must be the gesture game, +1).
Bearable conveys positivity (+2), yet bear can be neutral or negative (-2), as is unbearable. (-2)
Bare can be neutral, as in unclothed, but it can also be negative (‘a bare mattress’). Giving it a
+1 for now. How can we deal with this polysemy?
Bark, check context as it might be “Utter (a command or question) abruptly or
aggressively”. Check bleat too. And bray. And caw. And yap. And coo. And yelp. And yowl. And
bleat. And howl. They are all in the corpus.
Barring as in “salvo” or “excepto” can be a sentiment shifter, right?
Bat and bats, the animal or synonym of crazy? Check context.
Battlefield and Battleground, toponyms or common nouns used to describe a hostile
environment? Check context.
Beat is polysemyc and might mean both very positive and very negative things Check
collocates. Giving it and its semantic family a +1 for now.
Bebovard. Could that possibly be ‘be bothered’? Check context and find out. -2
Beeches, could it be a self-censored version of bitches?
Sick. Even if we give a +1 to clinical conditions and procedures, this can express a negative
sentiment in a figurative way. Giving it a -2 because of sickening, sickly, etc. but will have a look at
it again.
19
What about special (2) specialist (1), specialisation (1)? They convey different hues of
sentiment. What about speciality (1) and specialisms (1)?
Befall has a negative connotation. I have given it a -1, but what happens if there is a sentence
like “a tragedy befell my daughter”? It would become positive, because of tragedy’s negative score.
This is tricky territory.
There can be negative words like belate or belated which, although negative, should not be
affective the score of the whole sentence regarding sentiment. A sentence might include the phrase
“belated birthday” and that should not be affecting the meaning that the patient intends to convey
with the whole sentence.
I have mentioned it before, but I have given apology a good positive score because it is going
to be linked to a positive outcome of an incident. Also, if the phrase was something like “a belated
apology” there would be a double negative, yet the feeling it expresses is not negative.
Mathematically two negatives makes one positive, but semantically and syntactically they don’t,
although as we agreed I won’t go into thinking about the maths too much.
 Thursday 9 th April 2014
I am wondering. Words like beloved in a phrase like ‘beloved husband’ - could they affect
the score of the whole sentence and make it positive? Patients could be saying things like “they
treated my beloved missus atrociously”. The atrociously would immediately give the phrase a
negative sign, so I guess beloved wouldn’t affect it. Just making sure here I understand the
dynamics. So it might be affecting the phrase but not giving it a positive or a negative charge, but
rather contributing with the high score beloved is going to have as it conveys an intense positive
sentiment. We were giving the whole love stem family a +4, so I’m giving it also to beloved.
Biased had an original negative profile (as in ‘prejudiced’ or ‘tendencioso’). Giving it a -2,
but must remember it is also used with a tongue-in-cheek twist to manifest someone is favourable
to something. “I loved this hospital but I am biased”.
20
Biddie, is it slang term meaning “A woman, especially a garrulous old one. [Nickname for
Bridget.] biddy (ˈbɪdɪ). n, pl -dies. 1. a woman, esp an old gossipy or interfering one. [C18]”?
Biggie shouldn’t be on the big family (+2), or should it? I’m thinking of ‘No biggie’ as ‘no
problem’.
Bile, interesting one as it can also be a condition or, figuratively, a negative mood. Giving it
a +1 but definitely checking.
Billion and billions is probably used as a hyperbolic intensifier. I might give it a +2.
Birch, the tree or ‘beating into submission’. +1
Bish, a mistake or blunder or short for bishop?
Bizzarely and bizzare. It is slightly negative. -1?
Many many words cannot get a score as it is hard to determine what was originally meant.
For example, cansten could even be a misspelling of constant written by someone who ventures to
imagine how to spell a word they’ve never had to type before. Others like can’y can be identified
(can’t), especially when one of the incorrect letters appears next to the correct one in the QWERTY
keyboard. Same with two correct letters typed in the wrong order. This happens often when a
letter that is typed with the left hand comes first and the letter that is to be written with the right
hand comes next. Typers often inverse the order in the franticness of typing, but these types can
easily be deciphered, so I have given a score to those.
Charge and its family -2, but giving charger a +1. What about chargers, though? -1
Blast, both very negative or very positive (as in ‘having a blast’). Although blasted is
probably negative. Check context. +1
Similar with blazing.
Blew, literal or figurative, meaning sucked?
21
Shock slang like blimey or cor or golly or gosh. I guess they could get a +2 because they are
intensifiers.
And boo -2, but I’ll double-check as it can easily be a typo of he same word ending with a
consonant.
Blister, neutral ‘ampolla’ or negative ‘harsh, angry, virulento’. Check.
Blithely, ‘despreocupadamente’, but in a good or bad way? Adverbs in isolation are still the
main challenge of the database. They need semantical support to make sense most of the time.
Bloody and bloodiest. Also a neutral medical term or a negative curse word? -2
Blooming, apparently positive but used to express annoyance (‘of all the blooming cheek!’). 2
Blot and blow also neutral or negative. +1
I have given cry, blub. etc. a -4 because crying is the manifestation of a very negative
sentiment (even though the sentiment, I’m realising, might be caused by the medical condition
and symptoms, not by the experience as a patient).
Bold and blunt and brash, I have given them a +2 but I must be careful because they can also
be related to being ‘too audacious and imprudent’. Will double check context.
Bolt, rush, dash, boom, plonk... all these terms that make reference to vigorous actions can be
double-bladed too. +1 for now. Same thing happens with brisk, ‘rápido y energetico’ or ‘abrupto’.
If we decide to change some of these we must make sure we do a search and change all the
stemmers too.
Similar with bombshell.
Bombastic I take it as negative. As ‘rimbombante’. -1
22
Bonkers, ‘crazy’ but usually used affectively in a familiar way so it is not negative, right?
Bore, also neutral-negative polysemy. Giving it a -2 just like boring, but checking.
Bossy, bossed, giving it a -2, although boss probably does not deserve that score.
Bounce +1 but bouncy +2.
Bout -3 just like fights, but we must be careful because it will alter the maths and there’s a
possibility this might be a typo.
Boyd and boyed (Urban dictionary: ‘if something bad or crap happens to someone you say
'boyed'. to boy people off is to, annoy, take the piss out of, trick or prank’ is that right?). -2
Brains just 1, but brainless -2.
Breakout, ‘escape’ or ‘success’. Neutral for now, then check.
Breastfriends?
It could be useful if words like brief and briefest could subtract meaning, just as we can
express the intensification of meaning with a +2. At the moment the only think we can do to
express an inferior intensity is to score terms with a -1, but what this does is not to rest sentiment,
but to introduce a negative score into the equation.
So, even though a verb like broaden means ‘give more breadth’, I have not given it a +2 as it
does not imply more of a sentiment.
Bubble, bubbling must be neutral +1 but bubbly, besides the sparking drink, could be used to
describe a very lively person. What to give it?
Buck, bucks. Polysemy. Check context.
Bud, it can be friends but I’m giving it a +1 as it has many other different neutral meanings
and no negative meaning that I can recall.
23
Bug, giving it a negative score because it can be an insect or a verb meaning ‘to annoy’.
Bugged. Bugging.
Bugger, like shit, I’m giving it a -4 (polar opposite of love, +4).
Bunch/bunched... can be an intensifier +2 or negative (amontonado). Giving it a +1.
All the references to butcher and butchery might be figurative to talk about medical
interventions. Giving them a +1 but checking.
Bygone, giving it a -1 in the sense of ‘obsoleto’.
Buzzing, could be the annoying sound of very cheerful and agitated. Giving it a +1.
Buzzard, is it used in a derogatory way with people, as Spanish ‘buitre’? Check. Same with
cattle.
Expressions like hurly-burly get easily lost in the database, as they are typed separately and
appear separately. Then, when checking for burly on its own we find ‘fornido, corpulento’ which
is neutral-to-positive, but if we don’t check collocates we won’t see whether it deserves the
negative score of hurly-burly, which it probably does. Giving it a +1 and checking collocates when I
go over these notes next.
Very amused by the toponym Burrator.
Burst, bursts and bursting is one of the intensifiers that can be used both positively and
negatively. However, just as with the verbs expressing a vigorous action, I think they are slightly
negative as the patient has been using figurative language to exaggerate what happened. I am
giving it a -2, even though they might be part of the phrase ‘bursting with excitement’. Just to be
safe I’ll check collocates.
I have been giving business a 1, but busy, busier, busily cannot be neutral. Giving them a -1,
although it is hard to do that without giving the same score to business.
24
Bust and spleen, polysemy as it can be an anatomical term or a negative sentiment term. I’m
giving busted a -2, so I’m extending the score to this stemmers. (I hope I am using ‘stemmers’ the
right way)
Callous is also medical/negative. -3 But calluses +1.
Cancel and cancellation, -2, as a negator.
Cackling -2 as in ‘to laugh in a shrill or chatter noisily’.
We had given caring a +4 so I am giving care the same score. I will check a few times to
make sure all the lexical family has got this score and none has escaped me. And carelessness,
carelessly, etc. a -4
Cark, Australian slang for die. Check context and see whether that’s the case.
Both carte and blanche appear. See if we want to make something up of carte blanche of if it’s
totally neutral. Same with laisez and faire.
Categorically emphasizes meaning. How to score these adverbs? +2? Something can be
‘categorically wrong’ too.
Cautious deserves a +2 but caution could be both ‘prudencia’ or ‘peligro’. How to score it?
I’m giving it the same score as its stemmers, but will think about it.
I am giving cease and ceased a -2, just like stop, as a negator, but ceaseless and ceaselessly a +2
(continuo, ininterrumpido, i.e. an intensifier)
To cemetery, funeral and coffin I’m giving a neutral +1. But giving corpse a -5 just like death, as
we said.
Cerned. Check context.
Cheesed. Can it be part of ‘cheesed off’ (estar harto)? Check.
25
Churningly. +2
Cinic, cinical, cinics, does it make reference to cynism or to clinics? Context. Leaving with a
+1 but definitely checking as it can alter the phrase product significantly.
Civilians and civilisation +1, but civilised and civility +2, just like dignity, etc.
Loving the term civvies.
Funny and finnier; just as with cheerful and chipper, I am giving them a +3. The problem with
this, though, is that funny can be used with two different intentionalities (funny ‘haha’ or funny
‘peculiar’).
Claustrophobic. Probably used to describe the facilities, so I am not giving it the neutral +1 of
medical conditions but a negative score as it expresses a negative assessment of the patient, but I’ll
check context nonetheless.
I am giving clean, cleanest, and the whole family a +2, although cleaners and cleanser do not
deserve that positive a score. What shall we do with these? Or is it okay and it still makes sense
despite all these examples? Cleanish probably deserves just a +1 too.
Clique and cliques – negative connotation?
Clonking, slang for mansturbating? Check context.
Clown, literal or figurative?
Despite all the typos, someone could spell coccyx!
Accomodation +1 but accommodating +2.
C’mon, geez, etc. used for emphasis. We could give them a +1, but they usually go hand in
hand with a comfrontation, not with the expression of a positive sentiment.
26
I might have written about this before, but what about absolutely neutral words like cobweb
and cobwebbed and cockroach and spiders and insects and fleas which are bound to be part of a
patient manifesting a very negative sentiment towards the facilities’ insalubrious conditions?
Cock. Cocked.
Cohort, positive or negative?
Comic and comical, good or bad?
I have given the stem commit and all the lexical family a +1 because it can be ‘perpetrar,
comprometerse, ingresar, remitir’.
I have even learnt how to say ‘tapa del inodoro’.
They very essential term patient comes to represent the difficulties that arise when trying to
give a score to some words. It is both a term used in positive evaluations (‘the staff was patient’)
and also a neutral term i.e. the person receiving medical treatment. I am giving it a +1 but will
think about this more. When turned into an adverb, as in patiently, the sentiment becomes clear.
Maybe thinking a bit more about this can help us decide what to do with some of the adverbs. I
am giving patiently a +2.
Pissed, both ‘drunk’ and ‘angry’. -2?
The word command might be misspelled commend, and there is no way to distinguish this
but through doing close reading of the texts.
Competitive – good or bad? +1
Complex -1 but complexion +1.
Compliant +2 and complaint -4, and in some instances one might have been written in place
of the other, so maybe this should be noted as could affects the maths significantly.
27
Compromise and compromised are getting a +2 (‘llegar a un acuerdo mutuo’), but
compromising (‘potentially humiliating’) should get around a -1.
I am realising that the problem with giving the same score to all the words derived from
the same stem is that although all stemmers are obviously derived from that original stem, they
have evolved in different and sometimes opposite ways. That is the reason why it is so hard to
come to terms with giving the same score to compulsory and compulsion or compulsively.
Concerned can also be neutral (‘as far as I’m concerned’ or ‘it concerned all of us’) or
negative (‘worried’). Giving it a -2.
Conceientious can be either contentious (-) or conscientious (+2). I’ll check context and see or
maybe think about what to do with these ambiguous terms.
Confidence and confidant. I would give them +2 and +1.
Zap, zapped. Used as in ‘atacar’ or ‘golpear’? Check.
Zilch, negator -2?
Yahoo, the internet platform or a expression of enthusiasm?
Snowball, literal noun or figurative verb?
 Saturday 12 th April 2014
Condone?
Coned, can it be conned (timado, estafado)? Check context. If so, -4, like conman, conning, etc.
Have some swear words been censored? I wonder. I just thought there would be more.
Different is a hard one. It implies there is something that is not quite like something else. If
the first something has been stated in the sentence, how can we indicate in the score that this is the
opposite? Would it be giving it a negative score? Giving it a lower score? The term does not confer
28
a negative sentiment in itself, it’s totally context-dependent. I think I am giving it a +1, but I’d like
to know Keith’s opinion. Same with distinct-.
Dig, is it used as a slang term for love? If so, +3 or +4. And dug. It is mentioned below too.
Icing appears, and I imagine it is probably part of another negative sentiment phrase that
gets lost in the corpus (‘the icing on the cake’).
ID could be modal (I’d) or neutral.
Despite giving pathologies and medical procedures a +1, I am giving illness and disease a 2.
Compentence, competent, I have given them a +2. But incompetent a -3. There is something
about negating prefixes that makes them convey a stronger sentiment than their positive
counterparts. Still, I will try to stick to what we agreed – giving the equivalent in the opposite side
of the sentiment axis, but I will bear this observation in mind.
Spark and its stemmers. I’m giving them +2.
To construction, constructed, etc. I’m giving a +1, but to constructive and constructively a +2.
Consurned = concerned?
Contortionist and contorted, in the context of a medical facility, deserves a negative score,
even if it’s neutral. Giving it a -1.
Dunno and duno = don’t know -2
Convulsing can also be an assessment of something or a description of symptoms. Giving it
a -1.
Cool can also express sentiment or be neutral (temperature). I’m giving it a +2, but doublechecking.
29
Check cooped and see if it makes reference to ‘gallinero’, ‘enjaulado’. Same with kennel.
(kennel, kennelling, kennels).
Coquet, flirty woman, is it derogatory? +1
Corber, chav slang for ‘mate’. Giving it a +1.
Corner +1, but cornered -1. However, in context the first more neutral word that we give a
lower score to can get to mean exactly the same as the second word, although, again, it is hard to
deal with this through corpus work. Or is it?
Contrary, counterpart... I am giving them a -1.
Countless, morphologically negative, but intensifier. +2
Couratous, is it corteous or courageous? +1
Because, coz, cause, cos... +1
More animal dilemmas. Covey, negative sentiment? And cow must be figurative. -2. And
probably leech too. And tadpole. However, if they say ‘stupid cow’ and we give cow a -2 the result
is going to come out positive. Still, I wonder if I should be taking these things into account. It
might be a better procedure to give the terms the score they deserve and then find the formulae
that can accommodate to these semantic structures.
Cracking, literal verb or informal adjective for ‘amazing’? +1
Nuts, same as crackpot and cuckoo and crazy (-3) although it might not be figurative. In these
cases when it can polysemyc, is it safer to give it a neutral value? But is it coherent to do that?
Cranky -3, but cranks?
Crannies, probably part of ‘nooks and crannies’? Still, +1, but check.
Crap, -4
30
Incredible is a tricky one, as it is both an intensifier and, at a first glance, the opposite of
credible, although as I type I am realising incredible is not the opposite of credible in the most
common use of the term. I had given incredible a +2, but now that I have rated credible (+2) and
have searched the opposite in the database to give it a -2 I have realised it had a +2, and that such a
score makes sense too. How could we sort this out?
Crikes, is this slang? Can’t find a suitable meaning. Is it the next stage of evolution of crikey?
If so, giving it a +2, as to blimey.
Crog, slang for ‘assault sexually’? Check context.
Cross, neutral or a negative mood. Same with crossly. Giving crossly a -2. What to do with
cross when it is probably used with both meanings? Giving it a +1 for now.
Crusade, neutral as it can be both for and against, can’t it?
The whole database is bombed with typos, and phonetic misspellings (i.e. the writer comes
up with a spelling for an unknown word that s/he knows and uses in oral language but can’t
write), so I am imagine something like cry’s could well be cries, that curtecy and curtios stands for
courtesy and courteous, etc.
Cupper, slang for user. Is it used in that sense? Check.
Cushdy, is it slang for ‘something which exceeds satisfactory, that is great, sound, or ideal’?
Damn, damned, etc. -2. Same for dang. And shit.
Dealth?
Debri, will it be derbi or debris? Check.
Deliver, very factual (even used for ‘deliver a baby’) but deliverence [sic] +3.
Demonstration +1, but what about its use as ‘manifestación’?
31
Disgust exclamations such as yeugh, yuck, eurgh, argh, urgh, grrr, yikes... -2.
Is wah one of these?
Delight exclamations such as yippee, aww, wow, whee, weehoo, hurrah, hurray +2
Yoed = ‘said ‘yo!’’?
Wacky is crazy but in a funny way, isn’t it? +1
Waffle, neutral or negative. Waffling, waffled, -1.
WTF, WTH -3
While can also be a sentiment shifter, right?
Xxxxxx, give them a score? Some people use them automatically after their signature. I’d
give them a +1, although some are very enthusiastic in their use:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Waithed and waithing. Are they waited and waiting?
Walkaways , ‘pan comido’ (+) or ‘desertor’ (-) ? +1
Wallow, ‘regodearse en algo malo’ (-) o ‘indulge in something that one finds pleasurable’
(+)? 1
Wastebin +1 but wastage, wasteful -1
Religion +1 but religiously +2, as in always.
Priority, prioritization... +1. What about a sentence like ‘they should know their priorities’? It
looks positive yet it is not.
Number +1 but numerous +2 (like many).
 Sunday 13 th April 2014
32
Kerching, ‘onomatopoeia for the sound of a cash register or a fruit machine paying out’?
The verb kick does not convey a positive or negative sentiment so it could be taken as
neutral. However, if we give it a neutral score, don’t we run the risk of getting a positive sentence
score in (made up and extreme) opinions like ‘the nurse kicked me’?
I have given kill and its stemmers a -4, but it must have been used figuratively too (‘the
toothache was killing me’) and, also, with killer, we run the risk of giving it the wrong score as, for
example, ‘a killer night’ means ‘a fantastic night’. What to do?
Accept, accepted are a +1, but unacceptable -2. Same with unavailable.
Monosyllabic is also probably negative in context. Giving it a -1. (Although the person
delivering monosyllabic utterances might be a patient and not a member of staff.)
Elsewhere +1, but although it should probably have the same meaning a anywhere else it does
not have it, as we said we’d give anywhere a -2, and else gets a +1. We should look into these.
Favourite +3 although favouritism must be negative.
Fight (–) although fighter in this context must be positive. +1
Wonderful +4, but wonder can be positive or neutral and wondering negative or neutral. +1
Perception +1 but perceptive and perceptiveness +2.
Perpetrator has a negative profile, I believe. I am giving it a -1 but it is likely that another
negative word will follow. It reminds me in some way of the utter case. We should check.
So, just to make it clear in my mind, we are giving negative scores to words that convey
semantically a negative sentiment or that have the potential to convey a negative sentiment in
context. Also to words that imply a negation, because they are part of constructions where the
negation is conveyed through a negation word and another term. However, the term that comes
33
after the negating word can be positive, negative or neutral, and this will affect the maths when
multiplying.
Sandpaper +1 but sandpapery -1. However, what about phrases like ‘the sheets feel like
sandpaper’? The comparison terms (as, like), can be just as important as the negating ones.
However, still some will escape us, because what about a sentence like ‘The nurses were like
snails’, meaning that they were slow. A priori we wouldn’t give a word like snail a negative score,
unless we bore in mind it can be used figuratively. In words like bark applied to persons it can be
easier to identify, but not as much in others that can be used in a comparison, as we are one step
further away from the intended meaning (nurses – slow – snails)
Smells, smelled, smelling, +1 but smelly -2.
Snore is neutral, but it can be the main complain in a negative sentiment opinion, so should
we really give it a neutral score, or evaluate it in the context of patient opinions and give it a -1,
even though snoring is not related to either negative or positive sentiments?
Whip, figurative ‘machacar’. So whipped should get the same, but check they are not
talking about something as neutral as whipped cream.
I think sometimes the negative sentiment is expressed subtly through the aforementioned
verbs that imply a vigorous action (too vigorous, and therefore abrupt), like whack, whizz, etc.
Interjections expressing mistake or accident such as whoops -1
Wicked, wickedly, etc -2, although something wicked is something ‘cool’. Slang is another
challenge.
Wile -2 as in deceitful trick, but it can also easliy be a misspelling of while. Misspellings are
tricky too because we might be giving a negative score to a word that was intended to be neutral
(while).
Population, populate +1 but popular +2.
34
Medieval is probably negative. -1
Melt +1 but meltdown -4.
Mildew, mildewed -1.
I am giving slang like wuss the same score as the non-slang equivalent coward. -3
Lingo and jargonistic, though, -1
Slug +1, but check if it is used in ‘bust a slug’ (pegarse un tiro).
Pretty can be positive or a neutral intensifier (‘that was pretty awful’). +2 is perfect for both
uses.
Earwigging, ‘a scolding or harangue’? -3
Narrow is neutral, but I am giving it a -1. Whether if it is talking about facilities or about
someone (narrow minded), it is not a positive quality in this context.
 Monday 14 th April 2014
Wofting, does it really stand for ‘waste of fucking time’ in here? Check.
Wolf 1 but wolfed, -1 as in ‘he wolfed down his breakfast’. How can we overcome the
difficulty of knowing whether a word is acting as a noun or as a verb in context? Just by checking
the context, I guess. Or is it the misspelling of wafting?
Another thing to bear in mind is that references to popular culture get lost in the database
too. The term worzel appears, which might make reference to the fictional character Worzel
Gummidge. Same with vlad and impaler.
Petal, affectionate, so giving it a +2, like sweetie.
Shappy, used as ‘to be happy, joyous, overly- amazing in every way possible’?
35
Vicker and vickers, is it one of these meanings or nothing to do with this? ‘1) A person who
takes at least 6 months to get anywhere with a girl, or 6 months 'spade work'", mainly carried out
on facebook. 2) Some one who stalks any girl who talks to him or is in the same room. 3) Acts very
camp, some people assume he is gay, they could be right. Ex: 'You are doing such a Vickers with
this girl' 2) "Don't be such a Vickers!"
Jaundice, is it ‘medical: yellowing of skin’ or ‘figurative: prejudice, distort). In any case it’d
be negative. Giving it and its family a -1.
Words like laborious. Positive or negative? Positive, I believe.
Lie can be both ‘mentir’ and ‘estar tumbado’, and they should be getting different scores.
Medicine is a specific field in which the term positive can imply negative stuff.
Possess +1, but possessive -1.
Laugh +1, but laughable, laughably and laughingly, -1.
Leniant, lenient, leniency. ‘Indulgente’. Positive or negative?
Bent, neutral or ‘corrupto’? +1
Bespite, sentiment shifter as it is blend of "because of" and "in spite of"
Bext, neutral or ‘Term used to describe an absolute gimp’?
Biggie, good or bad (as in ‘no biggie’)?
Binch, ‘ What you call someone when you don't want to say the B-word. ‘You are such a
binch!’? Check in context.
Bired. A combination of bored and tired?
Vulgar language like hump. I imagine it deserves around a -1?
36
Flannel, ‘solapa’, ‘franela’, or ‘talk emptily’? Check. Giving it a +1.
Jel, does it stand for jealous?
Minimal, minimum, rather than turning it negative with a -, I am leaving it with just a +1.
Regular, regularly are neutral, but irregular, -2.
Relented, relentless, relentlessly, positive or negative?
Relly = relative?
Loggerheads, at loggerheads? -3
Instructions +1, but instructional and instructive +2.
Intimacy, intimately +1 but intimidate, intimidation -2.
Konked, slang for ‘hitting somebody in the head’? ‘Having anal sex’? Check context.
Prezzing, related to presents or to pressure?
Prince and princess, I will give it a neutral score as it is neither positive nor negative,
although it is probably used in a comparison for positive emphasis.
Quiz +1 but quizzical -3
There are many law terms, like inquest or defraud, which makes one think they appear in
negative reviews about legal action taken against the health centres. We should talk about
whether they should get really negative scores or not at all.
Agog, impaciente, but is it positive or negative?
I’ve given concerned a -2, but can’t it express a positive sentiment at times?
Delirious, medical condition or ‘loco de alegría’. +1
37
Demigods, praising or deprecating?
Half is also difficult to quantify. +1 If we were dividing it would be a /2, and if we were
adding we could subtract, but as we are multiplying it is harder.
Halping, is it ‘ non-helpful helping. Derived from a childlike mispronounciation of
"helping", halping can be committed by people of all ages, and refers originally to the cheerful
non-help provided by children attempting ordinary chores or tasks for the first time.’?
Thick, neutral and negative. Giving it +1.
Rock, rocking... it is used emphatically, so it deserves more than a 1, probably.
Russian roulette is in there too but gets lost in the corpus too.
Rudy = ‘fucking’, right?
 Tuesday 15 th April 2014
Dig, digging, digs slang for love. But with these it is hard to give it a high score, as in some
cases it might not deserve it. Giving it a +1 and talking to Keith about it.
I can’t believe the meaning of disabuse, and how the dis- prefix acts. It’s counter-intuitive.
Disciplines +1 but disciplined +2.
Content, neutral or positive. +1 But discontent -2.
Dishy, ‘sexually attractive’?
Divvy, ‘tonatina’ or ‘repartir’? +1
Dogged, ‘terco’ or ‘perseverante’? +1
Dope, ‘marihuana’, ‘drogar’, ‘imbécil’. -1 at least. As a verb (dopes, dopped) +1, but to simply
dope I’d give a -1 in case it is imbecile, although it is going to be safer to check.
38
Dote, ‘mimar’ o ‘chochear’. +1
Downed +1 (‘downed a whiskey’) but downer (‘bajona’), -2.
Dozens, +2 as an hyperbolic intensifier.
Druppy, ‘A state of mind often exhibited by office workers in the early afternoon of Friday.
Step before intoxication or sloppy. A perfect sublime balance between happy and drunk.’?
I have given duper a +1 as super appears in the database too and I gave it a +2.
Eading, ‘To eat a book. Eat + reading’? I doubt it.
Ebough. ‘A north London term for a cannabis brownie’?
Fucking , effin -3
What about constructions with either and neither?
Elite, positive or negative? But elitist, elitism -1
Emasculate, ‘castrar’ or ‘humillar’? -2
Exceptionable, ‘reprochable ‘-3
Exerland = Excellent?
Exhausting -2, but exhaustive +2.
Eyeopener, both good and bad too. +1
Favour +1, favouritism -1, favourite +3
Felf, ‘A felf is a part fox part elf combination’? What? +1
Ferocity, good or bad? In the content of aggressive treatments it can be good. It could be
read as a synonym of braveness.
39
Fetching, ‘ir a buscar’ o atractivo? +1
Fib and fibbed, ‘contar mentiras piadosas’, therefore positive?
Flip, flipped, neutral or negative ‘volverse como loco’. -3
Forfil and forfill, fullfill. +2
Freaking can easily be fucking. -2 in any case.
Funky, positive and negative (‘The room smelled funky’). +1
Gawkrodger, ‘A Gawkrodger (or Gawk) is someone who is considered an idiot or a twastard’?
-3
Gip = gyp, ‘pain or discomfort’? +1
Glare, ‘fulminar con la mirada’ or ‘resplandecer’? +1
Gobbldygook, lies or random garbage about something? -2
Multilettering makes it difficult to unify scores between different spellings of the same
wordsHawk and hawker must be used with another meaning other than the literal one.
The problem with the score +2 is that it is given to intensifiers and also to very positive
items. If we say ‘heavy bleeding’ heavy would be an intensifier, +2, but it is not positive. I am just
wondering if we are giving some phrases a higher score than they deserve as a result of giving
intensifying words a +2, but I can’t see another way around it.
Hibbie?
Higgledy-piggledy appears written separately. As it means ‘utter chaos’, I have given higgledy
-4, the same score as chaos, and the second part, piggledy, just a +1
40
Hmmmmmmph?
Jeese and jeeze probably stand for ‘Jesus!’ and therefore -2?
Lese +1, probably appears with (lese-)majesty.
Word cloud of the POC terms made using qualitative software Nvivo.
41