---
title: "AWATIF — paper by Abdul-Mageed and Diab (2012)"
description: "Morphologically rich languages such as Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) have had little labeled data… 28 references, cited by 33 papers here."
authors: ["Muhammad Abdul-Mageed", "Mona Diab"]
year: 2012
venue: "Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12)"
source: "https://aclanthology.org/L12-1630/"
licence: "CC BY-NC 4.0 (ELRA, LREC proceedings)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mageed-2012-awatif-multi-genre-corpus-modern/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mageed-2012-awatif-multi-genre-corpus-modern/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2012](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2012/) / AWATIF: A Multi-Genre Corpus for Modern Standard Arabic Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis

# AWATIF: A Multi-Genre Corpus for Modern Standard Arabic Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis

**Authors:** [Muhammad Abdul-Mageed](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/muhammad-abdul-mageed/) and [Mona Diab](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/mona-diab/) · **Year:** 2012 · **Venue:** [Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12)](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/lrec/) ([LREC 2012](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/lrec/2012/)) · **Publisher:** [European Language Resources Association (ELRA)](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/european-language-resources-association-elra/) · **Licence:** [CC BY-NC 4.0 (ELRA, LREC proceedings)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://aclanthology.org/L12-1630/) · [PDF](https://aclanthology.org/L12-1630.pdf) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2252085349)

**Citations:** 163 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) · [33](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mageed-2012-awatif-multi-genre-corpus-modern/cited-by/) in our library, of the 149,439 papers whose bibliographies we read

## Summary
Morphologically rich languages such as Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) have had little labeled data for subjectivity and sentiment analysis (SSA). The authors address this gap with AWATIF, a sentence-level SSA corpus covering three genres: newswire from the Penn Arabic Treebank, Wikipedia Talk Pages, and Web forums. Two kinds of instructions were used. SIMP is a bare three-way POS/NEG/NEUT scheme with two examples per tag. LG is linguistically motivated and genre-nuanced, drawing on politeness theory, the distinction between good or bad news and actual opinion, and agreement and approval in collaborative talk. Labels were collected under three conditions: trained in-lab annotators with LG, the same annotators with SIMP, and Amazon Mechanical Turk workers with SIMP. Comparing these conditions separates the effect of the guidelines from the effect of the annotator pool. The authors conclude that the LG guidelines improve annotation, so careful, theory-informed training is needed for dependable sentiment labels. The resource is also notable because it is multi-genre and includes a genre that had no prior sentiment corpus: Wikipedia Talk Pages.

## Key points
- **Three experimental conditions** were used: GH-LG, GH-SIMP and AMT-SIMP, where GH means "Gold Human," i.e., trained linguistics students. GH-LG vs AMT-SIMP is meant to show the guideline effect, and GH-SIMP vs AMT-SIMP the crowd-versus-lab effect.
- **Newswire portion:** the first 400 documents of PATB Part 1 v3.0 (ATB1V3), about 54.5% of that part.
- **Wikipedia Talk Pages portion:** 30 pages with 5342 sentences, chosen from a pool of roughly 3000. Most are political or religious/ideological, such as "Syrian Protests" and "Salafism."
- **Web forum portion:** 2532 threads from 7 forums, filtered to MSA in three ways:
  - manual checks of each URL's majority variety;
  - ranking threads by the share of words that BAMA v2 can analyze (only 18 of its 78,839 entries were found to be dialectal);
  - lookups against the in-house COLABA dialect dictionaries.
- **Tags:** POS, NEG and NEUT, plus OBJ for objective sentences.
- **Key guideline rules:**
  - Label by the author's intent, not the reader's own background.
  - Treat objectively reported good or bad news as neutral.
  - Mark softened or indirect requests POS and blunt direct requests NEG.

## Interesting ideas
- Running the same annotation under controlled guideline and annotator-pool conditions turns guideline design into a measurable experiment rather than guesswork.
- Reporting a negative event in neutral words is not the same as expressing negative sentiment, so event valence and authorial stance are kept apart.
- Politeness theory is turned into concrete rules: hedged or indirect requests count as positive because they save face, and bare imperatives count as negative because they impose.
- Annotators are told to judge the writer's intended sentiment and set aside their own ideological, religious or cultural viewpoint.
- Language-variety filtering combines analyzer coverage (the share of words a morphological analyzer recognizes) with a dictionary of dialect forms. The authors also acknowledge the caveats of false friends and analyzer contamination.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (learn): Compare silver data produced under different teacher instructions or witness sets, with the bare-instruction condition serving as a control.
- **I2** (frames): Store the valence of what happened separately from the speaker's evaluation in the frame, so irony and stance detection don't confuse bad news with complaint.
- **I3** (frames): Speech-act classification of requests could add a face/politeness feature computed from explicit lexical cues like "could you" and "kindly", keeping the decision explainable.
- **I4** (world): When modeling attitudes in a text's world, attach sentiment to the holder (the author or a quoted speaker) rather than a global evaluation, so the same claim can be positive to one entity and negative to another.
- **I5** (tokens): The en tokenizer and morphology could use lexicon-coverage rates to flag out-of-domain, non-standard or noisy input before parsing, with the ratio reported as an explainable signal.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [Columbia University](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/columbia-university/) — University, New York, United States · 254 works · 56,747 citations
- [Indiana University Bloomington](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/indiana-university-bloomington/) — University, Bloomington, United States · 40 works · 4,003 citations
- [Indiana University](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/indiana-university/) — University, Bloomington, United States · 42 works · 3,981 citations

📚 Shelves (6): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 18,614 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 17,965 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 17,450 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 17,296 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 1,649 works · [💭 Experimental and Cognitive Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/experimental-and-cognitive-psychology/) · 930 works

🧭 Topics (2): [😊 Sentiment & emotion](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/sentiment-emotion/) · 1,035 works · [Semitic languages](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/semitic-languages/) · 3,066 works

## Cite

Cite as: Muhammad Abdul-Mageed and Mona Diab. 2012. AWATIF: A Multi-Genre Corpus for Modern Standard Arabic Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12).

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@inproceedings{abdulmageed2012awatif,
  title = {{AWATIF: A Multi-Genre Corpus for Modern Standard Arabic Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis}},
  author = {Muhammad Abdul-Mageed and Mona Diab},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12)},
  year = {2012},
  doi = {10.63317/5p32e5cyuojn},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.63317/5p32e5cyuojn}
}
```

- [← previous *SEM 2012 Shared Task: Resolving the Scope and Focus of Negation](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/morante-2012-sem-2012-shared-task-resolving/)
- [next → Paraphrasing for Style](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/xu-2012-paraphrasing-style/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2012](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2012/)

## References

28 references, 5 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. A. Abbasi, H. Chen, and A. Salem. 2008. Sentiment analysis in multiple languages: Feature selection for opinion classification in web forums. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 26:1–34. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%2E+Abbasi%2C+H%2E+Chen%2C+and+A%2E+Salem%2E+2008%2E+Sentiment+analysis+in+multiple+languages%3A+Feature+selection+for+opinion+classification+in+web+forums%2E+ACM+Trans%2E+Inf%2E+Syst%2E%2C+26%3A1%E2%80%9334%2E)
2. M. Abdul-Mageed and M. Diab. 2011. [Subjectivity and sentiment annotation of modern standard Arabic newswire](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mageed-2011-subjectivity-sentiment-annotation-modern-standard/). In Proceedings of the 5th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, pages 110–118, Portland, Oregon, USA, June. Association for Computational Linguistics.
3. M. Abdul-Mageed and M. Diab. 2012. Toward building a large-scale arabic sentiment lexicon. In Proceedings of the 6th International Global WordNet Conference, Matsue, Japan, January. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=M%2E+Abdul%2DMageed+and+M%2E+Diab%2E+2012%2E+Toward+building+a+large%2Dscale+arabic+sentiment+lexicon%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+6th+International+Global+WordNet+Conference%2C+Matsue%2C+Japan%2C+January%2E)
4. M. Abdul-Mageed, M. Diab, and M. Korayem. 2011. [Subjectivity and sentiment analysis of modern standard arabic](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/mageed-2011-subjectivity-sentiment-analysis-modern-standard/). In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 587–591, Portland, Oregon, USA, June. Association for Computational Linguistics.
5. J. Agassi and I.C. Jarvie. 1969. A study in westernization. Hong Kong: A society in transition, pages 129–163. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=J%2E+Agassi+and+I%2EC%2E+Jarvie%2E+1969%2E+A+study+in+westernization%2E+Hong+Kong%3A+A+society+in+transition%2C+pages+129%E2%80%93163%2E)
6. K. Bach and R.M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=K%2E+Bach+and+R%2EM%2E+Harnish%2E+1979%2E+Linguistic+communication+and+speech+acts%2E)
7. A. Balahur and R. Steinberger. 2009. Rethinking Sentiment Analysis in the News: from Theory to Practice and back. Proceeding of WOMSA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%2E+Balahur+and+R%2E+Steinberger%2E+2009%2E+Rethinking+Sentiment+Analysis+in+the+News%3A+from+Theory+to+Practice+and+back%2E+Proceeding+of+WOMSA%2E)
8. A. Balahur, R. Steinberger, E. van der Goot, B. Pouliquen, and M. Kabadjov. 2009. Opinion mining on newspaper quotations. In 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pages 523–526. IEEE. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%2E+Balahur%2C+R%2E+Steinberger%2C+E%2E+van+der+Goot%2C+B%2E+Pouliquen%2C+and+M%2E+Kabadjov%2E+2009%2E+Opinion+mining+on+newspaper+quotations%2E+In+2009+IEEE%2FWIC%2FACM+International+Conference+on+Web+Intelligence+and+Intellig)
9. A. Banfield. 1982. Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%2E+Banfield%2E+1982%2E+Unspeakable+Sentences%3A+Narration+and+Representation+in+the+Language+of+Fiction%2E+Routledge+%26+Kegan+Paul%2C+Boston%2E)
10. P. Brown and S.C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage, volume 4. Cambridge Univ Pr. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=P%2E+Brown+and+S%2EC%2E+Levinson%2E+1987%2E+Politeness%3A+Some+universals+in+language+usage%2C+volume+4%2E+Cambridge+Univ+Pr%2E)
11. T. Buckwalter. 2002. Arabic morphological analyzer version 1.0. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=T%2E+Buckwalter%2E+2002%2E+Arabic+morphological+analyzer+version+1%2E0%2E)
12. Linguistic Data Consortium, 2002. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Linguistic+Data+Consortium%2C+2002%2E)
13. M. Diab, K. Hacioglu, and D. Jurafsky. 2007. Automatic processing of Modern Standard Arabic text. Arabic Computational Morphology, pages 159–179. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6046-5_9)
14. M. Gamon, A. Aue, S. Corston-Oliver, and E. Ringger. 2005. Pulse: Mining customer opinions from free text. Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis VI, pages 121– 132. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=M%2E+Gamon%2C+A%2E+Aue%2C+S%2E+Corston%2DOliver%2C+and+E%2E+Ringger%2E+2005%2E+Pulse%3A+Mining+customer+opinions+from+free+text%2E+Advances+in+Intelligent+Data+Analysis+VI%2C+pages+121%E2%80%93+132%2E)
15. E. Goffman. 1955. On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=E%2E+Goffman%2E+1955%2E+On+face%2Dwork%3A+an+analysis+of+ritual+elements+in+social+interaction%2E+Psychiatry%3A+Journal+for+the+Study+of+Interpersonal+Processes%2E)
16. Y. Gu. 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern chinese. Journal of pragmatics, 14(2):237–257. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-o)
17. N. Habash, O. Rambow, and R. Roth. 2009. Mada+tokan: A toolkit for arabic tokenization, diacritization, morphological disambiguation, pos tagging, stemming and lemmatization. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools (MEDAR), Cairo, Egypt. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=N%2E+Habash%2C+O%2E+Rambow%2C+and+R%2E+Roth%2E+2009%2E+Mada%2Btokan%3A+A+toolkit+for+arabic+tokenization%2C+diacritization%2C+morphological+disambiguation%2C+pos+tagging%2C+stemming+and+lemmatization%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+2nd)
18. J.R. Landis and G.G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1):159. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310)
19. W.H. Lin, T. Wilson, J. Wiebe, and A. Hauptmann. 2006. Which side are you on?: identifying perspectives at the document and sentence levels. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 109–116. Association for Computational Linguistics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=W%2EH%2E+Lin%2C+T%2E+Wilson%2C+J%2E+Wiebe%2C+and+A%2E+Hauptmann%2E+2006%2E+Which+side+are+you+on%3F%3A+identifying+perspectives+at+the+document+and+sentence+levels%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Tenth+Conference+on+Computational+Nat)
20. M. Maamouri, A. Bies, T. Buckwalter, and W. Mekki. 2004. The penn arabic treebank: Building a large-scale annotated arabic corpus. In NEMLAR Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools, pages 102–109. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=M%2E+Maamouri%2C+A%2E+Bies%2C+T%2E+Buckwalter%2C+and+W%2E+Mekki%2E+2004%2E+The+penn+arabic+treebank%3A+Building+a+large%2Dscale+annotated+arabic+corpus%2E+In+NEMLAR+Conference+on+Arabic+Language+Resources+and+Tools%2C+pages+10)
21. Y. Matsumoto. 1989. Politeness and conversational universals–observations from japanese. Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8(2-3):207–222. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.207)
22. F. Palmer. 1986. Mood and Modality. 1986. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=F%2E+Palmer%2E+1986%2E+Mood+and+Modality%2E+1986%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
23. L. Polanyi and A. Zaenen. 2006. Contextual valence shifters. Computing attitude and affect in text: Theory and applications, pages 1–10. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4102-0_1)
24. J.R. Searle. 1975. A taxonomy of speech acts. In K. Gunderson, editor, Language, mind, and knowledge, pages 344–369. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=J%2ER%2E+Searle%2E+1975%2E+A+taxonomy+of+speech+acts%2E+In+K%2E+Gunderson%2C+editor%2C+Language%2C+mind%2C+and+knowledge%2C+pages+344%E2%80%93369%2E+Minneapolis%3A+University+of+Minnesota+Press%2E)
25. R. Tsarfaty, D. Seddah, Y. Goldberg, S. Kuebler, Y. Versley, M. Candito, J. Foster, I. Rehbein, and L. Tounsi. 2010. [Statistical parsing of morphologically rich languages (spmrl) what, how and whither](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/tsarfaty-2010-statistical-parsing-morphologically-rich-languages/). In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 First Workshop on Statistical Parsing of Morphologically-Rich Languages, Los Angeles, CA.
26. J. Wiebe, R. Bruce, and T. O’Hara. 1999. [Development and use of a gold standard data set for subjectivity classifications](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/wiebe-1999-development-use-gold-standard-data/). In Proc. 37th Annual Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics (ACL-99), pages 246–253, University of Maryland: ACL.
27. J. Wiebe, T. Wilson, and C. Cardie. 2005. Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. Language Resources and Evaluation, 39(2):165–210. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-005-7880-9)
28. J. Wiebe. 1994. [Tracking point of view in narrative](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/wiebe-1994-tracking-point-view-narrative/). Computional Linguistics, 20(2):233–287. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5555/972525.972529)

*Updated 2 November 2026*