13.2209, Qs: Referring Expressions, "Corporate NP Reversal"

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-13-2209. Tue Sep 3 2002. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 13.2209, Qs: Referring Expressions, "Corporate NP Reversal"

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Consulting Editor:
        Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	James Yuells, EMU		Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
	Michael Appleby, EMU		Heather Taylor, EMU
	Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.	Richard John Harvey, EMU
	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU		Renee Galvis, WSU
	Karolina Owczarzak, EMU		Anita Wang, EMU

Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>
          Zhenwei Chen, E. Michigan U. <zhenwei at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.



Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it
is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have
taken the trouble to respond to the query.


=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:23:02 +0300 (IDT)
From:  Klebanov Beata <beata at cs.huji.ac.il>
Subject:  Referring expressions: familiarity/accessibility

2)
Date:  Tue, 03 Sep 2002 12:10:14 +0000
From:  "Dan Stowell" <danstowell at operamail.com>
Subject:  "Corporate Noun-Phrase Reversal"

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 2 Sep 2002 17:23:02 +0300 (IDT)
From:  Klebanov Beata <beata at cs.huji.ac.il>
Subject:  Referring expressions: familiarity/accessibility


Dear all,


As far as I know, the classification of referring expressions
according to the assumed familiarity/accessibility of the entity
being referred to usually looks smth like:
pronouns > demonstratives(+NP) > partial names > short DEFs > long
DEFs > full names > short INDEFS > long INDEFS.

However, below are some cases I came across where the expression is an
RE, but it is not quite clear to me where it fits on the scale (all
examples are from the Wall Street Journal):

(1) comparatives:

    weaker results (Digital Equipment's profit fell 32% in the latest
	            quarter, prompting forecasts of weaker results ahead.)
    higher commissions and revenue (The company said the improved
				    performance from a year ago reflects
                                    higher commissions and revenue from
                                    marketing ....)

	=> These assume that some benchmark results/revenue
	   were mentioned before (the 32% fall; those one year ago),
	   although entities referred to with the expressions themselves
	   are new.
	   It seems to me that "weaker results" has a higher degree
           of familiarity than "weak results", but just how much higher?
	   The anchoring in previously mentioned entity reminds me of
           bridging, which is usually associated with short DEFs.

(2) quantifiers:
    another round of horror
    any other major currency
	=> seem to me somewhat similar to (1)

(3) things that are (possibly) assumed to be singular entities:

    genocide (the reports of genocide taking place...)
    gold (In the Commodity Exchange in New York, gold dropped $1.60
          to...; The dollar finished mixed, while gold declined.)
    literature (The Nobel prize in literature)

	=> I think these are all REs, since they can be referred to
	   later:
  	   the killing ... (genocide); it regained ... (gold), this
           category is considered the most competitive ... (literature).
	   One possibility is to treat them as names - genocide
	   standing for "the phenomenon of violence on ethnic basis",
           literature being "category of competition where writings
	   of fiction by contemporary authors are presented", etc.
           Another one is
  	   to treat them as shortDEFs, as if every mention was a mention
           of the singular, one only entity (akin to "the sun"), where
           possibly not all of its aspects are relevant ("literature" in
	   the example does not include "The Iliad", or articles on
	   Computational Linguistics).



I will appreciate any pointers to relevant literature (!), and/or
comments on the examples. Would you know of any attempts to do
automatic classification of REs?


Thank you,	


Beata Klebanov
==============
PhD student, Computer Science Department
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
www: http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~beata



-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 03 Sep 2002 12:10:14 +0000
From:  "Dan Stowell" <danstowell at operamail.com>
Subject:  "Corporate Noun-Phrase Reversal"

Dear Linguistlist,

I've spotted a small trend in English which confuses me. I don't know
if I've named it perfectly, but I'm calling it "Corporate Noun-Phrase
Reversal", because it's a weird little tendency for some corporate
language, in particular product-names, to put the adjective after the
noun. My evidence:

- The yoghurt product I know as "Fruit Corner" now seems to be called
"Corner Fruit", judging by the container.

- I saw an advert in a Sock Shop for "sock toes", which my best guess
led me to expect them to be tiny little socks, one for each toe. ("I'd
like a sock toe, please." "Certainly sir, for which toe?" "The little
toe.") Closer inspection... they were actually advertising the things
I refer to as "toe socks", socks which are shaped so that each toe has
its own little section of sock.

If there is an explanation for this I'd love to hear it. Is there some
internationalisation effect ("je veux un corner fruit"...)? As a
native British English speaker it retards my understanding, so I'm
most perplexed by it.

Dan Stowell
University College London
UK
-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-13-2209