 ARSING  )IFFICULTIES U )HONOLOGICAL 
  )ROCESSING IN I\[TALIAN 
Rodolfo Delmonte 
Istituto di Linguistica e Didattica 
Ca' Garzoni-Moro - S.Mareo 3417 
Univeesit~ degli Studi di Venezla(I) 
ABSTRACT 
A recognition grammar to supply information to a text-to-speech system for the synthesis of 
Italian must rely heavily upon lexical information, in order to instantiate the appropriate 
grammatical relations. 
Italian is an almost free word order language which nonetheless adopts fairly analysable stra- 
tegies to move major constituents: some of these can strongly affect the functioning of the pho- 
notogical component. Two basic claims will be made: i. difficulties in associating grammatical 
functions to constituent structure can be overcome only if Lexical Theory is adopted as a general 
theoretical framework, and translated into adequate computational formalisms like ATN or CHART; 
ii. decisions made at previous point affect focus structure construal rules, which are higher 
level phonologicaI rules which individuate intonation centre, build up adequate Intonational 
Groups and assign pauses to adequate sites, all being very sensitive to syntactic and semantic 
i nf ormat i on. 
We will concentrate on Subject/Object function association to c-structure in Italian, and its 
relation to ATN formalism, in particular HOLD mechanism and F~Gging. Then we will show how syn- 
tactic decisions interact with an intonation grammar. We shall also introduce two functional no- 
tions: STRUCTURE REVERSIBILITY vs. FUNCTIONAL REVERSIBILITY in Italian. 
1. INTRODUCTION 
In a recent paper we presented (Delmonte, 1983) 
a phonological processor for Italian which has 
been implemented at the University of Venice and is 
used in a text-to-speech system (Delmonte et al., 
1984) for the synthesis of Italian at the Centre of 
Computational Sonology of the University of Padua. 
Recently the system has been equipped with a lexi- 
con and a morphological analyser (DeImonte et al., 
1985) while the parser is on its way to be built, 
which, since we adopt Lexical-Functiona! Grammar 
(LFG) (Bresnan, 1982), as background linguistic 
theory, should take the form of a chart, much in 
the vein of Kay's (1977,1979,1980) and Kaplan's 
(1973) functional and general syntactic parsers. 
At present we are working at the context-free gram- 
mar and the semantic information to be associated 
with each lexical entry. As it appears, Italian is 
a much more comptex language to be analysed when 
compared with English, German and French. As we 
shall discuss in the paper, difficulties arise 
basically because Italian has a relatively much 
higher freedom in the order of constituents than 
the above mentioned languages. Also, the phenomenon 
of the unexpressed Subject or Null Subject, makes 
the working of a parser a much harder task. In this 
sense, a chart being unbiased as to what procedure 
to adopt in the course of the analysis, will allow 
136 
the parser to benefit both from tcp-down and bottom- 
up procedures in an efficient way (plus the obvious 
back-up and parallel processing operations usually 
required). Besides, both semantic and grammatical 
features need to be present throughout the parsing 
process, and they will be used to guide the overall 
parsing strategy. 
2. P~IVE STRUCTURES AND REVERSIBILITY 
Assuming that the ultimate goal of a parser ts 
that of accomplishing the analysis of the input text 
in terms cf underlying grammatical relations, we are 
usually fronted with the task of assigning thematic 
roles to functional representations mapped onto con- 
stituent structures, as well as defining other non 
trivial semantic relations including ellipsis, pre- 
dication, coordination, quantifier/negation and mo- 
dality scope, head to modifier/complement/adjunct 
relations. All these aspects are relevant to a con- 
structional rule of focus structure which addresses 
directly the informational structure of the text. 
The intermediate level of grammatical function 
assignment is in this perspective a relevant level 
of representation in that it allows the mapping 
from c-structure to O-roles: in this sense, it con- 
tributes to speed up the recognition procedure. 
In English, a completely reversible structure is 
the following: 
I. The secretary has been killed by the director. 
in which, either NP arguments of the predicate KILL 
can assume the grammatical functions of SUBJect or 
OBJect of the sentence. On the contrary, in non-re- 
versible passive structures like, 
2. The book has been read by John. 
only an animate NP argument can be interpreted as 
SUBJect of the predicate READ; thus. inanimate NP ar- 
guments can only be interpreted as OBJect of the sen- 
tence. 
It is clear that non-reversible passive structures 
contain additional grammatical cues to speed up com- 
prehension, but these cues are only available from 
lexical entries in which selectional restrictions are 
listed. Semantic features are thus called into ques- 
tion, and are used to constrain O-role assignment in 
recognition grammars, in order to derive from function- 
al structure adequate mapping for focus structure. 
In a more strictly computational perspective, verb 
morphology is accessed first for Agreement tests; when 
passive morphology is detected, this local cue is suf- 
ficient to reverse grammatical function assignment 
carried out so far to the previously analysed NP SUB- 
ject, and assign it Object function. Also transitivi- 
ty test is necessary not to get entangled with intran- 
sitive verbs taking Auxiliary BE. 
If we regard constituent discontinuities as the 
major issue to be addressed in the grammatical per- 
spective so far outlined, passive structures are the 
canonical case of NP movement in Transformational 
Grammar (TG), in which traces or gaps are left be- 
hind by displaced constituents; or within LFG theory 
of control, the coindexing performed on f-structures 
between metavariables and empty nodes. In a strict- 
ly configurational language like English there does 
not seem to be such a strong motivation for adopting 
LFG theoretical framework and introducing the inter- 
mediate representation in terms of f-structures. It 
might as well be sufficient to inspect precedence and 
dominance relations as instantiated by constituent 
structure and relate them to PSR of a context-free 
grammar in which canonical constituent order is en- 
coded. Since in tensed clauses either a lexical or a 
pronominal SUBJect must be expressed in preverbal p~ 
sition - or else a dummy pronoun like "there, it" - 
it could be possible to label NPI, or the one domin- 
ated directly by S, as SUBJect, whereas postverbal 
NP2 if present, as OBJect of the clause, or the one 
dominated directly by VP. 
Unfortunately, what applies to English or other 
fixed word order languages, does not apply to ro- 
mance languages and in particular to Italian or Spa- 
nish, which have been called Null Subject Languages 
(NSL). One of the distinguishing properties of NSL 
is that they do not have a canonical position for NP 
Subject: it can either appear in preverbal position 
as in English, or 
i. in postverbal position as a case of Subject In- 
version; 
ii. be unexpressed as a case of obviative or extra- 
sentential pronominal, in tensed clauses; 
iii..be stranded or extraposed, usually in tensed 
clauses: NP Subject has been moved out of its 
matrix clause and placed after an embedded clause, 
which it controls (Subject must be unexpressed); 
or not - no intervening lexical NP Subjects are 
allowed, however. 
Before going into the analysis of Italian with 
more detail, it is worth while noticing that not al- 
ways NPI entertains Subject function, nor NP2 can be 
interpreted as Object of a finite clause in English, 
as the following examples show: 
3. Computers have been given no consideration what- 
soever by linguistis in Italy. 
4. Her father Mary hates. 
5. The latest book by Calvino sells well. 
6. The logical operator .NOT. applies to the paren- 
thesized statement. 
7. Geneva is easy to reach from Italy. 
in which we have cases of fronted NP2 detectable on- 
ly by having access to NPs inherent semantic features. 
Thus, in 3, it is OBJect2 which has been passivized 
and not NP2; in 4. we have a topicalized sentence 
with fronted NP2; in 5. SELL is used in ergative 
structural configuration, in which NP2 is raised to 
Subject; the same applies to 6, a case in which Sub- 
ject NP would be always omitted (subjectless imper- 
sonal structures are frequently used in technical 
and scientific English); also 7. is a subjectless 
structure, in which "tough predicate" appears and 
Object NP2 is raised to Subject position. And now 
briefly, NP2 need not always be interpreted as Object 
of its clause, as shown below: 
8. There came the magician with his magic rod. 
9. But the rea! murderer is the landlord. 
10. Mary gave John a beautiful present. 
where 8. is a presentation sentence with a dummy pro- 
noun "there" and the Subject NP is in postverbal po- 
sition; 9. is a predication sentence in which some- 
thing is predicated about the NP Subject "the land- 
lord" in postverbal position; and in 10. the post- 
verbal NP is OBject2 of ditransitive Verbs construc- 
tions, which has undergone dative shift. 
3. WH- CLAUSES AND FUNCTIONAL REVERSIBILITY 
In Italian, reversible structures are also pre- 
sent sometimes obligatorily, always optionally, in 
wh- clauses. Let us quote first the following example, 
\]I. This is the lion that ate the man that ate the 
11. rabbit that ate the carrot. 
Each embedded clause can only be interpreted as con- 
taining an NP argument of EAT assuming Subject func- 
tion when in preverbal position and Object function 
when in postverbal position, the complementizer 
"that" relativizing only the left-adjacent NP and in- 
terpreted as Subject of the following clause. No 
such interpretation is allowed in 12. 
12. This is the man (that) the lion ate. 
in which the intervening NP "the lion" prevents the 
complementizer from occupying strictly preverbal po- 
sition, thus being assigned Object function and as 
such it is possibile to omit it; Subject function 
being thus assumed by "the lion". But in Italian al- 
so 13. would have to be allowed, 
13. *This is the carrot that ate the rabbit that ate 
the man that ate the lion. (Questa ~ la carota 
che mangi~ il coniglio che mangi~ I'uomo che man 
gi6 il leone). 
This sentence is absolutely symmetrical semantically 
to 11., except for the fact that 13. predicates some 
thing about "a carrot" - the head - whereas 11. pre- 
dicates the same concept though with a different in- 
formational structure, focus on the "lion". Concept~ 
ally an operation recalling the passive. 
Let us now reformulate the two notions that we 
have introduced so far, structural reversibility vs. 
functional reversibility and repeat example I, 
I. The secretary has been killed by the director. 
where what we want to stipulate is the possibility 
to interchange Subject/Object function between the 
two arguments of the predicate KILL; thus, we could 
also have, 
I.i The director has been killed by the secretary. 
besides the active forms, 
l.ii The director has killed the secretary. 
1.iii The secretary has killed the director. 
Structural reversibility involves basically the pos- 
sibility to use the same constituent order and to 
freely alternate the instantiation of grammatical 
functions, while the underlying grammatical rela- 
tions intervening between the arguments of the pre- 
dicate, change. What is implied is that: although 
both NP arguments of the predicate are eligible to 
be interpreted as Subject or Object, only one inter- 
pretation wit1 result in each case a grammatically 
valid configuration results. Thus, even though the- 
matic roles can be attached interchangeably to ei- 
ther preverbal or postverbal NPs without violating 
selectional restrictions or semantic compatibility 
conditions, it is the final constituent order and 
structure that decides on the final interpretation. 
In this sense, non-reversible passives contain 
cues such that their verb's selectional restrictions 
permit only a single well-formed mapping between NP 
138 
positions in phrase structure tree and functional 
structure positions. Other cues wit1 help producing 
the final interpretation besides structural syntactic 
ones: since either NPI or NP2 in (surface) c-structure 
won't match their selectional restrictions with the 
requirements of functional structure mapping, the 
parser will compute directly one or the other inter- 
pretation disambiguating the resulting sentences on 
the basis of conditions~and tests on the arcs, rather 
than on its context-free grammar. Thus in 2. 
2. The book has been read by John. 
we are not allowed to build, 
2.i* John has been read by the book. 
2. ii* The book has read John (OK in Italian) 
but only, 
2. iii John has read the book. 
without violating selectional restrictions. Going 
back to our previous examples, II. and ~3., what we 
have then is an example of non-reversible functional 
structures. In this case, both preverbal and post- 
verbal positions in constituent structure could be 
freely accessed by the two arguments of the predicate 
EAT as was the case with example I, and contrary to 
what happened with example 2.: 
A. what is blocked in structural reversibility - as 
non reversible passives show - is the availabi- 
lity of one of the structural constituent posi- 
tions to be accessed by both arguments of the 
predicate; 
B. in functional reversibility - as non reversible 
wh- clauses show - it is the availability of one 
of the arguments of the predicate to be assigned 
any grammatical function, that is blocked. 
In B. constituent order is irrelevant, and it is cru- 
cial in A.; B. is typical of NSL, while A. is typical 
of configurational languages in which grammatical 
functions can be associated in a reliable way to 
fixed or canonical constituent orders. In Italian, 
no such canonical order exist, essentially because 
both preverbal and postverbal constituent positions 
constitute an unmarked case for Subject/Object func- 
tiona! assignment. 
The consequences of this analysis of ~talian in 
terms of functional reversibility wit1 be explored 
when analysing functional reversible structures. 
For now it suffices to remark that a parser is unable 
to rely on constituent order alone to produce reason- 
able predictions on the underlying grammatical rela- 
tions: it will be obliged to make available semantic 
information in all cases of tensed active clauses. 
4. SUBJECT EXTRAPOSITION IN WH- C\[JkUSES 
In English, "that/which/who" restrictive rela- 
tives and indirect questions, as well as wh- ques- 
tions, are easily computable in that the extraction 
site - the wh- word/phrase can be extracted either 
from Subject or Object position - is readily avail- 
able to the parser by looking up lexical subcategori- 
zation frames and phrase structure so far computed 
- roughly the Agenda and the Chart. In the case of 
wh- questions, do-suppo¢ will trigger Object function 
assignment to the fronted wh- word/phrase; besides, 
also wh- questions without do-support or subject 
auxiliary inversion are allowed, only when the ques- 
tion element is the Subject. In the remaining embed- 
ded structures, an intervening NP in preverbal posi- 
tion will trigger Object function for the wh- word/ 
phrase. Let us look at some examples, 
14. Dove (VP ~ ha sepolto (~£j~ttesoro (S' che 
ha rubato e)))(NPLl'uomo (S' di cui e parlavi e)) - SUDJeC~ -- -- 
where we only marked major constituents and empty 
positions in f-structure. This example translates 
literally example n.120 from Ritchie, 1980: 
14.i Where did ( e m n ho mentioned e) bury ~B suBje~ you 
(the £reasure (which he stole e)) ~ mr ODJeCt -- " 
In Italian we always have this elaborate structure 
when heavy NPs are involved in wh- questions. If we 
coindex NPs with empty nodes we get, 
14.ii Dove(VP e i ha sepolto(NPj il tesoro(S' chej e i 
ha rubato ej)))(NP i l'uomo(S' di cui i e k par- 
lavi ei))? 
where NP Subject '~ bemo" has been displaced beyond 
two bounding nodes - in Italian NP and S' count as 
such (see Rizzi, 1980) - and also binds the empty 
NP Object position of the lower relative clause, 
whereas the null subject position in front of "par- 
lavi" is assigned obviative or disjoint reference,to 
an extrasentential antecedent. Example 14 is a re- 
plica of the simple structure of a yes/no questions: 
15. Ha finito i compiti tua sorella? 
(Has your sister finished her homework) 
where postverbal position is again reserved for NP 
Object and the NP Subject "tua sorella" has been 
stranded or "extraposed". In wh- questions, the pro- 
blem with Italian syntactic structure is due to the 
absence of a clear surface indicator for grammatical 
function assignment, even though, as a rule, it is 
the Object NP that is questioned, as in 14.15. But 
the following examples do not follow this rule: 
16. Quale pesce ha pescato la segretaria? 
17. Quale segretaria ha pescato il pesce? 
which can be translated respectively as, 
16.i Which fish did the secretary catch? 
17.i Which secretary caught the fish? 
where the underlying grammatical functions can easi- 
ly be recovered due to the presence of do-support in 
16.i - thus inducing Object function on the ques- 
139 
tioned element, and the lack of do-support in 17.i 
thus inducing Subject function assignment on the wh- 
phrase. 
Unfortunately in Italian 16. and 17. contain no struc- 
tural cues indicating that what is being questioned 
is either a Subject or Object, in other words these 
structures are fully functionally reversible. Gramma- 
tical functions are assigned when selectional restric- 
tions for the predicate CATCH are accessed and seman- 
tic inherent features of the arguments are detected 
and compared. Further difficulties arise with embedded 
structures in wh- questions, as shown below: 
18. Chi era la persona che Gino ha incontrato e ieri? 
19° Chi era la persona che e ha incontrato e GTno? 
20. Chi e ha detto che e avr-ebbe assunto e TI capo? 
21. Che cosa ~ ha detto che e avrebbe acquistato 
al mercato Gino? 
22. Chi e intendeva mettere in imbarazzo e Mario? 
23. Quale segretaria e conosceva eil direttore? 
translatable as, 
18.i Who was the person that John met yesterday? 
19.i Who was the person who met JOhn yesterday? 
20.i Who said that he/she would have engaged the chief? 
ii Who did the chief say that he would have engaged? 
21.i What did he/she say that John would have bought 
at the market? 
ii What did John say that he would have bought at 
the market? 
22.i Who did Mario intend to upset? 
ii Who intended to upset Mario? 
23.i Which secretary knew the director? 
ii Which secretary did the director know? 
We only marked structural gaps at functional level 
with the underlined ~; here the first difficulty is 
constituted by the ambiguity naturally associated to 
all these structures, with the exception of 18. In 
this case, no ambiguity arises because we have a pre- 
dicative structure followed by a restrictive relat- 
ive in which Subject preverbal position is appro- 
priately filled by the proper noun Gino/John. How- 
ever, in 19, another interpretation is available: 
"la persona" is the head NP of the following relat- 
ive and controls the empty subject position of the 
Verb INCONTRARE, while "Gino" is Object NP. This in- 
terpretation, though, is not the only one available 
in 19, since in Italian, Gino might as well have 
been extracted from Subject position via Subject 
Inversion - or rather, it might occupy postverbal 
position, another canonical position for Subject 
function in Italian. 
In 20. then, three gaps are available, consequen~ 
ly three alternative interpretations as follows, 
a. Chi ha detto che il capo avrebbe assunto ieri 
b. Chi ha detto che avrebbe assunto il capo ieri 
c. Chi ha detto il capo che avrebbe assunto ieri 
where in a. we have the higher clause Subject posi- 
tion controlled by "chi", and "ii capo" controlling 
the lower Verb; in b. "chi" is the Subject of the 
nigher clause and "ii capo" the Object of the lower 
one; in c. "il capo" is the Subject of both the 
higher and lower clause, and "chi" is made to fill 
Object position of the lower verb. For 21, the fol- 
lowing two alternative structures, though, are only 
available: 
a. Che cosa (x) ha detto che Gino avrebbe acquistato 
al mercato. 
b. Che cosa ha detto Gino che avrebbe acquistato al 
mercato. 
no other structure is available since "che cosa" is 
usually extracted from Object postverbal position, 
and Italian does not allow double filled Object po- 
sitions. In b. Gino controls both empty subject po- 
sition in the higher and lower Verbs, and the Object 
postverbal position is reserved for the wh- word: so, 
only a. can alternatively be generated. 
These interpretations are generated also because 
the predicate-argument structures of the Verbs allow 
it: INCONTRARE is an only transitive verb, while 
ASSUMERE can be intransitivized, and ACQUISTARE is 
again an only transitive verb. Transitive verbs re- 
quire an Object NP while intransitivizable ones 
don't. With intransitive verbs only one interpre- 
tation would be allowed as in: 
24. Chi ha detto che sta arrivando Gino? 
(Who said that John was arriving?) 
where ARRIVARE does not a11ow an Object NP, thus 
"Gino" must be analysed as Subject; besides, also 
"chi" could not possibly be analysed as Object NP 
of ARRIVARE, so it is made to occupy Subject posi- 
tion of the higher clause and inserted in the empty 
slot adjacent to the wh-word. 
5. HOLD MECHA}IISM AI~) WH- CL~US~ 
It appears thus, that a minimal requirement for 
producing adequate parses for these complex wh- 
clauses is access to predicate-argument structure 
in the Lexical Form - roughly subcategorization 
frames - of Verbs. These would be entered in the 
Agenda as expectations to be fulfilled by the par- 
ser. It is also clear that we would like to have a 
rule for functional control induced structurally, 
by means of which, empty Subject positions in tensed 
embedded clauses and in matrix clauses would be 
bound by lexically filled adjacent Subject position 
(corresponding to c-command dominion in terms of 
syntactic binding - See Zaenen, 1983). 
The problem now is the following: how do we get 
extraposed/stranded NP Subject or Object to climb 
up to fill the appropriate gaps? 
In ATN formalism, a question element register 
HOLD, is used to contain the questioned element 
which is stored temporarily until the rest of the 
140 
clause is processed. In wh- clauses the element is 
then passed down to any constituent that might use 
it or that in turn could pass it down to one of its 
constituents. If we follow Winograd's suggestion, we 
might: "put the Held item into a special role regis- 
ter associated with every type of constituent that 
uses it"(1983, 233). 
In particular, "chi" in examples 19.20.24. could 
be associated with NP constituents/empty NP nodes in 
f-structure. Since it could be made to fill either 
Subject or Object positions. When transitivity and 
agreement have been checked, and the Verb of the lower 
clause has been parsed we will be left with the fol- 
lowing parallel structures, schematically represen- 
ted: 
i. chi e / ha detto / che pro / avrebbe assunto e / 
ii. chi e_/ ha detto / che chi / avrebbe assunto e / 
iii. ~ pro/ ha detto/ che pro / avrebbe assunto~hi/ 
COMP NP / VP /COMP NP / VP NP / 
SUBJECT SUBJECT OBJECT 
when the lexical NP "iI capo" iI reached, it must be 
made to climb up into the empty registers (e) or pro 
the obviative extrasentential pronominal, of the al- 
ready parsed phrase structure. Since ATN grammars are 
usually made for top-down processing strategies, and 
this example would clearly constitute a case of bot- 
tom-up data-driven processing strategy it would seem 
that a CIIART could perform better, being unbiased as 
to what strategy to follow. Anyhow, this is the 
structural representations that we would like to get: 
iv. chi / ha detto/che/il capo/avrebbe assunto e/ 
v. chi / ha detto/che chi/avrebbe assunto il capo/ 
vi. chiil capo/ ha detto/che/iI capo/avrebbe assunto 
e/ 
i 
where the empty node in iv. represents the extraction 
site of the wh- word; in v. chi is Subject in both 
clauses; and in vi. il capo is Subject of both clauses 
and chi is extracted from e. We must remember that 
the lexical NP "il capo" might as well be lacking, 
without affecting the grammaticality of these inter- 
pretations: in this case i.ii.iii, would have to be 
preserved and accounted for on a discourse level, 
i.e. antecedents of empty nodes/pro positions be re- 
covered from text or discourse. 
If we look in moredetail into the HOLD mecha- 
nism, we can easily see that it embodies a partic- 
ular linguistic phenomenon: i. it individuates wh- 
words or phrases displaced leftward from their ori- 
ginal locations, and stores them temporarily in a 
register; ii. it inspects forward its right con- 
text in search of a hole in constituent structure, 
using lexical information; iii. the hole must have 
the same constituent label of the stored item, and 
must be in a lower network, where the contents of 
the Hold register will have to be passed down. A 
copy of the NP (carrying SUBJect or OBJect function) 
or PP (carrying INDirect OBJect, ADJunct - of time, 
location and direction ) constituent parsed will be 
stored to be used later on by another network where 
the corresponding hole is detected. 
The problem with HOLD mechanism consists in the 
fact that the linguistic phenomena of Italian we are 
discussing about the Extraposed Subject are of a di~ 
ferent nature: basically they differ from the ones 
dealt with HOLD in the non availability of the con- 
stituent to be stored in a register at the begin- 
ing of the analysis, since usually with our set of 
phenomena, first comes the "hole" and then the con- 
stituent to fill it with. 
In other words, this is not the procedure that we 
envisage to use in order to parse our null/empty 
subject Italian sentences. In fact, our recognition 
mechanism shall have to deal with the following se- 
ries of events: 
I. wh- words/phrases will be available first and fo~ 
lowed by their extraction sites, hence the cor- 
responding holes will have to be detected; 
2. NP displaced leftward, either in terms of gramma- 
tical function assignment - the OBJect comes be- 
fore the SUBJect in constituent structure - or 
as topicalized/left-dislocated NPs will be avail- 
able first and the appropriate function reassign- 
ment will have to be performed as soon as the 
verb is reached: it can either show passive voice 
or be checked by agreement and transitivity tests 
on arcs; 
3. null/empty NP positions in preverbal structure 
will give rise to INFLection features LIFTing to 
the empty slot, and then Subject inversion or 
null subject will have to be accounted for. In 
this case, only INFLection features will be 
available, and will possibly be followed by the 
NP they belong to. 
What we need then is the inverse procedure envisaged 
for wh- movement, i.e. the HOLD-VIR mechanism; basic 
m 
ally this amounts to saying that the cases we are 
dealing with are simply cases of NP movement like 
passive structure, the only difference consisting in 
the fact that no NP is available at the start. 
If we look into passive NP function assignment 
mechanism, we can see that what triggers the pro- 
cedure is verb morphology: once passive voice is de- 
tected in the main verb, DIRect OBJect is set to 
SUBJect, which must have been already properly 
parsed (see Winograd, 217). This setting procedure 
is like an assignment statement in a programming 
procedure: the first NP encountered by the parser is 
assigned SUBJect function at first; when the verb 
is met, its label is changed to that of DIRect OBJ- 
ect. Subject is subsequently set to a dummy NP,which 
as Winograd comments, is used to indicate an NP node 
with no register contents, constructed to represent 
un unknown subject. When the PP with preposition 
141 
"by" is parsed, it is taken as the phrase specifying 
the agent; thus the dummy subject NP will be set to 
the (by) NP, now the deep subject, or stay empty if 
the sentence is an agent-deleted passive like "the 
fish have been caught". In order to parse our null 
subject sentences we would adopt the same procedure 
used for passives, except for the fact that our Sub- 
ject NP need not be present in the same S/NP network 
in which the hole is detected. As we noted in extr~ 
posed subject sentences, the NP could appear right- 
ward beyond two bounding nodes (even more are allowed 
as long as no intervening NP Subject appears). All 
networks where a hole has been FLAGged should be ac- 
cessed by the parser whenever an "exceeding" NP is 
parsed, or simply an NP eligible to be interpreted as 
Subject of the higher predicates already encountered 
in the analysis. 
6. FOCUS STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONAL REVERSIBILITY 
We already discussed elsewhere (Delmonte, 1983, 
1984) rules for Focus Assignment, where Focus was 
directly compared to Intonational Centre, thus pro- 
sodic focus rather than semantic or informational 
focus. Focus structure addresses directly the second 
notion of Focus which need not be symmetrically com- 
putable at a phonological and syntactic level. There 
are clear asymmetries which can be detected in the 
following Italian structures, we shall discuss. 
Basically what is addressed structurally by focus 
structure is the VP in c-structure, which must in- 
clude the last argument in the c-dominion of the pr~ 
dicate or f-controlled by it; complements/adjuncts 
Syntactically-bound are adjoined into focus struc- 
ture. Also the first of optional arguments adjacent 
to the VP - like PP, complements, adjuncts possibly 
controlled by Strong Lexical Form of the predicate, 
or adjoined to it by means of a Theory of Syntactic 
Closure - can constitute focus structure. 
Let us first go back to our examples, 22. 23., 
which can be defined completely functionally rever- 
sible structures, and see how they interact with 
focus structure construal rules. In particular, they 
can be analysed as follows, 
22.i Chi intendeva mettere in imbarazzo Mario? 
23.i Quale segretaria conosceva il direttore? 
what in English is achieved by means of syntactic 
structure, in Italian is achieved via focus struc- 
ture, which we have represented here as underlining, 
at the end of which a pause may be produced. The 
phonological focus or intonational centre must be 
included in focus structure on one of its consti- 
tuent, usually the last on the right. According to 
the constituents, in condition of adjacency, focus 
structure can thus be expanded and produce two dif- 
ferent focus assignment: with focus on the question- 
ed element this will be interpreted as Subject of the 
clause; with focus on the VP, the questioned elem- 
ent will be interpreted as Object° Usually the VP de 
limits focus structure in wh- questions in Italian. 
As we said previously, in functional reversibil- 
ity, even though both positions are available to be 
filled by the two arguments of the verb, only one 
will produce the desired grammatical relations. None 
theless both positions in c-structure are grammati~ 
a11y viable to instantiate meaningful sentences, in 
keeping with structural and semantic restrictions of 
the grammar of Italian. 
As with reversible passives, in 22. 23. both ar- 
guments of the verbs can be interpreted as either 
SUBJect or OBJect, but differently from reversible 
passives, reversible wh- clauses don't make available 
to the parser any constituent structural hint as to 
which NP argument enacts which grammatical function. 
If this is the situation with wh- clauses, more 
complex configurations will result in declaratives, 
given our fourfold classification of phenomena re- 
lated to Subject function location in constituent 
structure. In the following examples the two basic 
simple declarative sentences will produce nine per- 
mutations each with 20 different structural rela- 
tions in c-structure, but only two possible under- 
lying grammatical relations in terms of functional 
associations. 
25. II sindaco sposera mia sorella. 
I. Mia sorella sposera il sindaco. 
2. Mia sorella il sindaco sposera. 
3. Sposera il sindaco mia sorella. 
4. E' mia sorella che il sindaco sposera. 
5. II sindaco la sposera mia sorella. 
6. Mia sorella la sposer~ il sindaco, 
7. La sposera mia sorella il sindaco, 
8. La sposer~ il sindaco mia sorella. 
9. Quale sindaco sposera mia sorella? 
26. Mia sorella sposera il sindaco. 
I. II sindaco sposera mia sorella. 
2. II sindaco mia sorella sposera. 
3. Sposer~ mia sorella il sindaco. 
4. E' il sindaco che mia sorella sposer~, 
5. Mia sorella Io sposera il sindaco. 
6. Ii sindaco Io sposera mia sorella. 
7. Lo sposera il sindaco mia sorella. 
8, Lo sposer6 mia sorella il sindaco. 
9, Quale sindaco sposera mia sorella? 
27. Ii sindaco sposera Marco, 
28. (?) Marco sposera il sindaco. 
29.i II sindaco si ~ sposato con mia sorella. 
ii Mia sorella si ~ sposata con il sindaco. 
These focus structures can be induced by the fol- 
lowing lexical entries for SPOSARE: 
142 
30. Lexical entries for SPOSARE 
I. "SPOSARE ((SUBJ), (OBJ))" 
agent patient~ 
sex ~sex j 
. "SPOSARE ((SUBJ), (OBJ))" 
civi I patien 
f iCla l 
priest 
PREDcaus : CAUSE (x, BECOME (PRED (y))) 
PREDinch : BECOME (PRED (y)) 
( REFL) =c + 
3. "SPOSARE ((SUBJ)) (CON OBJ)" 
( REEL)= + c 
If we Zook at these entries, we are presented 
with a causative verb meaning "officially marry two 
people (cause people to get married), usually of 
different sex", and a normal active agentive verb 
meaning "get married". Thematic roles associated to 
NPs occurring with the verb vary according to the 
grammatical functions associated with c-structure 
configurations, apparently. In fact, lexical and 
semantic restrictions will be paramount in deciding 
focus structure and g-roles association to NP posi- 
tions. 
In the permutations under 25. "il sindaco"(the 
mayor) is assigned Subject function and two ambi- 
guous readings may be generated: either the mayor 
is the civil official who causes my sister "mia 
sorella': the NP OBJect to contract marriage with 
someone else, or he is himself the affected agent of 
the marriage. In the permutations listed under 26. 
"mia sorella" is assigned Subject function, thus on- 
ly one interpretation is allowed, that is the agent- 
ive reading and the mayor is going to become my 
sister's husband. 
If we look at the permutations, we have in 2. to- 
picalization, with OBJect NP in focus structure (FS) I 
in I. the grammatical relations of 25 are preserved 
only if emphatic reading is assigned with contrast- 
ive meaning. This also applies to 26.1; 3. is a case 
of inverted subject thus being included in focus 
structure; 4. is a cleft structure in which the NP 
fronted has Object function, and FS includes the co- 
pulative or predicative sequence, excluding though 
the following completive; 5. is a right dislocated 
structure in which the Object has a copy pronoun in 
preverbal position and FS only delimits the VP thus 
resulting; 6. is a left-dislocation and FS only in- 
cludes the VP with the resumpttve pronoun; 7. is a 
right dislocated structure very much like 5. except 
that the subject has been stranded to the end of the 
sentence; the same applies to 8. which is a right- 
dislocated structure with inverted subject, the NP 
appearing right after the verb and thus available - 
optionally though - for inclusion in the VP. Finally 
in 9. we have a wh- question in which the questioned 
element is included in FS according to which gram- 
matical relations have to be instantiated: SUBJect 
function in narrow FS, OBJect function in wider FS. 
These processes in informationa! structure, where 
FS is computed, are made possible when all levels of 
analysis are integrated and LFG representation sche- 
mata and lextcal rules are made to apply. In partic- 
ular, since "causer" thematic role can onty be as- 
signed to Subject NPs and not to OBJect NPs - the 
more so in functionally reversible structures - the 
appropriate grammatical relations will be altered if 
grammatical functions are not properly assigned. In- 
choative lextcaI redundancy rule allows only the 
agenttve meaning to be instantiated, simpty because 
this lexical form derives via a Iexical rule applied 
not to causative but to active transitive lexica! 
form of predicate SPOSARE. Thus 28. will be marked 
as semantically deviant, whereas both 29.i/ti are 
tnterchangeabie in meaning. 
In other words, if no information is available 
as to the grammatical functions being entertained by 
the NPs argument of the predicate, the opposite 
meaning may wetI be instantiated, and this will af- 
fect the phonological representation which in turn 
will affect the phonetic realization of the sen- 
tence. This information will necessarily have to be 
derived from the lexical form associated with the 
predicate, and eventually be adequately coupled with 
annotated PSRs as represented within the framework 
of LFG. 
Thus we propose to couple PSRs with phonological 
marking of focus when relevant: this representation 
will interact with lexicaI representations and lexi 
cal redundancy rules to filter out c-structures and 
produce the appropriate f-structures. Semantic focus 
is also annotated when non-ambiguous structures re- 
suit. For instance no phonological marking is in- 
dicated in wh- questions since as we already no- 
ticed, when the questioned element is in narrow FS 
it will have to be analysed as SUBJect, whereas in 
wider FS as OBJect. Also, TOPIC does not give rise 
143 
to phonological marking, apart from comma intonation 
assignment to XP in right/left dislocation. 
1. Wh- Questions 
> NP S 
(TQ) =lj T= 
( T FOCUS) =\[+ :h \] 
=~S 
NP 
2. Tough Predicates 
tough : A (T PRED) = "TOUGH ((T SCOMP))" 
(T SCOMP TOPIC) = (T SUBJ) 
S-~for NP V-P 
(TSUBJ) =$ T = 
(T TOPIC) =If v~ ~2 NP 
3. ToptcaIization 
4. 
S :::~- XP 
( T FOCUS) = 
\[+ ph.focus \] 
XP,, >e 
Cleft const~ct ions 
S 
T=~ 
S --(it) be XP 
(T FOCUS) =~ (?SCOMP) = 
\[. ph. fo¢.s\] 
XP --- e 
5. Subject inversion 
) NP 
( 1" SUBJ) = ~L 
VP 
T=J, 
VP ) V 
( 1" BND) = + 
NP 
(TSUBJ) = J, 
\[+ ph.focus\] 
6. Right/Left Dislocation 
In the configuration 
\[Top\[XP\]~\[ . . . pronoun . . . \]\] (XP) 
\[. ,c=\] 
assign comma intonation to the XP out of S, whose 
coreferent pronoun is inside S 
LFG Formalism is quite easy and straightforward to 
be elucidated, though we feel this is not the right 
place to explain it (but see Bresnan, 1982). Why 
this formalism should be relevant in the description 
of non strictly configurational languages like Ita- 
lian it is intuitively apparent from the examples we 
reported above. The coupling of annotated PSRs with 
Lexical Forms in which granenatical functions are spe- 
cified as arguments of the predicate is enormously ad 
vantageous in view of parsing. In fact, this mecha- 
nism will allow the parser to reduce drastically pa- 
rallel structure analyses since derivated structures 
like Subject Inversion and Topicalization will even- 
tually be assigned their grammatical relations in 
a straightforward manner, by simply looking up se- 
Iecttonal restrictions associated to each argument 
position in f-structure. 
For instance, in 25. 26. there is no duplication 
of lexical entries with NPs c-structure positions a- 
part from permutations under I. As we said previous- 
Iy this would be treated as a contrastive emphatic 
structure when opposite f-structure mappings have to 
be recovered; otherwise NPI and NP2 would be assigned 
their canonical f-structure. If the parser is allowed 
to produce all possible analyses with the remaining 
permutations, a great number of duplicated structural 
configurations will result - as far as f-structure is 
concerned. This is not a desirable result, however, 
given that LFG formalism a11ows the parser to restrict 
its hypotheses to just those cases permitted by Ita- 
lian grammar. 
In particular, it is simply a case that examples 
5. 6. 7. 8. are dtsambiguated by the presence of a 
resumptive pronoun marking gender differences between 
the two arguments of the predicate. Whenever no such 
information is available, the parser will again du- 
plicate analyses - both arguments belong to the same 
gender. 
Other approaches have been proposed (see Stock, 
1982; Cappelli et al., 1984) - disregarding exclusive 
ly semantic approaches (Schank & Abelson, 1977) - 
for Italian which put forward global hypothesis for 
the availability of a semantic space (Stock) in which 
to manipulate syntactic structures so far analysed; 
or a syntactic space (Cappelli et el.) limited to 
the Left Context, in which to perform a small set of 
abstract operations "on the current hypothesis about 
the analysis of the whole parsed segment of the input" 
(ibid.,42). We believe, however, that LFG formalism 
together with CHART mechanisms for alternating bot- 
tom-up with top-down processing strategies, while 
keeping all major constituents previously completed, 
should be sufficient in reducing the number of al- 
ternative paths that the parser might have to fol- 
low. 
REFERENCES 
ANTINUCCI F., G.CINQU\[(1977), Sull'ordine delle parole in italia- 
no: l'emarginazione, Studi di Gra--atica \[taliaaa VI, 121-146 
BATES N°(1978), The Theory and Practice of Augmented Transition 
Network Grammar, in L.8olc(ed), Natural Language C~unication 
with Computers, Hew York, Springer, 191-260. 
BBESNAN J.(ed)(1982), The NentaI Representation of Grammatical 
ielatieus, Cambridge Mass., The HIT Press. 
£JLPPELLI A., L.HOBEITI~ I.PROBANOF, O.SIOCK(19?8), Parsing an 
Italian Text with an All Parser, Laboratorio di Linguistica 
Computazionale, C.N.R. Pisa, Agosto. 
CAPPELLI k°, G°FERBABI, L.NOREIII, I°PBODAUQF(1984), A Framework 
for Integrating Syntax and Semantics, in B.G.BARA, G.GUIOA, 
(ads), Computational Models of BaturaI Language Processing, 
Elsevier Pub., North Holland, \]\]-57. 
CHORSBY |.(1972), Oeep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic 
Interpretation, in Studies in Generative Gr~.mar, The Hague, 
Mouton. 
CBONS\[Y L(1981), Lectures on Government and Binding, The Hague, 
Oordrecht. 
DELNONIE B.(1983a), Sintassi, semantica, fonologia e regole di 
assegnazione det fuoco in italiano, ktti $L\[, XVII Congresso 
InternazionaJe di Studi su Sintassi e Morfologia della Lin- 
gua Italiana d'gso. Teoria a Applicazioni Oescrittive. Roma, 
8ulzoni. 
D(LMOmIE B.(1983b), A Phonological Processor for Italian, in 
Proceedings of the 1st Meeting of the European Chapter of the 
Association for Computational Linguistics, Pisa, 26-34. 
BELNONIE B.(1983c), Regale di Assegnazione del Fuoco o Centre In- 
tonativo in Itatiano STandard, Padova, CLESP. 
OELNOBTE I., kJIkg, 6.|I$A10(1984), A text-to-speech system for the 
synthesis of Italian, Proceedings of ICJSSP 8~, San Oiego(Cal.) 
DE,BIB R., A.MIAN, H.ONOLOGO, C.SATTA(1985), Un riconoscitore mor- 
fologico a transizioni aumentate, ktti A.I.C.A., Firenze. 
DEI.NONI(B.(lg84b), La Syntactic Closure nella Teoria della Per- 
formance, Quaderni Patavini di lJnguistica 4, 101-131. 
OEU4OmlE !.(1984c), On Certain Differences between English and 
Itatian in Phonological Processing and Syntactic Parsing, 
Istituto di lIngue Straniere MOderne, Universit~ di Trieste. 
GU\[BOI J.(1980), On the syntax and semantics of PP Extraposition, 
Linguistic Inquiry 11, 637-677. 
JACBEUOOFF B.(1972), Semantic Interpretation in Generative GraB- 
=mr, Cambridge Mass., The HIT Press. 
KAPUdl B=H.(19?3), A general syntactic processor, in R.Rustin(ed) 
htnraI Language Processing, New York, Algorithmic Press,193-241 
144 
REFERENCES continued 
KAY M.(1977), Morphological and syntactic analysis, in A.Zampolli(ed), Linguistic Structure Processing, New York, North-Holland,131-Z34 
KAY N.(1979), Functional Grammar, Proceedings 5th Annual HeeLing of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 142-158. 
PEIEIRA F.(1983), Logic for Natural Language Analysis, Tech.Note 275, SRI International, Henlo Park(Cal.) 
RI\[CHIE G.(1980), Computational Grasmar, Sussex(UK), The Harvester Press. 
RIZZI L°(1982), Issues in Italian Syntax, Oordrecht, Foris Pub. 
SEt=IRK E.0.(1984), Phonology and Syntax, Cambridge Hess., The HIT Press. 
STOCI 0.(1982), Parsing on Wednesday, Rapporto Tecnica n.312, Istituto di Psicologia del C.N.R., Roma. 
WANNE2 E., No HARAISOS(1978), An ATN Approach to Comprehension, in H.Halle, J.Bresnan, G.Hiller(eds), Linguistic \]henry and PsychoLo- 
gical Reality, Cambridge Hess, The HIT Press, 119-16% 
VILLIM4S (.(1980), Remarks on stress and anaphora, Journal of Linguistic Research, 1, 1-16. 
VINOGRAD \[.(1983), Language as a cognitive Process; Vet.I: Syntax, Menlo Park(Cal.), Addison-Wesley. 
ZAENEN k.(198\]), On Syntactic 8inding, Linguistic Inquiry 3, 469-50~. 
145 
