<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C90-2046">
  <Title>Tenets for an Interlinguai Representation of Definite NPs</Title>
  <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="266" type="abstr">
    <SectionTitle>
1o Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The main goal of this paper (as in Keenan and Stavi 1986) is to characterize the possible determiner denotations in order to develop a computational approach that makes explicit use of this information. To cope with the constraints that languages impose when generating determiners, a computational model has to follow the laws that map definiteness to structures and strings and viceversa.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> In the following proposal I distantiate from K. Btihlers Deixis Theory and Weinrichs (76) proposal where indefinites suggest subsequent information, while definite point out facts from the previous intbrmation. This very general position is insufficient if we want to formalize NP-definiteness.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The semantics of NP definiteness must be captured adequately in computational frameworks for such tasks as answering quantified NL-- questions, or in a MT system to convert NPs from one language into another,.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> In the first part of this paper I draw a typology of definiteness; later I reflect on the definiteness of NPs in an IL-representation. The major result is given by the determiner generators. Definiteness should be evaluated in a Q-A system and in MT. The extensive functionality of definiteness is first elaborated in the parsing and results in an ILrepresentation; finally the determiner generators create correct morphological determiners and right determiner structures. 2, Parsing definite NPs Weinrich (1976) distinguishes three types of anaphoric and cataphoric information: context, situation and code. Code is the paradigmatic meaning that speakers find in the lexicon (standard definitions).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> The NPs parsing strategy- that copes with these three information types- comes down to these main questions: * the question of building adequate semantic interpretation for the functional features fixed during analysis * The question of reference resolution for definite NPs To achieve that goal the Np grammar must work with a sufficient: (r) determiner subcategorisation * strategy about constraints depending upon the semantic features of the nouns, and on the context (PPs, Rel-S, compounding, etc.) This strategy, of course, can not rely on the presupposition of existence and uniqueness, i.e. the &amp;quot;accommodation&amp;quot; model of Lewis  (1979) or the Russellian analysis of &amp;quot;the&amp;quot; so closely related to the analysis of &amp;quot;only&amp;quot;, that would fail for sentences like: (MacCawley 81. p.177): 1. &amp;quot;The restaurant on the Clark street is excellent&amp;quot;  because Russell's analysis did not allow truth value gaps or interactions between logical form and context (MacCawley.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> t).177), if there is more than one restaurant on the Clark Street, sentence 1 expresses a false proposition.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="263" end_page="264" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
Determiner Subcategorisation
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The list of determiners is surprisingly long (Keenan 86) and there is even the possibility to build complex determiners by adding modifiers to determiners. According to keenan and Stavi there are 3 types of determiners: cardinal, logical and non logical.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> Dets are taken into consideration according to the fact of being terminal or pre-terminal nodes. This subcategorisation entails the following additional feature-value pairs.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Terminal determiners are subcategorized in the lexicon according to the features:  * semantics of the NP {mass vs. count noun, temporal, local, argument .... } Each feature configuration corresponds with a NP structure with full decoration (in a MT system), or a compositional formula representation (in understanding systems); in both cases it is built up rule-to-rule.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> The outgoing object of the parser is a ILrepresentation. Later on the generators will define, according to the idiosyncratic laws of each language, the morpheme assignment for this interlingua (IL).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Determiner functionality The semantic value of the tags {genetics, definiteness, topic} for NPs is obtained during analysis and it is the result of taking into consideration: * the whole NP structure {attribution, apposition, genitives, head-specifier relation in compounds is relevant for definiteness.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> * the NP typology together with the sentence aspect and time is relevant for generics.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> * the semantic primitives tie the lexical item to an ontological class and is relevant for the possible word readings * word order and negation is relevant for topic Generics Generics do not underly universal or nearly universal quantifiers. The reference of generics mirrors that of habitual propositions. They are treated as predication of individuals though  allowing the clauses in question to take different truth values at different times. Generics are expressed in the present tense with the aspect value habitual (usually, occasionally, always). The 3 different generic types reflect the different quantitication of the determiners in  propositions like: 1. &amp;quot;Men do not cry&amp;quot; (Quant.=distrib) (=usually every man does not cry) 2. &amp;quot;Germans are bad husbands&amp;quot; (Quant.= distr) 3. % man does not cry&amp;quot; (Quant.=mass)(whoever has the property of being) 4. &amp;quot;the lion is a mammal&amp;quot; (Quant=coll) (The species...) 5. &amp;quot;I like lamb&amp;quot; Contrary to MacCawley I think that indefinite plural generics as in (1) are basically references to sets of objects. Indefinite singular generic NPs are references to properties of individuals (3), and definite singular NPs with count nouns (4) or indefinite ( without article) mass nouns (5) are basically references to kinds.  The final value &amp;quot;generics&amp;quot; on the NP is calculated from the verbal tense value (PR) and from the aspect value (habitual) together with the determiner of the NP, the semantic type of the noun, and the whole NP syntactic structure.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7">  6. &amp;quot;Wine is a drink&amp;quot; vs. &amp;quot;el vino es una bebida&amp;quot; \[$SUBJ mass\] 7. &amp;quot;I drink wine&amp;quot; vs, &amp;quot;bebo (0) vino&amp;quot; \[$OBJ mass\]  The same generic NP in examples 6/7 behave differently in spanish according to the sentence argument.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> Both the generics and the syntactic role in the sentence have an effect on the article generation in different languages.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="264" end_page="266" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
Head-Specifier Structure
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The addition of features providing information about certain syntactic structures is very useful in reflecting the nominal definiteness behavior.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> The following structures assist in distinguishing (between general and specific reference) definite NPs: deg acronyms and proper names:  deg attribution (with adjectives, relative clauses, genitive constructions, prepositional phrases, compounding .... ) Here some examples with the value definiteness =True: &amp;quot;The second paragraph&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;the cleanest water&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;The man that I remember&amp;quot;, Peter's hatred&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;the truth about his past&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;the picture on the wall&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;the  la puerta de la casa Germanic languages only have one determiner in compounds, however the genitive relation must be captured to reflect the definiteness of the specifier in another language.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> During NP parsing, constituents are marked according to their head- specifier function together with their semantic type.In that way,  PPs, adjectival phrases and compounds are represented in a uniform way. Additional feature constraints on head and specifier regulate definiteness, depending on their  The series &amp;quot;definite article + Lexeme + indefinite article + Lexeme&amp;quot; reflects a methodological progress in the information situation. If this direction changes, the direction of the predication also changes. That means that the noun (or NP) will be focused and therefore has a definite reference.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3">  8. the FBI employed American citizens (la FBI emplea 0 a ciudadanos) 9. American citizens are employed by the FBI 10. Los ciudadanos americanos son empleados por la FBI 11. a: Dem Kind gab ich den Ball b: Es al nifio a quien di la pelota 12. The man I love  Topicalized NPs must be marked as such. Voice in example 9 topicalize the NP and demands in spanish definiteness for the NP. The bare topicalization in german in example (lla) corresponds a marked extraposition in spanish (11 b). Languages make a discriminating use of this feature when generating determiner requirements.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Predicative constructions In predicative constructions the relevant criteria for the use of determiners are the type of copula (NP expresses a property (14-15), or a reference (16)), while with other verbs the relevant criteria is the aspect (process vs. accomplishment or achievement) A sentence involving a noun X with definite article in predicate position does not assert that the subject is X. We have to distinguish between a &amp;quot;be&amp;quot; of identity and that of copula. 13. Felipe es (el) presidente de Espafia a: (t x: presidente(x,Espafia))  English demands article for copula cases like (14), existing the opposite referential value for the article &amp;quot;the&amp;quot; (the teacher). Referential examples are treated the same in english and spanish for identity predicate.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> At the other hand arguments of predicates in accomplishments or achievements (not as a process) are (16) individualized and as such demand definiteness. The sole exception are lexicalized expressions and sentences with function verbs (17) 16. &amp;quot;voy a la playa&amp;quot; vs. &amp;quot;I go to the beach&amp;quot; (achievement) &amp;quot;bese un tigre&amp;quot;(al tigre) vs. I kissed  17.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> the tiger (accomplish.) &amp;quot;me gusta besar tigres&amp;quot; vs.&amp;quot;I like to kiss tigers&amp;quot; (process) &amp;quot;pongo la mesa&amp;quot; vs. &amp;quot;Ich decke den Tisch&amp;quot; &amp;quot;tengo razon&amp;quot; vs.Ich habe Recht&amp;quot;</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>