<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P85-1019">
  <Title>Semantic Caseframe Parsing and Syntactic Generality</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="158" end_page="159" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
3. Conclusion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Prey,puS work (e.g. \[4. 5. 81 / 3no exoer,ence .,vdh our current rmolementat~on of Plume. Carnegie 'Group s semantic caseframe parser, has ~nown semantic caseframe instanl=ation to be an efficient and mgnly roloust method of parsing restnctecl dommn tnout However hke other methods of parsing tleawly deoendent on restricted domain semantics these ,nmal attempts at parsers based on semantic caseframe =nslant;al~on suffer from palcny syntactic coverage.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  After first describing the current ~mplementation of Plume, this paper presented a detaded design for endowing Plume with much broader syntact=c coverage including passives. interrogatives, and relat=ve clauses. Relative clauses are accommodated through some grammar preprocessing and a minor change in the processing of nominal caseframes Handling of interrogatives relies on a set of rules for classifying inputs into one of a limited number of types. Each of these types has one or more associated parse templates which guide the subsequent detailed parse of the sentence, As the final version of this paper is prepared (late April, 1985). the handling of passives and interrogatives has already been implemented in an internal development version of Plume. and relative clauses are expected to follow SOOn Though the above methods of incorporating syntactic generality into Plume do not Cover all of English syntax. trey show that a s=gnfficant degree of syntactic generality can Ioe provided straightforwardly t:)y a domain specific parser drtven from a semantic caseframe grarpmar</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>