<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="E89-1034">
  <Title>FRENCH ORDER WITHOUT ORDER*</Title>
  <Section position="10" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5. COVERAGE AND DISCUSSION
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The current grammar accounts for the core local linearity phenomena of French i.e., auxiliary and clitic order, clitic placement in simple and in complex verb phrases, clitic doubling and interrogative inversions.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Unbounded dependencies are catered for without resorting either to threading COCG), functional uncertainty (Karttunen) or functional composition (Combinatory Categorial Grammar, Steedman 1986). Instead, the issue is dealt with at the lexical level by introducing an embedding valency on matrix verbs. Finally, non local order constraints such as constraints on the distribution of negative particles and the requirement for a wh-constituent to be placed to the left of the verb when a lexical subject is placed to the right (see example (22d)) can also be handled.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Thus, it appears that insights from phrase structure and categorial grammar can be fruitfully put together in a lexical framework. Following GPSG, our formalism does not associate verb valencies with any intrinsic order. An interesting difference however is that LP statements are not used either. This is important since in French, clitic ordering (B~s 1988) shows that order constraints may hold between items belonging to different local trees. Another difference with GPSG is that as in UCG, no explicit statement of feature instantiation principles is required: the feature flow of information is ensured by the concatenation rules. Last but not least, it is worth underlining that our approach (1) keeps the number of combination rules down to 2 (plus a unary deletion rule) and (2) eliminates unjustified lexical ambiguity i.e., ambiguity not related to categorial or semantic information on the other hand.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Though there are - or so we argue - good linguistic reasons for representing verb valencies as a set rather than as a list, it is only fair to stress that this rapidly leads to computational innefficiency while parsing.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Typically, given 3 adjacent signs NP 1 V NP2 there will be two ways of combining each NP with the verb and thus two parses. In a more complex sentence, so-called &amp;quot;spurious ambiguities&amp;quot; - i.e., analyses which yield exactly the same sign - multiply very quickly. We are currently working on the problem.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>