<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-1045">
  <Title>Direct and Underspecified Interpretations of LFG f-structures</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="266" end_page="266" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
8 Conclusion and Comparison
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We have provided direct and indirect undersl)(!(:ified model theoretic intert)retations for LFG fstructures. The interpretal;ions are truth t)rese.rving, hence correc% with respect to an indei)endent semantics. We have established isomorphic subsets of the QLF and LFG formalism. Our apt)roach is in the spirit of but (:ontrasts with at)proaches by (Halvorsen, 1983; ttalvorsen &amp; Ksplan, 1988; Fenstad et al., 1987; Wedekind &amp; Ksplan, 1993; Dalrymple et al., 1995) which are ne.ither unde.rspecifie.d nor direct. Like (Halvorsen, 1983; Wedekind &amp; Kaplan, 1993) our approach fails int;o the description by analysis 1)aradigln.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Its limits are determined by what is analysed: f-sU'uctm'es. Work is under way to interpret f-structures as UDRSs in order to exploit t11(; UDRS inference component (Reyh;, 1993). Furl;her work recons|;ructs QLF interl)retal;ion in terms of linear logic deductioi~s (1)alrymple et al., 1995) and provides a scope constraint mechanisln tot such deductions.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>