<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C94-1022">
  <Title>Morphology with a Null-Interface</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Over the last few years there has 1)eeu a growing interest in computational morphology and phonology. A number of systems have been developed that deal with word-level processing. A widely used approach is finite-state morphology, most notably two-level morphology (for an introduction, see Sproat 92). Morphological components are sueeessflflly used for a wide range of stand-alone applications like sl)elling correction aM hyphenation. One obvious application is the use in NI,P systems geared to the analysis/generation of text.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Surprisingly, they have not been widely al)l)lied in this domain up to now.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> A major reason for this is the llrolllem of interfacing morphology with syntax. Reflecting tile current trend in syntax towards lexicalism, unification-1)ased systems use highly structured feature structures as inI)ut. Translating tile output of morphologieM components into such it rel)resentation has proved to be diiticult. Reducing interface problems is therefore crucial to success.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> *Financial support for the Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence is provkled by the Austrian Ministry o\] Science and Research. We wouhl like to thank Wolfgang lleinz for vMuable comments and suggestimls A tight integration between word and sentence level processing also has linguistic advantages. The boundary between morphology and syntax is fuzzy. When processing written text the units nmrl&gt;hology has to deal with are, ill it technicM sense, not words Mt character strings separated by delimiters. While these strings roughly correspond to the words of a sentence there are problematic cases. In German, e.g., zu-infinitive or w'rbs with separMfie prefixes ;Lre written as a single unit in some instances and separately ill others.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> The prol)lem has boon recognized and seine possihle remedies have been prol)osed. They all try to minimize or to elhninMe the intel'r:tce betweell word and sontoiic(: low4 processing. One stop is the descriptiml of word fl)rmation ill terms of a unification-based gl'all/lnai' to make the result (~1' morphological l)rocessing dir(,ctly ~wMhd)le to syntax and vice w~rsa, an :g)l)roa(-h ah'eady ti~ken in X2Moltl,' (Trost 90, '\['rost 91), an extension of two-hwel nmrphohlgy.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> The harder probhml is the integration of morphol)honology which is traditionally formalized in it way not easily t,':mshmdlle into the fei~ture formalisnx. We will show how this can he achieved by merging the word-level grammar of X2MolI.I,' into an lll'S(;-styl0 gralnnla.r, alld by adopting a relational view of its two-level rules.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> 1l, this llal)or we ass/lille basic flmfilhu'ity with unification-ha.seal N I,P techniques and two-low~l lnorphology.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>