<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C69-1401">
  <Title>A ^ A V A V U'/ V A</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="22" end_page="24" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
ABOUT WHAT DID JOHN SPEAK
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> and</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="24" end_page="27" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
WHAT DID JOHN SPEAK ABOUT
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The solution which was found for the problem was to add an additional value (AAC) for the repetition parameter for a transformation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> If a transformation is marked AAC, all possible analyses will be found, but only one of them, selected at random, will be used as the basis for structural change. This seined the appropriate way to solve the problem for the Core grammar, and it turned out also to solve a slightly different repetition problem in the grammar of A1fredian prose. Notice that this is really an observation about the form of grammars, rather than about a particular grammar. Yet it arose by consideration of particular examples.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Surface structure The surface Structure associated with a sentence derivation is much easier to study if it can be produced automatically. In several cases it has been apparent from the information provided by the computer runs that revisions in the grammar were needed if the surface structure is to be at all reasonable. This is a case where the computer runs are certainly not necessary, but where they reduce the tediousness of studying the problem.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> In stmmmary, it seems to me that main value in computer testing of a completed grsm~nar is that the need for a precise statement brings to the consideration of the linguist problems which are otherl null wise below the surface. These problems may be in the grammar itself or they may be in the linguistic model itself. For a grammar in process of being written the greatest advantage is in allowing rules  to be checked as they are added, and in bringing out the interaction between rules.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Instructional use of the s~stem The system has now been used by Sziliard Szabo in teaching ~eneral linguistics at the University of San Francisco, by Michael O'Malley in a course in natural language structure at the University of Michigan, and by the author in courses in co~0utational linguistics at Stanford and Michigan.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> The method of use is to make available to the students a file of one or more grammars to be used as examples and as bases for modifications. The fragments from Aspects and the IEM Core grammar have been most useful3 although small grammar written for this purpose have also been used. The students are then asked to make modifications and additions to the grammars.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> For graduate students, a reasonable exercise for a term paper is to read a current journal article on transformational grammar, and then show how the results can be incorporated into the basic grammar, or show why they cannot be. The papers chosen by the students have generally been ones in which transformations are actually given. This project has been very successful as am introduction to transformational grammar for computer science students.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> Other students have chosen simply to use the computer to obtain fully developed examples of derivations illustrating aspects of grammar in which they are interested.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> These experiences have confirmed our belief that specific  examples presented by the computer, and the feedback provided when a student modifies a grammar, are valuable in enabling the udent to understand the notion of trausformational grammar.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>