<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="E85-1006">
  <Title>NP PRP I ABOUT QOET I WHICH N/ ADJP N OGR AOJ TOPIC I I VERY IhlPORTANT /+WH NP VP t ~ N AUX V PP3 I I I 1 JOHN /PERF TALK * PP /,'/~ PRP NP I I</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="41" end_page="44" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Integrating WH-Movement into ATN
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="41" end_page="43" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
Grammars
2.1 The Descriptive Adequacy of ATNs
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> ATNs, though being a (computationally) powerful specification language for grammars are not committed to a certain lingistic theory as stated cleary in \[WAHLSTER 79\]. This often leads to grammars in which various types of syntactic phenomena are treated descriptively inadequate and linguistically unfounded. In the case of the wh-movement phenomena being discussed here, one has to cope with the fact that the origin of the displaced element can be embedded in some deeper clausal constituent arbitrarily far away from its surface position. (For an example see figure 2. in the appendix !). Sticking to the standard facilities offered by ATNs for constructions of that type implies the use of SEN'DR actions on PUSH-arcs or the HOLD/VIR mechanism in order to allow the involved subnets to communicste with each other. I But neither of the two possibilities can be viewed as a satifactory solution. The former (pushing certain register contents through possibly several subnets) burdens the gr~rnrnar wrlter with the tasks of controlling the use of the pushed register either by using it in some network or by pushing it further down. It thus puts extreme emphasis on the procedural aspect of the grammar thus msk~ng it clumsy and hard to comprehend. Therefore this approach can hardly be considered as a satisfactory solution to the problem.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> The second possibility, namely the use of a global register environment and virtual arcs has been introduced into the ATN framework in order to handle displaced elements of the sort discussed here. In this mechanism the HOLD-action offers the facility to put an analyzed constituent on the HOLD-list (a global additional stack). Later on a VIR-arc can consume a constituent from the HOLD-list as if it occured at the actual point in the input string.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> The necessity of the use of one of these two mechanisms is thereby only under the assumption, that the phrase structure to be produced is thought to express the functional role played by an displaced element in some way or the other. Thus the HOLDfVIR facility and extensions of it as proposed in \[FININ 83\], though surely being preferable to the first possibility still misses to express the relevant syntactic restrictions and permits violations of grammatical constraints governing these constructions.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> Thus to us it seems worthwhile to incorporate wh-phenomena into ATN grammars on a conceptually higher and syntactically motivated level.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4">  Description of the Approach WH-Movement in EST Before decribing the embedding of WH-movement into an ATN grammar a short presentation of the general principles of its treatment in EST is given.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> The fundamental feature of it is the use of an transformation (move wh-phrase) which moves a wh-phrase of a nonverbal phrasal category into an sentencedeginitial non-argument position by adjoining it to the COMP-node. The moved phrase leaves behind an empty phrase (its trace), which is coindexed with the fronted wh-phrase.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> This fronting can be achieved in one step as in the unbounded movement analysis or successivly as in the COMP-to-COMP analysis, yielding the same resulting structure in both cases (ignoring the intermediate COMp-deminated traces). The version reflected in our approach is the unbounded movement analysis as only the COMP-node finally dominating the wh-element is affected.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7">  The basic idea in the proposed treatment of wh-construction is to let the parser build up phrase structures containing unbound traces and bind these traces to the fronted wh-phrase when the entire wh-construction is accomplished.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> This task itself is divided into the following two steps: . The phrase structure trees built during the parse may contain unbound ~aces. At the grammar level this is achieved by adding JUMP-arcs to the grammar, which can accept empty constituents. This means that you have JUMP-arcs parsing traces of type XP, which in the gr~mm~r are alternative arcs to the corresponding PUSH XP-arcs (with XP other than VP). Furthermore these arcs contain certain register actions responsible for building the structures for the empty phrases.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> The possible locations of traces as subconstituents in the wh-constrnction phrase structure depend on the restrictions described by these JUMP-arcs when the grammar is applied  to the input.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> 2. On the level where the phrase structure trees for wh-constructions are constructed a binding procedure tries to bind (i.e. coindex) the fronted wh-phrase with its trace.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> Since this binding procedure is actually the central part of the mechanism its features are described in more detail in the following section.  What the binding procedure (BindWhTrace) actually does is to establish a mapping of a phrase structure tree into another phrase structure tree, where the mapping is structure preserving in the sense that it does not alter the phrases' internal structure. The effect of the mapping is to establish a coindexing between a wh-phrase in COMP-position and its trace in an argument position as shown in the following diagram.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="13"> The coindexing itself is restricted by various constraining conditions. These concern the morphosyntactic,, functional and configurational features of the two phrases to be bound.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="14"> So, for example the wh-NP &amp;quot;whom&amp;quot; in COMP-position can only be coindexed with an empty NP bearingthe grammatical function of direct object or prepositional object for example. Furthermore there are configurational constraints between the two candidate phrases that have to be fullfilled, in order to establish a proper binding as e.g. the coordinate structure constraint. This constraint does not allow movement of a phrase out of a conjunctive structure which, being applied to the binding procedure means that the coindexing may not take place in a structure where f~ is an empty constituent of the  Since the phrase structure built at the point where the binding procedure is involved may contain traces which are no su/table candidates for a proper binding (since they do not fullfiU these restricting conditions) the procedure may not succeed to establish a proper indexing. That's why the procedure can also be viewed as a function reporting success or failure respectively, thus filtering out part of the structures btdlt so far.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="15"> Furthermore even in the case of a proper binding done by the binding procedure the resulting phrase structure trees may still contain unbound traces.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="16"> Such structures however must be blocked according to two constraints which do not allow constituents in wh-question and relative clause structures to be moved outside the entire phrase, which in terms of the coindexing means that they may not be coindexed with a constituent outside these structures.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="17"> In the case of (headed) relative clauses this is ruled out by the complex-NP constraint, which (stated in a simplified form) does not allow a constituent ~ to be moved out of the following structure: (Np...N/(s/...R...)) For questions an equivalent restriction is expressed by the wh-island constraint, which does not allow a phrase ~ to be moved out of the following structure: (S/(COMP.. &lt; + wh &gt; )(S.-.fl--.)) Since the binding procedure does its work just on this sort of phrase structure, namely the structures produced by the relative clause and the wh-question subnets, it can easily test these two constraints too, thus blocking all structures with no rOper binding of the displaced wh-element or with ftover unbound traces.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="18"> Now the way in which this procedure is embedded in the gr~mmex should be clear. It has been incorporated into each POP-arc of a wh-construction subnet (i.e. the relative clause and the wh-question subnet), where it is used as a testpredicate reporting whether the structure built so far contains a proper binding with no unbound traces left. The actual binding is done as a side-effect of that predicate. So the corresponding POP-arc look Hke this : (POP pro' (BindWhTrace pm)) I (With pro' derived from the phrase marker pm by In terms of the grammar used, a POP-arc for a wh-construction network has the following form: (0.7 POP (GETR R)(BindWhTrace R)) (Here R is the register containing the phrase structure tree on which the binding procedure works. The first item in this arc is a weight assigned to it.)  successful application of BindWhTrace) Thus POP-arcs with an additional test of the sort described act as filters popping the form pro' only if this test has been sucessfully applied to the structure pro.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="19"> 2.2.3 Interaction with the Treatment of Control</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="43" end_page="44" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
Verbs
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> As already mentioned our grammar also deals with certain contol verb constructions. These axe lSO handled by a coindexing procedure which nctions similar to the binding procedure. It is invoked on the POP-arc of the corresponding network and tries - based on the lexical features of the control verb in the matrix clause - to coindex the abstract subject &amp;quot;Pro&amp;quot; with its controller, also reporting success or failure.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> In cases where this coindexing mechanism and the binding procedure may affect the same constituent (as an example see f~gure 2. of the appendix) we have adopted the strategy of doing the wh-element binding before the control-indexing.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> This means that the controller-NP may already have assigned an index that actually is used for the control indexing of Pro. So in our example the final structure is constructed in the following way:</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> The procedure is invoked at the same level, namely when a wh-construction is actually parsed (i.e. whenever the syntactic rule is applied, which combines a wh-element with a phrase of the category S.) This roughly corresponds to the POP-arc ofa wh-construction subnet in our case.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> But in contrast to our approach where the binding procedure acts on a constituent structure already containing traces, Wehrli's binding procedure is activated by the absence of an obligatory slot in the functional structure. After locating such a slot an empty element is inserted both into the functional and the constituent structure with a suitable index. So in his approach the search for the argument position traces (which in our approach is done by the parser by offering different phrase structures already containing traces) is part of the binding procedtire.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> This, on the one hand has the advantage of focussing on the treatment solely in the binding procedure. On the other hand, it makes the ~ rocedure considerably more complex, since it must e able to detect ambiguities I which in our approach are dealt with in the grammar rules.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> 2.3.2. PARSIFAL The second approach discussed here is the work by Marcus on wh-movement in his PARSIFAL system \[MARCUS 80\]. There the cyclic analysis of wh-movement is adopted which, besides its linguistic motivation \[CHOMSKY 77\] is enforced by the structure of the gr~mm~r interpreter. The reason for this lies in the fact that during the parsing of some embedded clause Se there is no access to any structure beyond this Se as at that time it is the current cyclic node in the active node stack. So for example in a structure like This reflects the ordering of these two mechanisms in transformational gr~rnmRr (namely the move-wh transformation and the rules of construal) ; thus the correct handling for a wide variety of structures involving both wh-movement and control constructions has been achieved.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8">  In this section the comparison with other parsers is limited to the discussion of the handling of wh-constructions only; thus this is not intended an overall comparision of the parsers per se.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> One approach to the treatment of wh-constructions that lends itself well to a comparison can be found in Wehrlis's parser for French \[W'EHRL183\]. There a binding procedure is incorporated as a separate module in a parser which in toto is based on the GB-framework \[CHOMSKY= 82\].</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> at the moment when the trace NP&amp;quot; is parsed (i.e.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="12"> created, dropped into the buffer and attached to Se) there is no access to the headed wh-NP NP' thus preventing the trace NP&amp;quot; to be bound to it. This There may be several unfilled slots in the functional structure, in the matrix sentence as weU as in some embedded sentence. This is for example the case if the headed wh-phrase is a PP whose attachment is ambiguous, as in: On which day will John hold a speech? (.with its &amp;quot;when&amp;quot;-reading &amp;quot;When will .... &amp;quot; and its topic'-reading &amp;quot;On which topic will .... &amp;quot;)  r~blem is avoided, if the gr~mm~r rules create a MP-Node with a bound trace attached to it before analyzing Se. Thus the trace NP&amp;quot; can be bound to the headed wh-NP via some intermediate COMPattached traces, as for example via NP&amp;quot; in the following structure: (S(COMP (NP' i &lt; + wh &gt; ))--(S,(COMP(NP'i e)..(NP&amp;quot; e).).) This mechanism is implemented by means of a special register, WH-comp, which in must be handled explicitly the grammar rules when creating and binding traces. Furthermore the status of that register (which can be set in the grammar to 'utilized&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;not utilized&amp;quot;) serves as a condition for triggering certain actions in the course of the anlysis of wh-constructions (such as the deactivation of certain rule packets). This from the grsmmar writer's point of view seems to have some of the flavour and disadvantages of the SENDRsolution discussed before (section 2.1).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="13"> The approach described so far however causes difficulties in a productive class of constructions, where the trace to be analyzed is dominated by an NP which also serves as the current cyclic node making the headed wh-phrase inaccessible for the binding of its trace as in constructions like: (S/(COMP(NP who ))(S is that (NP a portrait of e))) Tiffs problem is overcome by Marcus by means of an ad hoc mechanism which exactly allows access to a headed wh-element in such constructions, whereas in our approach constuctions of both types are handled in a uniform way.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="44" end_page="44" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 Conclusion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The approach described has from our experience proved to be a useful step in the direction of handling wh-movement constructions in an ATN grammar in a linguistically motivated way. The resulting gr'~tmrnar turned out to be more perspicuous than a grsmmar dealing with these phenomena with the standard ATN facilities (as sketched in in section 2.1).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The work described will be continued in three directions. First, we will incorporate this treatment of wh-constructions and other syntactically motivated mechanisms (as for example NP-movement) in a grammar for a substantial subset of German. Secondly, we will include further binding-mechanisms for various kinds of anaphoric relationships. Thirdly, we will explore the possibility of embedding such concepts into the ATN language formalism.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="44" end_page="44" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The implementation of the various versions of the parser and the grammar editor has been done in cooperation with my (partly former) colleagues Reinhard Enders, Ludwig Schmid and Bertram Fronh6fer.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>