<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P87-1032">
  <Title>INCORPORATING INHERITANCE AND FEATURE STRUCTURES INTO A LOGIC GRAMMAR FORMALISM</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="228" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
THE IS-A RELATION AMONG
FEATURE VALUES
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Like other grammar formalisms using feature-based functional structures, we will assume a fixed set of symbol8 called the signature. These symbols are atomic values used to represent lexical, syntactic and semantic categories and other feature values. In many formalisms (e.g. DCG and PATR-II), equality is the only operation for symbols; in IG symbols are related in an IS-A hierarchy. These relationships are indicated in the grammar using statements such as1: boy &lt; masculineObject.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> girl &lt; feminineObject.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> man &lt; masculineObject.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> woman &lt; feminineObJect.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> {boy, girl} &lt; child.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> {man, woman} &lt; adult.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> {child, adult} &lt; human.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> The symbol &lt; can be read as &amp;quot;is a&amp;quot; and the notation {a,,... ,an}&lt;b is an abbreviation for al&lt;b, * * * ,an&lt;b. The grammar writer need not distinguish between instances and classes, or between syntactic and semantic categories when the hierarchy is specified. Such distinctions are only determined by how the symbols are used in the grammar. Note that this example ordering exhibits multiple inheritance: feminineObjeers are not necessarily humans and humans are not necessarily feminine0b-Jeers, yet a girl is both a human and a feminineObj ect.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> Computation of LUB (t_ J) and GLB (\['7) in arbitrary partial orders is problematic. In IG, the grammar writer specifies an arbitrary ordering which the rule execution system automatically embeds in a lattice by the addition of newly created symbols (Maier, 1980). Symbols may be thought of as standing for conceptual sets or semantic types and the IS-A relationship can be thought of as set I Symbols appearing in the grammar but not in the  inclusion. Finding the GLB-i.e. unification of symbols-then amounts to set intersection. For the partial order specified above, two new symbols are automatically added, representing semantic categories implied by the IS-A statements, i.e. human females and human males. The first new category (human females) can be thought of as the intersection of human and feminlneObJect or as the union of girl and woman 2, and similarly for human males. The signature resulting from the IS-A statements is shown in Figure 1.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="228" end_page="229" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
C-TERMS AS FEATURE STRUCTURES
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Much work in computational linguistics is focussed around the application of unification to an informational structure that maps attribute names (also called feature names, slot names, or labels) to values (Kay, 1984a; Kay, 1984b; Shieber, 1985; Shieber, et al, 1986). A value is either atomic or (recursively) another such mapping. These mappings are called by various names: feature structures, functional structures, f-structures, and feature matrices. The feature structures of PATR-II are most easily understood by viewing them as directed, acyclic graphs (DAGs) whose arcs are annotated with feature labels and whose leaves are annotated with atomic feature values (Shieber, 1985).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> IS-A statements are taken to be unrelated.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 2 Or anything in between. One is the most liberal interpretation, the other the most conservative. The signsture could be extended by adding both classes, and any number in between.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> IGs use C-terms, an informational structure that is best described as a rooted, possibly cyclic, directed graph. Each node (both leaf and interior) is annotated with a symbol from the signature. Each arc of the graph is labelled with a feature label (an attribute). The set of feature labels is unordered and is distinct from the signature. The formal definition of C-terms, given in set theoretic terms, is complicated in several ways beyond the scope of this presentation-see the definition of well-formed types in (Ait-Kaci, 1984). We give several examples to give the flavor of C-terms.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Feature structures are often represented using a bracketed matrix notation, in addition to the DAG notation. C-terms, on the other hand, are represented using a textual notation similar to that of first-order terms. The syntax of the textual representation is given by the following extended BNF grammar 3.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5">  brackets enclose optional constituents, and ellipses are used (loosely) to indicate repetition. The characters ( ) -&gt; , and z are terminals.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> feminineObject human masculineObject adu i t humanF ema i e humanMa i e chi i d woman man gir I boy  the root node, np, is called the head symbol.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> This C-term contains two features, labelled by number and person.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> np ( number ~ singular, person ~ third) The next example includes a subterm at  agreement:=&gt;: (cat ~ np, agreement ~ (number ~ singular, person ~ third))  In this C-term the head symbol is missing, as is the head symbol of the subterm. When a symbol is missing, the most general symbol of the signature (T) is implied.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> In traditional first-order terms, a variable serves two purposes. First, as a wild card, it serves as a place holder which will match any term. Second, as a tag, one variable can constrain several positions in the term to be filled by the same structure. In C-terms, the wild card function is filled by the maximal symbol of the signature (T) which will match any C-term during unification. Variables are used exclusively for the tagging function to indicate C-term eore/erence. By convention, variables always begin with an uppercase letter while symbols and labels begin with lowercase letters and digits.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> In the following ~b-term, representing The man want8 to dance with Mary, X is a variable used to identify the subject of wants with the subject of dance.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11">  sentence ( subject ~ X: man, predicate ~ wants, verbComp ~ clause ( subject ~ X, predicate ~ dance, object ~ mary ))  If a variable X appears in a term tagging a subterm t, then all subterms tagged by other occurrences of X must be consistent with (i.e. unify with) t 4. If a variable appears without a subterm following it, the term consisting of simply the top symbol (T) is assumed. The constraint implied by variable coreference is not just equality of structure but equality of reference. Further unifications that add information to one sub-structure will necessarily add it to the other. Thus, in this example, X constrains the terms appearing at the paths subject=&gt; and verbComp~subject~ to be the same term.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> In the ~b-term representation of the sentence The man with the toupee sneezed, shown below, the np filling the subject role, X, has two attributes. One is a qualifier filled by a relativeClause whose subject is X itself.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13">  sentence ( subject ~ X: np ( head ~ man, qualifier ~ relativeClause subject ~ X, predicate ~ wear, object ~ toupee)), predicate ~ sneezed)  As the graphical representation (in Figure 2) of this term clearly shows, this C-term is cyclic.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="229" end_page="231" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
UNIFICATION OF ~b-TERMS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The unification of two ~b-terms is similar to the unification of two feature structures in PATR-II or two first-order terms in logic.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Unification of two terms t I and t 2 proceeds as follows. First, the head symbols of tl and t2&amp;quot;are unified. That is, the GLB of the two symbols in the signature lattice becomes the head symbol of the result. Second, the subterms of t I and t, are unified. When t I and t 2 both contain the feature f, the corresponding subterms are unified and added as feature f of the result. If one term, say h, contains feature f and the other term does not, then the result will contain feature f with the value from h. This is the same result that would obtain if t2 contained feature f with value T. Finally, the subterm 4 Normally, the subterm at X will be written following the first occurrence of X and all other occurrences of X will not include subterms.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2">  coreference constraints implied by the variables in t 1 and t 2 are respected. That is, the result is the least constrained ~b-term such that if two paths (addresses) in t 1 (or t2) are tagged by the same variable (i.e. they core/%r) then they will corefer in the result.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> For example, when the C-term  and several grammar rulC/~. A grammar rule is a definite clause which uses C-terms in place of the first-order literals used in first-order logic programming s. Much of the notation of Pro\]og and DCGs is used. In particular, the :- symbol separates a rule head from the C-terms comprising the rule body. Analogously to Prolog, list-notation (using \[, I, and \]) can be used as a shorthand for C-terms representing lists and containing head and tail features.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> When the --&gt; symbol is used instead of &amp;quot;-, the rule is treated as a context-free grammar rule and the interpreter automatically appends two additional arguments (start and end) to facilitate parsing. The final syntactic sugar allows feature labels to be elided; sequentially numbered numeric labels are automatically supplied. null Our first simple Inheritance Grammar consists of the rules:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> The sentence to be parsed is supplied as a goal  clause, as in: :- sent (\[cats,meow\] , \[\]) . The interpreter first translates these clauses into the following equivalent IG clauses, expanding away the notational sugar, before execution begins.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> end~nil ) .</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> As this example indicates, every DCG is an Inheritance Grammar. However, since the arguments may be arbitrary C-terms, IG can also accomodate feature structure manipulation.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="7" start_page="231" end_page="231" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
TYPE-CLASS REASONING IN PARSING
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Several logic-based grammars have used semantic categorization of verb arguments to disambiguate word senses and fill case slots (e.g. Dahl, 1979; Dahl, 1981; McCord, 1980). The primary motivation for using !b-terms for grammatical analysis is to facilitate such semantic type-class reasoning during the parsing stage.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> As an example, the DCG presented in (McCord, 1980) uses unification to do taxonomic reasoning. Two types unify iff one is a subtype of the other; the result is the most specific type. For example, if the first-order term smith:_ representing an untyped individual 6, is unified with the type expression X:person: student, representing the student subtype of person, the result is smith :person : student.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> terms replace first-order terms rather than predications. e Here the colon is used as a right-associative infix operator meaning subtype.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> While .this grammar achieves extensive coverage, we perceive two shortcomings to the approach. (1) The semantic hierarchy is somewhat inflexible because it is distributed throughout the lexicon, rather than being maintained separately. (2) Multiple Inheritance is not accommodated (although see McCord, 1985). In IG, the C/-term student can act as a typed variable and unifies with the C-term smith (yielding smith) assuming the presence of IS-A statements such as: student &lt; person.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> {smith, Jones, brown} &lt; student.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> The taxonomy is specified separately-even with the potential of dynamic modification-and multiple inheritance is accommodated naturally.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="8" start_page="231" end_page="231" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
OTHER GRAMMATICAL APPLICATIONS
OF TAXONOMIC REASONING
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The taxonomic reasoning mechanism of IG has applications in lexical and syntactic categorization as well as in semantic type-class reasoning. As an illustration which uses C-term predications, consider the problem of writing a grammar that accepts a prepositional phrase or a relative clause after a noun phrase but only accepts a prepositional phrase after the verb phrase. So The flower under the tree wilted, The flower that was under the tree wilted, and John ate under the tree should be accepted but not *John ate that was under the tree. The taxonomy 8peeifie~ that prepositionalPhrase and relativeClause are npModifiers but only a prepositionalPhrase is a vpModifier The following highly abbreviated IG shows one simple solution: {prepositionalPhrase, relativeClause} &lt; npModifier.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> prepositionalPhrase &lt; vpModifier.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>