<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C88-1037">
  <Title>Expressing quantifier scope in French generation</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="182" end_page="182" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4 Our approach
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Our approach is based on an integrated choice of both the surface structure and the determiners associated with noun phrases. We believe that scope expression is ruled by the following facts: * A direct s dominance relationship cannot be expressed between any pair of noun phrases occurring in the sentence but only between noun phrases involved in specific syntactic structures.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> o To each of these specific structures can be attached a weak default scope rule providing a partial and default ordering of the different noun phrases involved in the structure. * Adequate determiner selection (through a mechanism we call scope expression reinforcement) can either override the default ordellng given by scope rules or turn the partial ordering into a total one if necessary.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 2This rule was proposed for English. Examples will show that it is not applicable, neither in French nor in English.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> SThat is the scope relationship between two consecutive quantifiers. In the next section we will introduce the principle of scope expression reinforcement. Ttm limits of scope expression will be considered in section 6. Section 7 will describe the default scope rules and provide examples of the use of these rules as well as of reinforcement.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> 5 Scope expression reinforcement by determiner selection Let us colmidcr some simple ways of expressing universal and existential quantifiers.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Several determiners express universal quantification. The definite article &amp;quot;le&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;lea&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;the&amp;quot;) weakly express lmiversal quantification. &amp;quot;Chaque&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;each&amp;quot; or sometimes &amp;quot;every&amp;quot;)4 and &amp;quot;tons Its&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;all the&amp;quot;) both strongly indicate that all entities specified by the noun phrase participate in the semantic relationship with the element (e.g. the verb) they depend from. But &amp;quot;chaque&amp;quot; adds a distributive featm:e which indicates that there is a state or action for each entity described in the noun phrase and therefore has the effect of giving a dominant position to the corresponding mfiversal quantifier. Using &amp;quot;tons lea&amp;quot; adds a collective ~ feature and does not give this domination effect. Tiffs leaves the possibility for another quantifier to &amp;quot;take&amp;quot; the dominance.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Other determiners express existential quantification, such as &amp;quot;un&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;a&amp;quot;), &amp;quot;des ''e and &amp;quot;un m~me&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;a same&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;one&amp;quot;) ~ etc. &amp;quot;On&amp;quot; does not give any domination effect; obviously, &amp;quot;un m~me&amp;quot; indicates that the entity described in the noun phrase and participating to the semantic relationship is the same for all states or actions described. This gives dominance to the corresponding existential quantifier.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> Let us now consider some examples and evaluate their quality as generated text: Ex. 7 Chaque homme est dana une piece.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> (Each man is in a room.) Ex. 8 Tou.~ lea hommes sont dana une m~me piece.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> (All men are in a same zoom.) Ex. 9 Tou.,J Its hommes sont dans une piece.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> (All men are in a room.) Ex. 10 Chaquc homme eat dan~ une m~me piece.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> (E~,,h man is in a same room.) Obviously, examples 7 and 8 are clear and unambiguous; they provide distinct and adequate expressions for the two possible quantifier scopes. Example 9 is poor. Most readers understaIgt it as having the same meaning as example 7 but some could understand it as example 8. Such a sentence is potentially ambiguous ~.nd generating such a sentence should be avoided. Example 10 is also poor because the dominance indications given by &amp;quot;chaque&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;an m~me&amp;quot; are contradictory. These examples have shown that the imposed quantifier scope can be expressed correctly and clearly by reinforcing the expression of the dominating quantifier.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="182" end_page="183" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
6 Limits of scope expression
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We consider that scope can only be expressed between noun phrases which are linked by a direct syntactic relationship. In French, quantifier dominance can only be expressed between: * the different elements directly linlced to the same verb (subject, direct or indirect object, agent and other complements)~ null  phrase~ that is between: - the head and its complements, - the head and the elements directly linked to the main verb of a relative clause, - the head and the complements of an adjective, * a main clause and a conjunctive subordinate clause.  Our study has shown that these hypotheses on syntactic structures can provide a criterion applicable to the structure of the input message. This criterion tmlps us to detect situations where dominance cannot be expressed properly in one sentence and to decide, in the process of generation, to split the message into several parts wtfich can be expressed precisely. 7 Default scope rules and examples Default scope rules indicate how the reader perceives quantitier scope whenever no reinforcement is used. We will propose a default scope rule for each of the syntactic structures given in section 6.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="182" end_page="183" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
7.1 Simple sentences
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The quantification associated to noun phrases will respect tile following default quantification priority scheme:  1. non essential s complements placed before the verb, 2. subject, 3. non essential complements placed between the verb and the essential complements, 4. essential complements, 5. non essential complements placed after the essential ones.  This rule bears some resemblance with the &amp;quot;left to right order&amp;quot; rule or with Colmerauer's proposal but in fact it is based more on semantic considerations than syntactic ones. The usual word position in a French sentence (i.e. subject, verb, essential complements, non essential complements) reflects tile semantic proximity of these elements with respect to the verb: a nearer position corresponds to a greater proximity (points 2, 4 and 5 of the above rule). We coz~sider that placing some non essential complement in an unusual position (points 1 and 3) raises iLs importance with a corresponding raise in its scope priority. Let us also point out that this rule only provides a partial ordering. For example, if a verb has two essential complements, the rule does not order them.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> In /Gailly 87b/ we have given an extensive list of examples showing how complex 9 quantification structm'es can be expressed in a natural way. We will just quote a few complex examples taken from the classical suppliers-parts database and requiring reinforcement: Ex. 11 V aupplier 3 article -3 date V customer Donnez-moi la liate de8 fournisaeurs qui livrent un m~me article h toua lea clients hune m~me date.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> (Give me the llst of all suppliers which deliver a same article to all customers at a same date.) The dominance of &amp;quot;article&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;date&amp;quot; has been reinforced by the use of &amp;quot;un m~me&amp;quot;.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> Ex. 12 V date 3 article V ~upplier 3 customer Donnez-moi la liate den dates o~ un m~me article a dtd livrg par chaque \[ourniaaeur h au moin~ un client. (Give me the list of dates when a same article w~ delivered by each supplier to at least one customer.) The dominance of &amp;quot;article&amp;quot; has been expressed by selecting a subject position and by using &amp;quot;an m~me'; the relative dominance of &amp;quot;supplier&amp;quot; has been expressed by using &amp;quot;chaque&amp;quot;. SEssential complements are those verb complements whose omission would make the sentence nonsensical. For example the verb &amp;quot;slier&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;to go&amp;quot;), in the meaning implying some movement, requires the specification of the target location. This semantic notion seems more adequate than Cohnerauer's proposal of &amp;quot;near complements&amp;quot; which is based on the syntactic function of the complement.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="183" end_page="183" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
7.2 Noun phrases
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> We have studied the cases of noun's complements, relative clauses and complements of an adjective. The head of the noun phrase has default dominance on the subordinated noun phrases occurring inside the noun phrase.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> The scope relationship between the quantifiers associated with the noun phrases subordinated to the head can be treated by default scope rules similar to the one given for simple sentences. These rules assume that the head dominates and that there is no &amp;quot;interleaving&amp;quot; between the quantifier scope inside the noun phrase and the quantifier scope in the sentence (or clause) containing the noun phrase.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> We also considered the problem of expressing the dominance of the quantification associated with one of the subordinated noun phrases over the quantification associated with the head.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> This involves an interaction between the quantifiers at the sentence level and those at the noun phrase level. This expression is not always possible (because the default dominance of the head appears to be too strong). This problem can only be treated satisfactorily in the case of a &amp;quot;compldmc*nt ddterminatif&amp;quot; (equivalent to the use of a genitive or a &amp;quot;oF' construct in English) and of relative clauses. Reinforcement is necessary for the quantifier associated with the subordinated noun phrase.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> The following two examples illustrate this last point.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> Ex. 13 ~ play V student (Default scope rule) J'ai lu la piece que tous les ~l~ves ont ~critc.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> (I ,'cad the play all the students wrote.) Ex. 14 V student 3 play (Universal quantifier reinforced) J'ai lu la piece que chaque dl~ve a dcrite.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> (I read the play each student wrote.)</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="3" start_page="183" end_page="183" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
7.3 Conjunctive subelauses
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> We believe that it is not possible to provide a general and reliable default scope rule assigning a priority scheme to the different noun phrases appearing in the main clause and in the conjunctive subclanse(s). Anyhow, two cases can be treated satisfactorily: 1. if one of the clauses does not contain any quantification or if all the quantified noun phrases involved appear in the same clause (either explicitly or repeated in the form of a pronoun) then the simple sentence approach can be applied.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> 2. if the sentence contains only two quantifiers, then reinforcement of the dominating quantifier can be used.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>