<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C82-2008">
  <Title>TOWARD A PAP~I'NG METHOD FOR FREE WORD O~ LANGUAGES x</Title>
  <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="abstr">
    <SectionTitle>
TOWARD A PAP~I'NG METHOD FOR FREE WORD O~ LANGUAGES x
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> P.0.H. 1210, 00-901Warezawa, Poland ,,Free word order&amp;quot; is a traditional term that should not be taken literally. However, we shall retain the term for its conciseness.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Formal descriptions of =yntax have been usually based either on the immediate constituents or on the dependency p~ilosophy. Neither of them seems directly applicable to free word order languages. The intertwining phrases cannot be described naturally by IC rules. Some coordinate constructions are difficult to describe by me~us of dependency relations. In our opinion, parsers for free word order languages should not be based on the methods developed within the IC framework. Scarce experiments with parsers based on the dependency formalism, eg. /5/, do not seem promising. Therefore, we decided to take a fresh start and to attack the problem by reanalysing the basic notions of syntax and parsing. We focus our attention on those formal aspects of a language system which might be most useful for automatic text processing. We assmae that the morphological level is described along the lines of  x) This paper is an extended abstract of /3/.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> - 37 2. The Notion of S.~t_ax.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3">  In this paper, we understand syntax as the domain of forr~al relations between words, i.e. roughly as so-called surface syntax. We define the notion usin~ a morphology-based criterion, described below.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> The outcome of morphological analysis can be ambiguous for an isolated word. In most situations, however, the morphological features of a word are uniquely determined by some formal properties of its context.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Sometimes the ambiguity remains, as in the following sent enc e Op~nienie bryg~d piecowyoh spowodowa~o potgpienie wuJa Jana.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> There are five independent ambiguities in this sentence, yielding 32 coherent readings. Two of them are due to She neutralization of agent/patient function during nominalisat~ ion. For example, &amp;quot;potgpienie x&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;disapproval of ~' (either &amp;quot;x disapproves y&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;y disapproves x&amp;quot;)i such an ambiguity can be resolved only by exsmining the meav.ing of a given phrase, so we call it semantic one.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> The next ambiguity Occurs in the phrase &amp;quot;wuJa Jana&amp;quot;, that means either &amp;quot;uncle John&amp;quot;gen deg or &amp;quot;John's uncle&amp;quot;gen.O Here we can see two kinds of syntactic relations: case agreement (the former interpretation) or government (the latter one), which both require &amp;quot;Jana&amp;quot; to be in genitive case. Such an ambi~ulty we consider as purely syntactic one.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> In the phrase &amp;quot;bry~d plecowych&amp;quot; we call discern either case agreement (&amp;quot;piecowych&amp;quot;gen&amp;quot; is then an adjective) or government (&amp;quot;piecowych&amp;quot;gen deg is then a noun). Here, the elimination of morphological homon~my gives rise to alternative constructions, thus increasing the syntactic ambi~ity,  -38-The last ambiguity stems from the nominative/accusatlve neutralization both of a virtual subject and a virtual object of the sentence. It suffices to assign a syntactic function to one of them~ the function of the other and the morphological characteristics of both of them will be fully determined. null The example demonstrates how certain relations between sentence components allow to disambiguate the morphological properties of individual words without resorting %0 their meanings. In our approach, these relations constitute the level of syntax /3/.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> Syntactic relations (eg. agreement, government) consist in matching syntactic properties (eg. case, gender) of respeotiveu units. The basic unit is a morphological word /2/.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> By the syntactic structure of a sentence we understand some explicit representation of all the syntactic relations between its components, usually - a graph. Such a graph need not necessarily be connected. For example, some modifiers are linked to their heads only by semantic relations and not by syntactic ones. Similarly, some elllptio sentences may have disconnected syntactic representationu.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> We ~ulderstand parsing as a process of establishing all syntactic structures of a given text. Although such structures are rather unsophisticated, they are practically very important for low-level text processi~.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> In search of an adequate parsing method, we found the idea of ~arcus /4/ most appealing. He claims that natural languages are designed to be deterministically parsed from left to right and that writing a grammar should consist in finding out local clues which enable the parser to select properly what to do next. This idea seems even more advantageous for free word order languages. Rich inflection makes - 39 the local clues much more explicit and the pareer's expectations more precise. Besides, such an organisation of the parsing process is compatible with the resource control hypothesis /1/ which is hoped to account for semantic implications of free word order.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>