<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C86-1050">
  <Title>A Simple Reconstruction of GPSG</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="214" end_page="214" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
4 Conclusion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The axiomatic formulation of generalized phrase structure gramdeg mar by Gazdar et al. is a quite subtle and complex system. Yet, as we have qhown, GPSG grammars cm~ be substantially converted to grammars in a simpler, attd constructive, axiomatic system through a straightforward (albeit procedural) mapping.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Intrinsic iu this conversion is the use of a unification-based grammar formalism, so that axioms can be stated schematically, without enumerating all nf their possible instantiations. In fact, we wouhl contend that defining the semantics of a GI)SG grammar in this way yields a much simpler fornmlation. The need for such a reconstruetinn is evident to anyone who has studied tit\[: C;azdar et al. text.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Of course, even if certain parts of the GPSG for'realism not discussed fully here, i.e., FCRs att(I l,l ) constraints, arc found not to be reducible to PATR, this in itself wouhl be an interesti,g fact. It wouhl slmw that exactly those porticos of the formalism were truly essential for stating certain analyses, i.e., that analyses using those formal devices do so necessarily.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> We find a hopefid sign in the recent work in (\]PSG that is pro-.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> ceeding iu the direction of using unilication directly in the rules, in addition to its implicit m~e iu featuce instantiation principles. Wc hope that this paper has provided evidence that such a system may be able to more simply state the kiuds of generalizations that linguists claim, and has pointed out I)oth the possibilities and difllcultics inherent in these tcehniques.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>