<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C88-1058">
  <Title>COORDINATION IN RECONNAISSANCE-ATTACK PARSING*</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="288" end_page="289" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
4. Examples
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We conclude with an analysis of some sentences from tile corpus, to illustrate the approach in more detail. The discussion here concentrates on our stated goal of determining for any conjunction what kinds of expressions are being coordinated. A large number of the sentences in the corpus, with respect to coordination, have a structure resembling (9) A single sector single port buffer will provide speed matching between the host interface and the controller. null In this sentence, there is only one predicate (will provide) and fi~rthermore there is no predicate to the right of the conjunction. Either the Limits Constraint or the Position Constraint can therefore determine solely on the basis of information determined during Reconnaissance that there is no predicate coordination in (9).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The somewhat more complex structure of (10) can also be handled without difficulty.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Although there are two predicates in (10) (are and to support), The Position Constraint correctly predicts that they cannot be coordinate since they are not separated by the conjunction in this sentence.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Sentences containing more than one conjunction submit to the principles we propose in this paper, as illustrated by (11) The primary slructures and relationships of these memory blocks are illustrated in Figure 11 and are defined more precisely in later sections.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> The first conjunction in (11) does not effect predicate coordination, while the second does. 'file Position Constraint assures the correct analysis for the first conjunction: PCL-L for the first conjunction will not contain a verb since there are no verbs to the left of this conjunction; consequently, no verb will be put in the con'esponding PCL-R, thus precluding predicate coordination for the first conjunction in (1 I). When the PCL's are filled for the second conjunction in (11), they will both contain nouns as well as predicates; hence either could potentially be coordinated.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> However, since there are two predicates in (11) (are illustrated and are defined) and since there are no subordinating ORS's in the sentence, the predicates in fact must be coordinate in order to satisfy tile Multipredicatc Constraint.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Although the PCL's for the conjunction or in (I2) will initially contain both nouns and verbs, the conect analysis of this sentence does not involve predicate coordination.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> (12) When switch position 1 is set to the &amp;quot;off' position, a 2 byte or a 16 bit word will be available on the data bus bits 0-F.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> The analysis of (12) is similar to the analysis of (lc). There arc two predicates in the string (is set and will be available), one of which (is set) is necessarily non-main due to its association with the subordinating conjunction when. Were these predicates to be coordinated they would both be non-main by the Equiordination Constraint. Therefore, the only way the Multipredicate Constraint and the Main Predicate Constraint can be satisfied is to consider there to be no predicate coordination in this sentence. (I0) The pfimary purposes of the special functions arc tt~ support diagnostic analysis, data recovery, and download capabilities.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>