<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W98-0505">
  <Title>t Types of syntagmatic grammatical relations and their representation</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="45" end_page="46" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Conclusions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In this paper I have tried to raise the often discussed question of constituency vs. dependent&amp;quot; for syntactic representation to a more general level asking whether constituency and dependency are sufficient at all for the representation of syntagmatic relations.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> After reviewing some of the main issues in the discussion 'constituency vs. dependency', I have presented some kinds of syntagmatic patternings that can be problematic for det)endency/constituency representations: coordinate structure, infornmtion structure and syntactit&amp;quot; aga'eement: also, I have given further evidence of these obserx~ltions by presenting examples of granlular models that do work for some of the problems discussed, if a more unconventional approach is l)ursued, such as e.g., COG for information strcture.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> I have then questioned the primacy of constituency and del)endenc.v for the representation of syntactic structure and sketched the more diversifted, fimctionally-based view of Systemic Functional Grammar. in which only minimal constituent grotlpillgs are used and Solne of the represeutational l~rol)lems encountered with true del)endency apl)ronches ~llld traditional constituency approaches do not arise.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> There are two caveats in place here, one concerning the .~F(; approach to syntagmatic structure itself. the other one conceruing SFG'S computational application more generally.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> The st-c; view of syntagmatic structure inextricably goes together with a classification-based approach to grammar in which grammatical classes arc fimctionally motivated. The kernel of an SI:G is the grammatical classification hierarchy, representing the paradigmatic relations that characterize the gramnmr of a language. It is important to note that the SFG approach to the representation of syntagmatic structure by itself is therefore not a full model of grammar--just like itPSG would not be a full nmdel of ga'ammar without its hierarchy of lexical and phrasal types. However, the insight that SFG has to offer is the acknowledgment of the diversity of syntagmatic patterning and pointing to the limits of the l)art-whole (constituency) and part-part (depeudency) representations comnmnly employed in syntactic modeling. Recent developments in constraint-based fornmlations of SFG (Henschel, 1994: Henschel, 1995) may introduce new methods of representation to SFG (sudl as feature or structure  sharing; cf. Section 4). However, the typed feature structures Henschel has experimented with all show particular weaknesses when faced with large classification hierarchies, as they are commonly employed in implementations of Systemic Functional Gramnmr, such as the KPML system.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> The second caveat concerns the computational processing of sFc's in Natural Language Understanding. SF6 is widely used in Natural Language Generation and has inspired a number of generation grmnmars. However, sr'c is hardly used in parsing.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> For NL generation, the major attraction of SFC lies in the centrality of functional grammatical classification, whid~ draws distinctions that are relevant for generation, sFc's flat structures work fine for generation, where the functional labeling and the annotation with interpersonal and textual information is andmred in the functional, paradigmatic description. i.e.. the grammatical system network. The few attempts that have been made in parsing with SFG: notably (Kasper, 1988). have shown that SFG functional structures are just not informative enough.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> Kasper had to add a set of phrase structure rules, so that possible patterns for each major constituent category could be more easily recognized. The suitability of a model of syntactic structure for computatiomd application can thus also depend on the kind of computational application--NL understanding or NL generation.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>