<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C94-1081">
  <Title>PARSING TURKISH USING THE LEXICAL FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR FORMALISM 1</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="496" end_page="499" type="evalu">
    <SectionTitle>
6 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In this section, we present some results about the lmrfor mance of our system on test runs with four difl'erent texts on different topics. All of the texts are articles taken from magazines. We used the CMU Common l,isp system running IdegRecall that no morphological rules are included. The lcxical look up rules are used jttsl 1o call the morphological analyzer.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> I I Note that Jr0, x\], al|d x2 refer to tile functional S\[ltlC\[lllCg (if lhc sentence, the lirst collstittlellt and the second eonsliltlent ill tile phrase strUCUlrc, m.~peclively.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> (&lt;S&gt; &lt;==&gt; (&lt;XP&gt; &lt;XP&gt;) i) if xl's category :is VP then assign xl to tile functional structure of the verb of the sentence if x2's category is VP then assign x2 to tile functional structure of the verb of the sentence 2) for i = 1 to 2 do if xi has already been assigned to the verb then do nothing if xi's category is ADVP then add xi to the adverbial complements of the sentence if xi's category is NP and xi's case is nominative then assign xi to tile functional structure of tile subject of the sentence if xi's category is NP then if tile verb of the sentence can take an object with this case (consider also the voice of the verb) add xi to the objects of the verb 3) check if the verb has taken all the objects that it has to take 4) make sure that the verb has not taken more than one object with the same thematic role 5) check if the subject and the verb agree in number and person: if the subject; is defined (overt) then \]f tile agreement feature of tile subject is third person plural then the agreement feature of the verb may be either third person singular or third person plural else the agreement features of tile subject and the verb must be the same else if the subject is undefined (covert) then assign the agreement feature of the verb to that of the subject Iqgure 2: An LFG rule for tile seutence level given with an informal description of tile equation part.  In all of the texts there were some sentences outside our scope. These were: ,, sentences that contain finite sentences as their constituents or modifiers of their constituents, ,, conditional sentences, ,, finite sentences that are connected by coordinators (and/or), and ,, sentences with discontinuous constituents. 13 We pre-edited the texts so that the sentences were in our scope (e.g., separated finite sentences connected by coordinators and parsed them as independent sentences, and ignored the conditional sentences). Table 3 presents SOmE statistical information about the test runs. The first, second and third columns show the document number, the total number of sentences and the number of sentences that WE could parse without pre-editing, respectively. The other columns show the number of sentences that we totally ignored, the nnmber of sentences in the pre-edited versions of the documents, average nnmber of parses per sentence generated and average CPU time for each of the sentences in the texts, respectively. It can be seen that our grammar can successfully deal with about 82% of the sentences that we have experimented with, with almost all remaining sentences becoming passable after a minor pre-editing. This indicates that our grammar coverage is reasonably satisfactory. Below, we present the output for a sentence which shows very nicely where the structural ambigttity comes out in Turkish. 14 The output tbr (Sat indicates tlmt there are \]'out&amp;quot; 12We should however note that the times reported are exclusive o1' tile time taken by the morphologicul proeessm, which with a 24,000 word root lexicon is rather slow and can process about 2-3 lexical forms per second. We have, however, ported our morphological analyzer to the XEI~.OX TWOL system developed by Karttunen and P, eesley \[Karttunen and Beesley 1992\] and this system can process about 500 forms a second. We intend to integrate this to our system soon.  The outpttt of the parser for the first interpretation is given in Figure 3. This output indicates that the subject of the sentence is a noun phrase whose modifier part is kfifffk, mtd modified part is another noun phrase whose modilier part is ktrmtzt and modified part is top. The agreement o1' the subject is third person singuhr, case is nominative, etc. Htzlandt is the verb of the sentence, and its voice is active, tense is past, agreement is third person singular, etc. Gittikf'e is a temporal adverbial complement.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Figures 4 through 7 illustrate the c-strnctures of the Ibm&amp;quot; ambiguous intetpret~tions (8b-e), respectively: 16 In (Sb), the adjective ktrmtzt modilies the noun top, and this noun phrase is then modified by the adjective kfifiik. The entire noun phrase ftmctious as the sub-ject of the main verb htzlandt, and the gerund gittikfe functions as an adverbial adjunct of the main verb. in (8c), the adjective ktrnuzt is used as a noun, and is ntodified by the adjective kfff'iik. Iv This noun phrase functions as the snbject of the main verb. The noun top functions as the subject ()f the gertmd gittikf.e, and this non-finite clause functions as an adverbial adjunct of the main verb.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> In (Sd), the adjective kiigtik is used as a noun, and functions as the subject of the main verb. The noun phrase ktrnttzt top functions as the subject of the gerund gittikfe, and this non-finite clause functions as an adverbial adjunct of the main verb.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> In (SEt, the noun phrase kffciik ktrmtzt top functions as the subject of the gcrund gittikge (of. (Sb) where it functions as the subject of the main verb), and this non-finite clause functions as an adverbial adjunct of the main verb. Note that the subject of the main verb in this interpretation (i.e., it) is a COvErt one. llence, it does not appear in the c-structure shown in Figure 7. is In fact, this sentence has a fifth interpretation due to the lexical ambiguity of the second word. Ill Turkish, ktrnaz is Ihe name nfa shining, red paint ohtained fi'um ;1ii insect with the same name. So, (g'~) also nlemls 'llis little ted/mint sped up tlS the hall went.' 1 lowever, this is very unlikely to COllie tO Illiod ev{~D for illdive spe~lkel's.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> IWl'he e-seructures given here ;ire slmplifled by removing some nodes introduced by certain intermediary rules to increase readability. 17 IT1 Turkish. lilly adjective can be used as a ilourL</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>