<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C88-1029">
  <Title>Morphology and cross dependencies In the synthesis of personal pronouns in Romance languages</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="139" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> It is generally believed that a generation system can be modularized into a sequence of components, the first one making the &amp;quot;high level&amp;quot; decisions (i.e. the conceptual decisions), the following ones making the linguistic decisions (e.g. lexical and syntactic construction choices), the penultimate, one performing the &amp;quot;low level&amp;quot; operations (i.e. the syntactic operations), and the last one handling the morphological operations. We have shown in (L.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> DanIos1985, 1987a) that the conceptual and linguistic decisions are operations that depend on each other.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Therefore, we designed a generation system modularized in the following way: a &amp;quot;strategic component&amp;quot; makes the conceptual and linguistic decisions simultaneously and gives back &amp;quot;clause templates&amp;quot; which are synthesized into clauses by a &amp;quot;syntactic component&amp;quot;. A simplified version of the clause template syntax is the following one (a more complete version is presented in (L. Danlos 1987b)) : \[Cll = (:el \[subject\] \[verb\] cplt n (0&lt;_n~2))</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> The prepositional complements JR-object\] and \[de-object\] are complements respectively introduced by ~, and de in French, a and di in Italian. They are separated from the prepositional complements \[prgp-object\] introduced by other prepositions because they have a specific syntactic behaviour, especially in regard to pronominalization (cf.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> 3). An example of a clause template is :</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> According to the context (i.e. fire clause templates that have been previously synthesized), the syntactic component, which handles pronominalization, produces one of the following Italian clauses (given that the verb is in the present tense) : Ugo ama Maria (Ugo loves Mary) Ugo l'ama (Ugo loves her) Quest'uomo l'ama (This man loves her) Ama questa donna (He loves this woman) It will be shown in 3 that pronominalization involves the morphological level. Tire decisions concerning pronominalization, which is a stumbling block for natural language processing, must certainly not be made last. Thus, the morphological level (level supposedly very &amp;quot;low&amp;quot;) must not be taken into account only at the very last stage of the generation process.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> The second aim of this paper is to put forward &amp;quot;non local dependencies&amp;quot; which are to be found when the synthesis of an element X depends upon that of another element Y.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> Such a dependency requires the synthesis of X to be carried out after that of Y, whatever the order of X and Y in the clause template. Moreover, cases of &amp;quot;cross dependencies&amp;quot; are to be found when the synthesis of X depends upon that of Y and when the synthesis of Y depends upon that of X. A cross dependency leads to conflicting orderings, namely synthesis of X after that of Y and synthesis of Y after that of X. The solution to such conflicting orderings is to perform a sequence of incomplete syntheses of X and Y.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> 2 Non local and cross dependencies The syalthesis of the verb and direct object in French will be taken as an illustration of non local and cross dependencies. On file one lland, the synthesis of the verb depends upon that of the \[dir-object\] for two reasons. First, there is a switch from the auxiliary avoir to the auxiliary dtre (when the verb is conjugated in a compound tense) if the \[dir-object\] is synthesized as a reflexive pronoun (which must appear before the verb) : Ugo a ddtestd Marie (Ugo hated Mary) Ugo s'est d~testd (Ugo hated himself) Second, there is agreement in gender and number between the past participle of a verb conjugated in a compound tense and a \[dir..object\] synthesized as a personal pronoun (which must appear before the verb) : Ugo, je l'ai ddtest~ (IJgo, I hated him) Marie, je l'ai ddtestJe (Mary, I hated her) On tire other hand, the synthesis of the \[dir-object\] depends upon that of the verb in the following way which will be explained in detail in 3 : determining whether the \[dir-object\] has to be synthesized as a personal pronoun may depend upon the first letter and the form of the conjugated verb. All in all, the synthesis of the verb depends upon that of the \[dir-objeet\] and the synthesis of the \[dir-objeet\] depends upon that of the verb. This cross dependency can be handled with the following sequence of incomplete syntheses : 1) Determine if the \[dir-object\] must be synthesized as a reflexive pronoun (by checking if its value is equal to the value of the subject). If it is, mark the verb as having to be conjugamd with the auxiliary ~tre.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> 2) Synthesize the verb (i.e. conjugate it) without taking  into account a possible agreement between a past participle and a pronominalized \[dir-object\]. In Step 2, the verb is conjugated in a compound tense with the right auxiliary thanks to Step 1. Let us mention that the conjugation of a verb is a morphological operation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> 3) Synthesize the \[dir-object\] if it has not been synthesized as a reflexive pronoun in Step 1. In Step 3, the form of the conjugated verb provided by Step 2 is used to determine if the \[dir-object\] has to be synthesized as a personal pronoun.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> 4) Complete the synthesis of the verb if necessary, i.e. carry out the agreement in gender and number between a past participle if any (information given by Step 2) and a pronominalized \[dir-object\] if any (infomation given by Step 3).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="14"> These four steps imply that both the direct object and the verb are checked over twice. Note that this is only for the synthesis of these two elements. The cross dependencies that arise from other elements imply that the direct object and the verb are checked over more thant twice. Generally speaking, a clause template (i.e. a tree) is gone through several times in the syntactic component.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>