<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P89-1027">
  <Title>TREATMENT OF LONG DISTANCE DEPENDENCIES IN LFG AND TAG: FUNCTIONAL UNCERTAINTY IN LFG IS A COROLLARY IN TAG&amp;quot;</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="220" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 INTRODUCTION
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The so-called long distance dependencies are characterized in Lexical Functional Grammars (LFG) by the use of the formal device of functional uncertainty, as defined by Kaplan and Zaenan \[3\] and Kaplan and Maxwell \[2\]. In this paper, we relate this characterization to that provided by Tree ~,djoining Grammars (TAG), showing a direct correspondence between the functional uncertainty equations in LFG analyses and the elementary trees in TAGs that give analyses for &amp;quot;long distance&amp;quot; dependencies. We show that the functional uncertainty machinery is redundant in TAG, i.e., what functional uncertainty accomplishes for LFG follows from the TAG formalism itself and some fundamental aspects of the linguistic theory instantiated in TAG. We thus show that these analyses can be obtained without requiring power beyond mildly context-sensitive grammars. We also *This work was partially supported (for the first author) by the DRRPA grant N00014-85-K0018, AltO grant DAA29-84-9-0027, and NSF grant IRI84-10413-A02. The first author also benefited from some discussion with Mark Johnson and Ron Kaplan at the Titisee Workshop on Unification Grammars, March, 1988.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> briefly discuss the linguistic and computational significance of these results.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Long distance phenomena are associated with the so-called movement. The following examples,  1. Mary Henry telephoned.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> 2. Mary Bill said that Henry telephoned.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> 3. Mary John claimed that Bill said that Henry  telephoned.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> illustrate the long distance dependencies due to topicalization, where the verb telephoned and its object Mary can be arbitrarily apart. It is difficult to state generalizations about these phenomena if one relies entirely on the surface structure (as defined in CFG based frameworks) since these phenomena cannot be localized at this level. Kaplan and Zaenan \[3\] note that, in LFG, rather than stating the generalizations on the c-structure, they must be stated on f-structures, since long distance dependencies are predicate argument dependencies, and such functional dependencies are represented in the f-structures. Thus, as stated in \[2, 3\], in the sentences (1), (2), and (3) above, the dependencies are captured by the equations (in the LFG notation 1) by 1&amp;quot; TOPIC =T OBJ, T TOPIC =T COMP OBJ, and 1&amp;quot; TOPIC =T COMP COMP OBJ, respectively, which state that. the topic Mary is also the object of tele.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> phoned. In general, since any number of additional complement predicates may be introduced, these equations will have the general form &amp;quot;f TOPIC =T COMP COMP ... OBJ Kaplan and Zaenen \[3\] introduced the formal device of functional unc'ertainty, in which this gen-</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>