<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-1044">
  <Title>Extended Dependency Structures and their Formal Interpretation</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="255" end_page="255" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 U-FORMS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Formally. U-ferms are nnordered labelled n-ary trees such as tile one shown in Fig. l, corresponding to tile  The edge htbels me members of the set {det, 1,2, 3, .... -l,-2. -3 .... }, alld correspond either to determiners (label &amp;quot;det') or to argument positions relative to a predicate node (other labels).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The U-form of Fig. 1 expresses three predicate-argument relations among the nodes: like not hate  In order to extract the predicate-argument relations encoded into tile U-form, one needs to apply the following &amp;quot;'rule&amp;quot;. Let's notate (A,L,B) an edge of the tree, where A is the upper vertex, B tile lower vertex, and L the edge label. With each node A in tile tree, one associates its set of predication edges, that is the set PAl of edges of the form (A,+i.X) or (X.i,A). One then considers tile predication tree T i made by forming the collection of edges (A,LX) where I, is positive and either (A.L,X) or (X.inverse(L),A) is a predication edge of A. Each predication tree denotes a predicate-argtnnent rehition among IJ,+fornl nodes. So for illstance, the tree 'l'l~;u&lt;~ is lt/inled by forming tile edges (hate, l,peter) and (hate,2.woman), and this corresponds to the predicate-argunlent rehition tlate(peter.woman).</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>