<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P96-1027">
  <Title>Shieber, S. (1988). A Uniform Architecture for Parsing</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="200" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Generation
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> A parser is a transducer from strings to structures or logical forms. A generator, for our purposes, is the inverse.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> One way to think of it, therefore, is as a parser of structures or logical forms that delivers analyses in the form of strings.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> This view has the apparent disadvantage of putting insignificant differences in the syntax of a logical forms, such as the relative order of the arguments to symmetric operators, on the same footing as more significant facts about them.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> We know that it will not generally be possible to reduce  logical expressions to a canonical form but this does not mean that we should expect our generator to be compromised, or even greatly delayed, by trivial distinctions. Considerations of this kind were, in part, responsible for the recent resurgence of interest in &amp;quot;flat&amp;quot; representations of logical form (Copestake et a/.,1996) and for the representations used for transfer in Shake-and-Bake translation (Whitelock, 1992). They have made semantic formalisms like those now usually associated with Davison (Davidson, 1980, Parsons, 1990) attractive in artificial intelligence for many years (Hobbs 1985, Kay, 1970). Operationally, the attraction is that the notations can be analyzed largely as free word-order languages in the manner outlined above.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> which we will take as a representation of the logical form of the sentences John ran fast and John ran quickly. It consists of a distinguished index (r) and a list of predicates whose relative order is immaterial. The distinguished index identifies this as a sentence that makes a claim about a running event. &amp;quot;John&amp;quot; is the name of the entity that stands in the 'argl' relation to the running which took place in the past and which was fast. Nothing turns on these details which will differ with differing ontologies, logics, and views of semantic structure. What concerns us here is a procedure for generating a sentence from a structure of this general kind.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Assume that the lexicon contains entries like those in (2) in which the italicized arguments to the semantic predicates are variables.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> (2)</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="200" end_page="200" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
Words Cat Semantics
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"/>
      <Paragraph position="2"> A prima facie argument for the utility of these particular words for expressing (I) can be made simply by noting that, modulo appropriate instantiation of the variables, the semantics of each of these words subsumes (1).</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>