<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P96-1045">
  <Title>Generating an LTAG out of a principle-based hierarchical representation</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Development and maintenance
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> problems with LTAGs This extreme lexicalization entails that a sizeable LTAG comprises hundreds of elementary trees (over 600 for the cited large grammars). And as highlighted by Vijay-Shanker and Schabes (92), information on syntactic structures and associated features equations is repeated in dozens of tree schemata (hundreds for subject-verb agreement for instance).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Redundancy makes the tasks of LTAG writing, extending or updating very difficult, especially because all combinations of phenomena must be handled. And, in addition to the practical problem of grammar storage, redundancy makes it hard to get a clear vision of the theoretical and practical choices on which the grammar is based.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>