<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W06-1520">
  <Title>Handling Unlike Coordinated Phrases in TAG by Mixing Syntactic Category and Grammatical Function</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="137" end_page="138" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2 A Grammar of Grammatical
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="137" end_page="138" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
Functions and Syntactic Categories
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The elementary trees in our grammar are the projection of a lexical item as usual in Lexicalized TAGs. However, root nodes do not correspond to syntactic categories, but to grammatical functions.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> The node for the function then dominates syntactic category nodes, according to the way the function is realized syntactically. Figure 1 shows trees for an intransitive main clause and an NP subject.1  inal adjunct) realized either as an NP or an ADJP. Finally, in Figure 3 we can see the trees for coordination of left adnominal adjuncts. Notice that they adjoin at the function node (AdnAdjLeft) therefore allowing for the coordination of anything that can ful ll that role, be them equal categories as in (2) or the UCP case in (4). In Figure 4 we show an additional example with a PP right NP modi er. It should be straightforward to see how to build trees for AdnAdjRight coordination of constituents realized by a PP or a relative clause.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> In Figure 5 we nally get to subcategorization.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> In any approach to grammar development we have to make decisions between explicitly modeling certain restrictions in the tree structure or through features (of a feature based TAG). That can be seen ubiquitously in the XTAG grammar (XTAG Research Group, 2001). We can use the tree of the gure with verbs such like eat and know, having trees to realize the direct object as either an NP or a sentence. Features in the lexical items would prevent the derivation of eat with a sentential complement. Another approach would be to further detail the tree into one with a built in NP object 1Figures generally show templates where a diamond indicates where the lexical item would be substituted in, though occasionally we insert the lexical item itself.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4">  and another with a sentential complement. However, realization constraints would still have to be present to allow for the coordination of only the constituents that are allowed for the speci c verb.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> For the reader unfamiliar with grammar modeling we notice this is not a drawback of the approach.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> Constraints beyond those represented in the structure are constantly made as a way to avoid irrational growth of a grammar.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> In Figure 6 we show still another interesting case: the predicative clauses.2 We include it for  this is a rich context for unlike coordination. One can easily see how to generate trees for coordinating NPs, PPs and ADJPs, as predicative constituents so as to allow for (7).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> (7) John was [ a gentlemen, always happy, and never in bad mood ].</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>