<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P84-1058">
  <Title>FERVOR FLETRIR FORCER FOR~R FORMER FORMER FORNER FRANCHIR I ! I I  |' \] -~ .E .'3 .=~ I - * LPS COUP - - POSS-C/ i i DOULEUR - + LPS TRUC - - POSS-~ BONHPSUR - - - CA - - POSS-C/ CHgHISE r - - LE NOMBRZL - . det SITUATION + - LA VERITE LE VENIN - + LE LOT J- , POSS-(P - / BATTERTES J - ~ LE HARNOIS - ~ LE CLOU - . UNE LUHIERE i: NORT 'NC&amp;quot;OT ii! Tout N BRIN DE TOILETTE GRISE MZN~ HARA-KIRI JURISPRUDENCE ;- + UNPS NINUTE DE SILENCE NO~BRE :- + DET OPERATION PORTE OUVERTE - - DU QUARANTE CINO FILLETTE TAPIS TINTIN - - POSS-~ VOIX - - DET ENFANT - - DET ENFANT - * POS$-~ PORTES - + DET CRIME</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="275" end_page="276" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
DISTRIBUTION OF OBJECTS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Table 2 AS can be seen on table 2, direct oblects are the most numerous in the JPXlCOn. Also, we have not observed a single example of verbs with 30blects according to our definition.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> In 2. and 3. we will make more precise the lexicel nature of the Nl's attached to the verbs.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The signs in a row of the matrix provides the syntactic paradigm of a verb, that is, the sentence forms into which the verb may enter. The lexicon-grammar is in computer form. Thus, by sorting the rows of signs, one can construct equivalence classes for verbs: Two verbs are in the same class if their two rows of signs are identical.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> We have obtained the following result: for 10,000 verbs there are about 8,000 classes.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> On the average, each class contains 1.25 verb. This statistical result can easily be strengthened. When one studies the classes that contain more than one verb, it is always possible to find syntactic properties not yet in the matrix and that will separate the verbs. Hence, it our description were extended, each verb would have * unique syntactic paradigm.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Thus, the correspondence between a verb morpheme end the set of sentence forms where it may occur is one-to-one.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Another way of stating this result is by saying that structures depend on individual lexical elements, which leads to the following representation of structures: N O eat N 1 N o owe N 1 to N 2 We still use class symbols to describe noun phrases, but specific verbs must appear in each structure. Class symbols of verbs are no longer used, since they cannot determine the syntactic behsviour of individual verbs.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> The nature of the lexicon-grammar should then become clearer. An entry of the lexicon-grammar of verbs is * simple sentence form with an explicit verb appearing in * row. In general, the decleretive sentence is taken as the representative element of the equivalence class of structures corresponding to the &amp;quot;+&amp;quot; signs of a row. The lexicon-grammar suggests a new component for parsing algorithms. This component is limited to elementary sentences. It includes the following steps:  - (A) Verbs are morphologically recognized in the input string. - (B) The dictionary is looked up, that is, the space of the lexicon-grammar that contains the verbs is searched for the input verbs.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> - (C) A verb being located in the matrix, its rows of signs provide  a set of sentence forms. These dictionary forms are matched with the input string.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> This algorithm is mcomplete in several respects: - In step (C). matching one of the dictionary shapes with the input string may involve another component of the grammar. The structures represented in the lexicon-grammar are elementary structures, subject only to &amp;quot;unary&amp;quot; transformations, in the sense of Harris' transformations or of early generative grammar (Chomsky 1955). Binary or generalized transformations apply to elementary sentences and may change their appearance in the sentence under analysis (e.g. conjunction reduction). As a consequence, their effect may have to be taken into account in the matching process.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10">  Looking up the matrix dictionary may result in the finding of several entries with same form (homographs) or of several uses of a given entry. We will see that these situations are quite common. in general, more than one pattern may match the input, mulbple paths of analysis are thus generated and require book keeping. We will come back to these aspects of syntactic computation. We now present two other components of the lexicon-grammar of simple sentences.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="276" end_page="278" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2 IDIOMS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The sentences we just described can be called free sentences, for the lexlcal choices Of nouns in each noun phrase N i has certain degrees of freedom. We use this distributional feature to separate free from frozen sentences, that is, from sentences with an idiomatic part.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The main difference between free end frozen sentences can be stated in terms of the distributions of nouns: - in a frozen nominal posibon, a change of noun either changes the meaning of the expression to an unrelated expression as in to lay down one's arms vs to lay down one's feet or else, the variant noun does not introduce any difference in meaning (up to stylistic differences), as m to put someone off the (scent. track, trail) or else. an idiomatic noun appears at the same level as ordinary nouns of the distribution, and the general meaning of the (free) expression is preserved, as in to miss (an opportunity, the bus\] - in a free position, a change of noun introduces a change of meaning that does not affect the general meaning of the whole sentence. For example, the two sentences The boy ate the apple My sister ate the pie that differ by distributional changes in subject and object positions have same general meaning: changes can be considered to be localized to the arguments of the predicate or function with constant meaning EAT.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> We have systematically described the idiomatic sentences of French, making use of the framework developed for the free sentences. Sentential idioms have been classified according to the nature (frozen or not) of their arguments (subject and complements). With respect to the structures of Table 2, a new classificatory feature has been introduced: the poaslbdity for a frozen noun or noun phrase to accept a free noun complement. Thus, for example, we built two classes CP1 and CPN corresponding to the two types of constructions N O V Prep C 1 :: Jo plays on words N O V Prep Nhum'a C 1 =: Jo got on Sob's nerves The symbol C refers to a frozen nominal position and Prep stands for preposition.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Although frozen structures tend to undergo less transformations than the free forms, we found that every transformation that applies to a free structure also applies to some frozen structures. There is no qualitative difference between free and frozen structures from the syntactic point of view. As a consequence, we can use the same type of representation: a matrix where each idiomatic combination of words appears in a row and each sentence shape m a column (of. Tables 3 and 4),</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> We have systematically classified I15.000 idiomatic sentences, When one compares thls figure with those of table 2', one must conclude that frozen sentences constitute one of the most important components of the lexicon-grammar.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> An important lexlcal feature of frozen sentences should be stressed. There are examples such as They went astray * where words such as astray cannot be found io any other syntactically unrelated sentence; notice that the causative sentence The# led them astray Is considered as syntactically related. In this case, the expression can be direcly recogmzed by dictionary look-up. But such examples are rare. In general, a frozen expression is * compound of words that are also used in free expressmns wJth unrelated meanings. Hence, frozen sentences are in general ambiguous, having an ~dmmahc meaning and a literal meaning.  However, the hteral meanings are almost always mcongruous In the context where the idlomahc meamng is mtended (unless of course tr:e author of the utterance played on words). Thus, when a word combination that constitutes an idiom is encountered m a text, one  Returmng to the algorithm sketched in 1, we see that we have to middy steps (A) and (B) in order to recognize frozen expressions: - NOt only verbs, but nouns have to be immediately located in the input string.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> - The verbs and the nouns columns of the lexicon-grammar of frozen expressions have to be looked up for combinations of words. It Js mterestmg to note that there is no ground for stating a priordy such as look up verbs before nouns or the reverse. Rather, the nature of frozen forms suggests simultaneous searches for the composing words.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> About the diHerence between free and frozen sentences, we have observed that many free sentences (if not all) have highly restricted nominal posdlons. Consider for example the entry N O smoke N t =n Jo smokes the finest tobacco In the direct object complement, one will find few other nouns: nouns of other smoking material, objects made of smoking material such as cigarette, cigar, pipe and brand names for these oblects. This is a common situation with technical verbs. Such examples suggest that, semantically at least, the nominal arguments are halted to one noun, which comes close to having the status of frozen expression. Thus, to smoke would have here one complement, perhaps tobacco, and all other nouns occurring m its place would be brought in by syntactic operations. We consider that this situatmn is quite general although not always transparent. Our analysis of free elementary sentences has shown that when subjects and Oblects allow wide variations for their nouns, then well defined syntactic operations account for the variation: - separation of entries: For example, there is another verb N O smoke Nt, as m They smoke meat, and a third one: N O smoke N 1 out in They smoked the room out; or consider the verb to eat in Rust ate both rear wings of my car This verb will constitute an entry different of the one in to eat lamb; various zerolngs: The following sentence pairs will be related by different deletions: Bob ale s nrce preparation = Bob ale a nice preparation of lamb Bob ate a whole bakery = Bob ate a whole bakery of apple pies Other operations introduce nouns in syntactic positions where they are foreign to the semantic distributions, among them are ralsmg operations, which induce distributional differences such as I imagined the situation I imagined the bridge destroyed situation is the &amp;quot;natural&amp;quot; direct oblect of to imagine, while brrdge ts derived; - other restructuration operations (Gulllet, Lecl~re 1981), as between the two sentences This confirmed Bib's opinion of Jo This confirmed Bob m his opinion of Jo Although the full lexicon of French has not yet been analyzed from this point of view, we can plausibly assert that a targe class of nommal distributions could be made semantically regular by using Z.S. Harris' account of elementary distributions, namely, by determining a basic form for each meaning, for example A person eats food with undetermined human subject and characteristic object, and by  introducing classificatory sentences that describe universe: (The boy, My sister) ia * person, etc.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> the semantic (A pie, This cake) is food, etc.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> Classificatory and basic sentences are combined by syntactic operations such as relatlvizstion: The person who is the boy eats food which is this pie WH-ia deletion: The person the boy eats food this pie redundancy removal: The boy eats this pie In this way, the semantic variations are explicitly attributed to lexical variations, and not to intuitive abstract features, that is, arbitrary features, or acmes or the like. The requirement of using WORDS in such descriptions is a crucial means for controlling the construction of an empirically adequate linguistic system. In this respect, one is led to categorizing words by evaluating actual classificatory sentences. Hence, all the knowledge linguistically expressible (i.e. in terms of words) is represented by both the basic and the classificatory sentences. A good deal of the inferences that one has to draw in order to understand sentences era contained in the derivations that lead to the seemingly simple sentences.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> From a formal point of view, the entries of the lexicon-grammar become much more specifi~ We have eliminated class symbols altogether, replacing them by specific nouns &lt;5&gt;. Entries are then of the type  {persen) 0 eat (food) 1 (person) 0 ;We (ObleCt) 1 to (person) 2 (per=ran) 0 k~ck the bucket An application of this representation of simple sentences is the treatment of certain metaphors. Consider the two sentences (1) Jo filled the turkey with truffles (2) Jo filled his report with poor jokes (1) is a proper use of fo fill, while (2) is * metaphoric or  figurative meaning. The properties of these sentences vary according to the lexical choices in the complements {Boons 1971). For example, the with-complement that can be occupied by an internal noun in the proper meaning can be omitted: Jo tilled the turkey with * certain filling = Jo filled the turkey 5 It is doubtful that actual nouns such as food will be available in the language for each distribution of each entry, but then, expressions such as smoking stuff can be used {in the object of to smoke), again avoiding the use ot abstract features.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> iThis is not the case in the figurative meaning: *Jo filled hie report How to represent (1) and (2) is a problem in terms of number of entries. On the one hand, the two constructions have common syntactic and semantic features, on the other, they ere significantly different in form and content. Setting up two entries is * solution, but not a satisfactory one, since both entries are left unrelated. A possible solution in the framework of lexicon-grammars is to consider having just one entry: N O fill N 1 with N 2 and to specify N t lexJcally by means of columns of the matrix. For example N 1 =: food N t =: text 11~en, the content of N 2 is largely determined end has to be roughly of the type N 2 =: stuffing N 2 =: eubtext An inclusion relation &lt;6&gt; holds between the two complements. We can write for this relation N 2 is in N 1 But now, in our parsing procedure, we have to compensate for the tact that in the lexicon-grammar, the nouns that are represented in the free positions ere not the ones that in general occur in the input sentences. In consequence, occurrences of nouns will have to undergo a complex process of identification that will determine whether they have been introduced by syntactic operations (e.g. restructuration), or by chains of substitutions defined by classificatory sentences, or by both processes.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="278" end_page="280" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3. SUPPORT AND OPERATOR VERB8
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We have alluded to the tact that only * certain class of contences could be reduced to entries of the lexicon-gremmr as presented in 1. and 2. We will now give examples of simple sentences that have structures different of the structures of free and frozen sentences, in sentences such as  (1) Her remarks made no difference (2) Her remarks have some (importance for, influence) on Jo (3) Her remarks ere in contradiction with your plan  it is difficult to argue that the verbs to make, to have and to be in semantically select their subjects end complement&amp; Rather, these verbs should be considered as auxiliaries. The predicative element is here the nominal form in complement position. This intuition can be given a formal basis. Let us look at nominalizationa as being relations between two simple sentences (Z.S. Harris 1964), as in 6 This relation is an extension of the Vaup relations of 3. To fill could be considered as a (causative) Vop.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  Max walked : Max look a walk Her remarks are important for Jo = Her remarks are of a certain importance for Jo = Her remarks have s certain importance for Jo Jo resembles Max : Jo has a certain resemblance with Max = Jo (bears. carries) a certain resemblance with Max -- There is a certain resemblance between Jo and Max It is then clear that the roots walk, important and resemble select the other noun phrases. We call support verbs (Vsup) the verbs in such sentences that have no selectional function, Some support verbs are semantically neutral, others introduce modal or aspectual meanings, as for example in Bob loves Jo = Bob Is in love with Jo = Bob fell in love with Jo = Bob has a deep love for Jo to tall, as other motion verbs do, introduces an inchoative meaning. In this example, the mare semantm relation holds between Bob and love, and the support verbs simply add their meaning to the relation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> If we use s dependency tree to schematize the relations in simple sentences, we can oppose ordinary verbs with one obleCt and support verbs of superficially identical structures such as in  Two problems arise in connection with the distribution of support verbs: - s noun or a nommalized verb accepts a certain set of support verbs and this set varies with each nominal; not every verb is a support verb; thus in the sentence (4) Max described Bob'a love for Jo to describe is not a Vsup. The question is then to delimit the set of Vaups, if such a set can be isolated, or else to provide general conditions under which s verb acts as a Vaup, One of the structural features that separates support verbs from other verbs is the possibility of clefting noun complements. For example, for Jo is a noun complement of the same type in both structures, but we observe *If is for Jo that Max described Bob'a love It is for Jo that Bob has a deep love The main semantic difference between the two constructions lies in the cyclic structure of the graph. This cyclic structure is also found in more complex sentences such as  (5) This note put her remarks in contradiction with your plan (6) Bob gave a certain importance to her remarks Both verbs fo put and to give have two complements, exactly as in sentences such as (7) Bob put (the book) 1 (in the drawe~ |2 (8) Bob gave (e book) t (to Jo) 2  Whde in (7) and (8), there is no evidence of any formal relation between both complements, in (5) and (6) we find dependencies already observed on support verbs (cf. figure 2).  The verbs to put and to give are semantically minimal, for they only introduce s causative and/or an agentive argument with respect to the sentence with Vsup. We call such verbs operator verbs (Vop). There are other operator verbs that add various modaltties to the minimal meanings, as in The note introduced a contradiction between her remarks and your plan Bob attributed a certain importance to her remarks Other syntactic shapes are lound: Bob credsted her remarks with a certain importance Again, the set of nouns (supported by o Vsup) to which the Vops apply vary from verb to verb. As a consequence, we have to represent the distributions of Vsups and Vops with respect to nominals by means of a matrix such as the one in Table 4'. In each row, we place a noun and each column contains a support verb or an operator verb. A preliminary classification of Ns (and V-ns) has been made in terms of a few elementary support verbs (e.g. to have, to be Prep).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> In a sense, this representation is symmetrical with the representation of free sentences. With free sentences, the verb is taken as the central item of the sentence. Varying then the nouns allowed with the verb does not change fundamentally the meaning of the corresponding sentences. With support verbs, the central item is a noun. Varying then the support verbs only introduces a distributional-like change in meaning.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> The recognition procedure has to be modified, in order to account for this component of the language: - first, the took-up procedure must determine whether s verb is an ordinary verb (i.e. an entry found in a row of the lexicon-grammar) or a Vaup or a Vop, which are to be found in columns; - simultaneously, nouns have to be looked up in order to cheek their combination with support verbs.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>