<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C86-1133">
  <Title>LIMSI - Langues Naturelles</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="566" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2.1 STRUCIIP#~ PARTICIIARITIES:
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> French pronoun constructions are complicated because syntax and morphology are interrelated, form as well as position depending upon each other. Their generation implies that one is capable of dete~nLning at least three things: - the fom\] of a given referent: for example, the concepts SPEAKER or 3d PERSON can be realized in any of the following forms: SPEAKER: je, me, moi 3d PERSON: il, e\].le, ils, dies, on, se, sol, le, la, ies, lui, lent, cux; - its position: In the affinnative mode there are three positions or sentenceframes: null a) 5-10-DO-V il me le pr4sente (he presents him to me) b) S-DO--IO-V il l-e lui pr4sente (he presents him to her) c) S-DO-V---prep-I_O0 il me ~sonte ~ elle(he presents me to her) - ~letber the preposition, inherent in the base, should be made explicit or not. As the examples (b) and (c) clearly show, the same verbeonstmction may or may not require elision of the preposition. Either one affects form as ~ell as position (7). It should be noted that while most verbs allow only for two patterns in the. declarative mode ('a' and 'b'), those with an animate object such as 'pr6scnter' (to present) allow also for 'c'.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="566" end_page="566" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.2 I-I~OCE1)LI~L \]M~tICATION~:
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> ~tm lir~dsttc constraints operate on all levels: phono\].~jicaI, mrphol(~jical and syntact.i.cal.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> a) H~onoloqi~il constraints: lhe detemdnation of ~)rpbology generally requires three operations (porsen, case, nLraber and so~Keimes gender), yet: pronouns are n~nosyl.labie. \]in c~isequencc, one cannot plan tl~ i~xt pronoun while uttering tl~ eut'rc~lt one as the pronoun uttered is ton short and the time needed for planning the next ~e being too long.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> b) Morphological. om~straints: There are number of cases where the indirect object has an embedded structure, i.e. U~. morl~ology of' the indirect object d ep~Js upon information cx~dng from the direct ~_~t (8). This implies intercupLion of a routine. Suppose that the sentence: 3d~ presents Paul to Mary is to be. prononinalized. Tile problem is ttk~ detemdnati~ of form and position of Lt~ prc~)nos, referring respectively to &amp;quot;Paul&amp;quot; ar~J to &amp;quot;Mary&amp;quot;. The indirect ob~ (Mary) lexicalizes either as LUI or as EIPSE, dopending upon ~,ther the direct ~. (Paul) rcl)resents the sgeaker/lister~r or a 3d person, in this latter ense (e) the verb follows the indirect object, va~ereas in the forrmr (d) i.t  precedes it.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> (d) il me prgsenbe ~ EI_LE (he presents ~m to her) (e) il le LUI pr4sento (he presents him to her) e) 5Vntactical constraints: lhe lir~r order of tile corlstitoents carl generally not be established, u~til both objects are known. In cons~ce, at least one of the. t~o elements bas to be stored in werkLng nmmory. (f) i.1 le \]ui donne he give~s it to him (S-DO-IO-V) (g) il me ie donne he gives it to me (S-IO-DO-V) Suppose that the. direct object has been processed right after U~ subject. In that ease one I&lt;nows its form but not tlcce~sarily its position ('f' or 'g'). This latter de~x~nds upon the vah~ of the indirect object. If U~ indirect object is in tlm first or second person it precedes the dit'ect objeet (g), otherwise it Pol.lows it (f). Should ~e start by processing the indirect object be- null fore the direct one, we might have to keep tl~e fommr in working memory, lhis is precisely the case of &amp;quot;f&amp;quot; ~ere the indirect object is in U~e third person and not tmflexive. As one can see, in beth sih~tions one is faced with unwanted storage problems.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Obviously these structural particularities of tlm Frend~ pron(xm system have implication~ not only for U~e process of learning but also for the process of generation, namely: they exclude any ~ord-to-word processing, and they *~@Jire a certain amount of prepl~dng or look-algld.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> ~lat is needed tl~n, in order tO avoid false starts or correetions (bad&lt;tracking), i.s global planninc~ on Um clause level rat)mr than local pl.annlnc~ on the word level.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> In the light of tl~-~se facts one has to ad~t that gm treeration of pro~m constructions in Frend~ is i~ot all that simple. Althe~jh the relevant features (rules) are simple in nature, their interaction is highly conlolex. It is U~s not surprising that students take a \].ong ti.~ to understand all U~ intricacies of the system, ~ieh would allow U~-ml eventually to integrate the rules into an efficient prccess-modei.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> 3. (IZI:CTIVE: The syst~n descrit~:~ here ts an atbmi)t to help the student to acquire the necessary struchJral and procedural tmowle&amp;je. \]~s goal mn be cl~aracteriz~t as follows: }~hi\]e lenrning experi~}ta\]ly about structore (gra,m~rrulfxs) be sheu\]d Learn as w~\].l abouL the process of incrc~ilental senter~e generation. In other tmrds, by playlng wiU~ the system, the studmt should gain necessary insights into tJ~e gra,m~r, :its procedural implications etc. Fie should also reflect upon his {*~l strat~lies. All these insights shotl\]d help hlm to develop a more effiec~lt set of prxx~.edures.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> Since the discovery of moll opti,nl processing strategies implies thai one \].earns t~' to access tim (~/~mtltJc~\] database under di Pferent eirc~mtance~s, -the data and theh&amp;quot; use being separated- we have varied tie processing situation as well as the coding of the data. Variable task den~nds and n~ltiple representation should enhance the flexibility, speed and econmly of processi ng.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> #. l}l-SCR\[PllChi OF IFE SYSILM: \[l*e heart of the systx~n is a I(nowlc~e base v~qich contains, in fol~l of production roles, the sLrt~Wra\] infom~ltien ~vessary to ir~.'remontaiiy determine fern1 as well as pesitJon. F urthonllore tl*e system oonta:ins an inference mcehanJsal, :i .e. a .set of rules, ~hose function is to dediee new facts from any thfot~tion given to the system.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> lhe base can tx ~. accessed in various ways, thus allowing for for varying usage of the knowledge acxeordi~J to the objective. We will. use it here in three ways, varying one of the following parmetors: input:, output, or processing, v&amp;il.e keeping the other  wing ways: - ~at is Imown at the input ? - wf~3t is expected at the output ? - ~hid~ trothed or strategy is used to get frem one to the other ?  lhe thr(~ mothods have a coIrl/lOn goaL, ncqllle\].y, the building of larger bhx~ks (sd/emotas). Ole of the main objectives is to induce strat*;gies ~here items belonging c(xqoeptoally together aide also preeess~ together (grouping). This cl~nklng meU~ed avoids not only t~necessary disruptions and memory \]cad, but it hepefully Favors the evolutico fro~ serial to simaltanecus prooessing. null</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="566" end_page="567" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
5. )~PLZCAT\]ONS:
%1 &amp;quot;IFPS SOC~IIC IvE~OD:
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The system guides the student in the form of a dialogue, by ~lowing him ~hat and }low to process in order to get from an input to the outpuC. file use\[' starts by pt~vidin 9 the input (verb pattern composed of a verb, its conlolements and prepositions ) : donner (qn,qc,~ qn) to give (so, sth, to so) lhe system takes over, asking for more infom~tion about these basic el~llents. By asking specific questions (persc~l, gender, nm~er etc.), the systems shows ~dch informoti~ Js relevant ~hm determining form as well as position. ~hile answering these questions the student incrementally determines the final form of t|~ sentenc*~, lhe following example may illustrate Ute proeess:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> donner- (quelqu'un, quelque chose, ~ quelqu'un) to give (somebody, something, to somebody) prompts f~m the system answers given by success, questions (attributes) the user (value) OUIPUTS  \]he qualities of this socratic dialogue \].ie in the visualization of the whole process. The system demonstrates which information should be processed and in what order. It also shows under ~hat conditions movement of constituents are necessary. These per'mutations are g~own on the screen, so that the user can learn ~deh features control those movements. Furthermore, the results of the processed date are shown on-line, i.e. the form and position of the ~ord determined are shown instantaneously. Finally the system tells ~hether the newly determined item can be articulated right away or not. The system is thus explicit with respect to rule knowledge and optimal in temm of processing. The result is obtained in the most economic way.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The disadvantage of this sys~-drivm processing reside in the fact that the solution, or more precisely, the method used to arrive at the solution, is shown but not discovered. Moreover, only one method is considered, hence the procedural knowledge remains implicit. Tim student will not even envisage other methods. He may thus know how to convert meaning into sentences, bat this knowledge being implicit, he will not know how to transfer it to other situations. null</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="567" end_page="568" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
5,2 GUIDED DISCOVERY
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The system still controls the nature of the operations but no longer controls their order. The latter is controlled, via strategies, by the user. He decides in what order to process tlm data, Having determined the subject, whose positions is invariable, one can choose from three strategies:  - a syntactical one (syntactic-driven processing), - and two morphological ones (le~ical-ddven processing). If priority is given to syntax, no reordering of constituents is meant to take place, i.e. all information pertaining to ~rd order is processed. The result is an ordered eategoriai structure or syntactical frame (h) @rich will be filled in by the merphologicai values determined later (i), for ex~lole: he gives it to her (h) sentence frame: Stl3~CT - DI~CT OBfCT - IN), 0B~CT - VERB (i) morpholo9~: il le lui - donne  If priority is given to morphelogy (lexically-driven generation), the form is determined before U~e relative order of the constituent elemeats. In this ease two strategies are possible: either one proeesses the direct or the iodi.rect object.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The efficiency of these three strategies is of course not the same. It is precisely the user's task to find out whidl of these strategies is tlm most efficient. The system invites him to compare these methods by applying certain performance criteria:  - oumher of steps necessary to generate the sentence, - what is kno~ when ? (form/position), - congruence of inpet/output order (are permutations necessary? LIFO/FIFO) - are there any conceptual disruptions ? (9)  This experimental method should make the student aware of the fact that several strategies can be used to arrive at the solution. Ha should compare them with respect to certain criteria and reach his conclusions.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="568" end_page="568" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
5.3 USER DRI~_N EtPERIMENTATION:
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> This method, like the previous one, is empirical. By playing with the system the student may gain certain insights about processing order, A matrix appears on the screen, ~ose blank spaces have to be filled in by the student. The herizontal line ~lows the syntactic information given with tim input (verb, subject, object, preposition), -more inforfmltion is needed about those elements- tlm vertical line shows the nature of the information necessary to arrive at the output.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> Thus the processing once again consists of tlm specification of the values of a llst of attributes. However there is a fundamental differences between this approach and tlm former, namely, the system has an inference mechanism. Each item of information given to the system is considered for its meaning potential, i.e. the system tries to fi.nd out whether some new facts can be inferred from the old fact.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> It should be noted that the inference power varies with the nature of the data as ~ll as with their order, lhere are eases ~mre a single fact enables 3 other faet~ to he deduced (reflexives). A given inference ,my allow further deductions (inference-chain, knowledge propagation). This has of course an effect on Um process, tamely, tim greater the inference power, the greater tlm ecmow of precessing. This speaks for the following operating principle: the greater the inference power of a given piece of information, tim earlier it should be processed.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> \]his method is interesting in that, by testing different items and different order~ it makes possible to watch on the screen which items allow what inferences. Sinee those inferences depend upon the nature of the input as ~ell as on tim moment at ~hieh that information is given, we believe that this module is particularly useful in helping discover the best possible order of processing.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Furthermore we think that this method has another virtue, namely that it can simulate literally any knowledge state, thus meking it possible, by experimental means to disoover the shortest path bet~en a given information state (input) and the solution (output).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> 6. O\]4CLLSIONS: We have str(msed the need for teac~dn 9 procedural kr@le6tje (strategies) as well as structural knowledge (linguistic roles). ~tmt~t~ore, ~ ar(~Jed that tt~ proeeO~-es to be \].earned had to be flexible, \[x~JSe the input conditions (informational states) as well as the cognitive styles may vary beth ar~ ledividuals and within the :mine incH.vidual. In integrating U~ student into the learning-process We hopefully make him: - actively curl(~JS (testing of hypothesis -learning by discovery); - conscious abc~t the need for planning (how far should one plan e~md ? ~qat are the planning units ?); = selective a\[x~it the means he should use (whid~ strategy is best under what e.troumstances ?).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> lhe ~ole zdca of having different strategies cmDete has been largely i~)red by current work on language generation. ~ile this as~ct may be only of secondary interest for automatLe g~mration in genoral, it certainly is not an animportant issue in cognitive model\[ ling, ~ther it be second langJage-learning or usage.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> 7. NOTES: 1 deg Oar grammar deals only with a sn~ll\] subset oF French, r~ely pronoun constructions (ctitics). Starting with input propositions of the type: to give (sc~t~,se#~thing,to sm~N~dy) the system helps live student to determine the output. \]\]~ input above could \[cad to any of tl~ fell.owing output: QUESTION: Est-ce que tu le lui as dc~\]ne deg ASSERTION: Je le lui donne.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> BRDER: Donne le lui ! 2 deg \]he modules described are written in S~m\]a and Prolng. They Were implemented by G.Sahah and C.Alviset.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9">  3 deg There are a few exceptions like Robinson's (1975), Carrol's (1980) or I&lt;ml0en &amp; Fbenk~'s (1982) approad~.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> #o See for example: Davey (1978), Mc Donald (1983), Mc i&lt;eo~) (1982), Mann (1983), Sewa (\]983), Danlos (1985).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> 5 deg Oar gr~m~r is basically a lexical-functional grammar (see Kay, 1979) 6 deg ~Dng those operating principles are the following: - avoid disruptions by grouping together ~at belongs c~eptually toge~r; - start with the most informative items  (feature hierarchy: PERS~, CASE_, NLM~R, GE~I~_R); - avoid unnecessary storage - start wi.th the lefi~st item. 7 deg lhe fact that prepositions have marphological reflexes has been readily recognized by linguists. ~at has not been sho~ ate the conditions under which a preposition has to be explicited or not, but that is the kind of knowledge a speaker must have.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="12"> 8 deg This is generally r~t made explicit in lingeistlc descriptions. 9 deg Given the fact that the ~le process is visualized in form of Pasca\]-like structures, the stt~ent can easily realize at what moment conceptual disnJptions take place. Hierarc~y is signalled through indentations. All features pertaining to the same refet~nt arerepresented on the same level. It can happen that one cannot process all infonmltton for a given referent. For exarole if prtority is given to syntax it often happens that one cannot oo~olete a procedure because of an onbedded structure. Having started with the dlrect object, one needs information from the indirect object before getting ~lck to the original object. \]his jm~in 9 forth and bade results in conceptual disruption, ~hich is precisely ~}at sheuld be avoided.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>