<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C88-1029">
  <Title>Morphology and cross dependencies In the synthesis of personal pronouns in Romance languages</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="139" end_page="139" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 Synthesis of personal pronouns
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> If a token refers to the speaker(s) or the hearer(s), it must be synthesized as a first or second person pronoun; the only operation to be performed is the computation of this &amp;quot;dialogue&amp;quot; pronoun. Otherwise, we consider synthesizing a token as a flfird person pronoun only if it has already been synthesized (because occuring in a previous clause template, for example). In other words, w e do not consider the left pronominalization phenomena (T. Reinhart 1983).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Determining whether a token which does not refer to the speaker(s) or hearer(s) and which has already been synthesized has to be synthesized as a personal pronoun requires the following steps to be gone through:  1) Compute the form of the foreseen pronoun (eL 3.1); 2) Compute the list L1 of tokens that have been synthesized in nominal phrases whose &amp;quot;morphological&amp;quot; features (i.e. gender and number) are compatible with the form of the foreseen pronoun (eL 3.2).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 3) Compute the sublist L2 of L1 that contains only the  elements of L2 that are syntactically compatible with the foreseen pronoun. For example, in Mary hated her, Mary and the personal pronounher cannot be coreferential. The token representing Mary is said to be syntactically incompatible with the pronoun her.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> 4) Compute the sublist L3 of L2 that contains only the elements of L2 that are semantically compatible with the foreseen pronoun. For example, in The book is on the table, it was published recently , the pronoun it and the table cannot be coreferential because the direct object of the verb publish in the active (its subject in the passive) cannot be a piece of furniture. The token representing the table is said to be semantically incompatible with the pronoun it.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> 5) According to the number of elements in L3, and maybe according to other considerations, decide actually if the foreseen pronoun has to be synthesized. At a rough estimate, if the number of elements of L3 is one, then the foreseen pronoun can be synthesized since it does not lead to ambiguity, while it should not be synthesized if the number of elements in L3 is greater than one since it would lead to ambiguity. Yet, it is well known that pragmatic and structure parallelism considerations may allow a pronoun to be non ambiguous even if L3 has more than one element (G. Hirst 1981, C. Sidner 1981, K.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> McKeown 1985, L. Danlos 1987a). Step 5 takes those considerations into account to determine whether the foreseen pronoun has to be actually synthesized.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="139" end_page="139" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.1 Computation of the form of the foreseen
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> pronoun This computation involves the following factors : 1) The syntactic position in which the token that could be synthesized as a pronoun appears. In English, it is enough to distinguish between the subject and complement positions. In French and Italian, it is necessary to distinguish between the \[subject\], \[dir-objeet\], \[h-object\], \[de-object\], \[lee-object\] and \[prdp-object\] positions: the \[subject\] and \[prdp-object\] positions generally give rise to pronouns that are similar to the English onesl; the other positions may give rise to pronouns that must appear before the verb, such pronouns being noted Ppv .</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> 2) The person and number of the token. Person and number are semantic information which are given in the definition of the token.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> 3) The gender of the nominal phrase that synthesizes the previous occurrence of the token. In French and Italian languages, which have only the masculine and feminine gender, gender is not semantic but lexieal information.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> Consider the token TOK1 with the following definition:</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> In French, it can be synthesized as a feminine noun group la bicyclette (the bicycle) or as a masculine noun group le vdlo (the bike). The gender of a pronoun which synthesizes a token is generally equal to the gender of the previous occurrence of the token : La bicyclette est cassde. (Elle + * ll) est au garage.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> (The bicycle is broken. It is at the garage.) Le v~lo est cass~. (11 + * Elle) eat au garage.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> (The bike is broken. It is at the garage.) 4) The human nature of the token along with the verb (in the infinitive form) of the clause template. As an example, consider the synthesis of an \[h-object\] in Italian. The verbs dare, pensare and credere can all take a human or non human \[h-object\]. The form of a pronoun corresponding to the \[h-object\] of one of these three verbs is given in the table below 2 : TABLE,, 1 ~m:sHUMAN f-s ,-ii dare gli le . plur .lore I credere I gli I le lore pensare lalui I alei aloro</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="139" end_page="140" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
NON HUMAN
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> gli 'le ioro ci ci ci ci ci ci In Italian as well as in French, the form of an \[h-object\] pronoun can only be obtained by consulting a &amp;quot;lexicongrammar&amp;quot; (M. Gross 1975, 1986 ; A. Ella et alii 1981).  s&amp;quot; for feminine-singular, &amp;quot;plur&amp;quot; for plural. The pronouns preceeded by the preposition a are not placed before the verb.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  For each w,.:cb, a lexicon-granamar records all its syntactic properties, among them those concerning pronominalization.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 5) The synthesis of the verb. /n French, a \[dir-objeet\] of the third person singular is pronominalized as le if the previous oc~;urrence of the token is masculine, as la if feminine : Ugo, je \[e vois souvent (Ugo, I see him often) Marie, je la vois souvent (Mary, I see her often) However, if the first letter of tile conjugated verb is a vowel, there is elision of le ou la into l' : Ugo, je l'ai vu et je l'entends (Ugo, I saw him and I hear him) Marie, je Pai vue et je l'entends (Mary, I saw her and I hear her) This elisi(m changes the computation of the morphological antecedents of the pronoun as shown in 3.2. Therefore, it has to be taken into account when determining if the \[dir-objeet\] has to be pronominalized. 6) The synthesis of other complements. This factor iiwolves several non local dependencies. For example, in French, an \[b-object\] cannot be pronominalized as the Ppv =: lui if there is a \[dir-objeet\] synthesized as te (M. Gross 1968): Marie, je la pr~senterai d Ugo --&gt; Je la lui pr~venterai (Mary, I will introduce her to Ugo -&gt; I will introduce her to him) Toi, je te prdsenterai ?t Ugo --&gt; * Je te lui pr~senterai (You, I will introduce you to Ugo --&gt; I will introduce you to him) Another exmnple in Italian: an \[h-object\] of the third person singular can be pronominalized as gli if the previous occurrence of the token is masculine, as le if feminine (see Table 1). However, if there is a \[dir-object\] synthesized as the Ppv =: 1o , the pronouns gli or le amalgamate with this Ppv and both become glie : Diedi il libro a Maria --&gt; Le diedi il iibro (I gave the book to Mary --&gt; I gave the book to her) Diedi il libro a Ugo --&gt; Gll diedi il libro (i gave the book to Ugo --&gt; I gave the book to him) I1 libro, la diedi a (Maria + Ugo) --&gt; Glielo diedi (The book, I gave it to (Mary + Ugo) --&gt; I gave it to her/him)</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="140" end_page="140" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.2 Computation of the morphological
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> antecedents of the foreseen pronoun A token, which does not refer to the speaker(s) or hearer(s), eollrespends to a morphological antecedent of the foreseen pronoun if it has been previously synthesized as a nominal phrase whose morphological features (i.e.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> gender and number) are compatible with the form of the foreseen prunoun. For example, if the foreseen pronoun is the French \[dir-objet\] pronoun la, its morphological antecedents are the feminine singular noun phrases; the Italian \[/i-object\] pronoun gli , it s morphological antecedents are the masculine singular noun phrases; tile Italian \[h-object\] pronoun le , its morphological antecedents are the feminine singular noun phrases; the Italian \[h-object\] pronoun glie (result of an amalgamatio~l of gli or le with another Ppv ), its morphologie~ anteee.xlents are the singular noun phrases.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> In the cases mentionned above, the computation of the morphological antccedent~ of the foreseen pronoun (i.e.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> the eomput~ition of the list L1) only depends upon ithe form of the pronoun. The computation of L1 can also depend upon the synthesis of other elements, thereby involving non local dependencies. For example, when the foreseen pronoun is l', its morphological antecedents are all tlle singular noun phrases if the conjugated verb does not include a past participle as in Je l'entends (I hear him/her/it); otherwise, its morphological antecedents are the singular noun phrases with the gender indicated by the past participle: in Je l'ai vu (I saw him/it), the morphological antecedents of 1&amp;quot; are the masculine singular noun phrases, while in Je l'ai rue (I saw her/it), the morphological antecedents of l' are the feminine singular noun phrases. This is why the synthesis of the \[dir-objeet\] depends upon that of the verb. It is an illustration of the claim that pronominalization involves the morphological level.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Conclusion The cross dependencies and morphological interactions wlfieh were presented here concern only the synthesis of personal pronouns, putting aside the synthesis of sentential, subordinate and coordinated clauses. The reader can guess the complexity of a syntactic component for Romance languages. A robust French and Italian syntactic component has been implemented in a procedural Common-Lisp program. An English syntactic component has been implemented in a declarative formalism using functional descriptions (J.M. Laneelet alii 1988).</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>