File Information
File: 05-lr/acl_arc_1_sum/cleansed_text/xml_by_section/metho/92/c92-1013_metho.xml
Size: 30,291 bytes
Last Modified: 2025-10-06 14:12:53
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <Paper uid="C92-1013"> <Title>SYNCtlRONOUS TAGs AND FRENCtt PRONOMINAL CLITICS</Title> <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> ACRES DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 AoOr 1992 60 </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> ambiguous forms can cooccur even if they play different (and compatible) syntactic functions: (Ia) Paul songe c&quot; Marie duns le jardin. (Paul is dreaming about M~u'ie in the garden) (lb) * Paul y y songe (Paul dreams of her there) (2a) Paul remptit un verre de vin (Paul fills one ghLss with wine) (2b) * l'aal en en remplit un (Paul fills one with it) No tst or 2nd person direct object may coc(:cur with a dative clitic: * Paul me leurprdsente (Paul introduces me to them).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Citrics do not have tile same syntactic properties as NPs: they do not co~rdiuate with NPs, nor take NP modifiers, and are usually assigned a specific category (Cli0. It is commonly agreed upon that French pronominal ctitics (plus the negative marker ne) form a syntactic verbal cluster with the main verb (or with the reflected auxiliary 4 if there is one) of the sentence In standard French, pronominal clitics are in complemenlary distribution with syntactic phrases as complements of various lexical heads (V, N, A). They may appear t)n a verbal head (rf which they are not an argument: (3) Jean en est aired (cplt of the past participle) (4~ Jean lui est fiddte (cplt of the adjective) They :ire also subject 1o nmnerous lexieal constraints. Object cliticization may be ruled out by certain verbs which impose a non clitic pronominal form: (5a) Jean (ressemble + pense) d Paul (Jean resembles/thinks about Paul) (5b) Jean lui (ressemble + * pense), (5PS) .lean (?* ressembte + pense) d lui (6a) Jean (pense + aline) que Marie h~ti raconte des histoires. (Jean thinks/likes it that Marie tells him stories) (6b) .lean lie pense + * l'aime). (ruled out with intended mexming) Clitics en and y may also behave as adverbial modifiers. Several proposals have been made in computational linguistics lk)r handliug these phenomena. Bhs 1988 gave a GPSG treatnmnt of French citric objects, which essentially cnnsiders them as preverbal NPs (with a sDecial <Clit> feature), except for invert~ subject clilics which he considers verbal suffixes, lie does not consider adverbial uses nor cases of non kx:al dependencies or of auxiliary-verb combinations. Lexical entries for citrics in</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 4 See for example Grnss 1968. Kayne 1975 for various </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> argllnlellts t*or a Clilics Verb constittlent in Yrench. See Abeilld 1992 for arguments against a VP constituent.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> P~aoc. oF COL1NG-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 dislocated constructions arc duplicated. Baschung et al.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> 1987 present a UCG treatment with a more restricted coverage which considers objeet citrics as functors taking (on their right) a verb expecting an NP (or PP) argument on its right and returning a more saturated verb. They do not give a uuified treamlent of subject clitics which they consider as standard NPs not&quot; do they handle non local dependencies. BSs et al 1989 give a slightly modified version of this treatment allowing for what they cu!l French &quot;semi-free&quot; word order. Miller 1991, using a HPSG-style framework, considers clitics as &quot;phrasal affixes&quot; on VP and uses optioual lcxical rules to update the subcategorization frame of the corresponding verbal entries and foot features to keep track of the presence of a clitic in the tree. He accnunts lot a lot of non local dependencies (including causative constructions) but needs extra constraints to handle locality constraints. He does not talk about inverted clitics nor dislocated constructions. This treatment is not, to otlr knowledge, implemented in a computational application.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> 1.2. Difficulties with existing TAG vari,'mts We can first put aside &quot;fi'ozen&quot; clitics which are easily handled in Lexicalized TAGs: they do not play any semantic role and &quot;co-head&quot; the elementary trees of their predicate (&quot;impersonal&quot; il, se in &quot;middle&quot; constructions anti various idioms). Clitics with a semantic role (adverbial modifiers or arguments of a verb, an adjective or a noun) are more difficult to handle.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> One could think of adding to the existing tree families (associated with the predicams) an elementary tree (with a substitution node for the citric and an empty argument node) for each possible citric (or clitic combination) realiz,ation. This would be somewhat uuprincipled and 5 lead to numerous extra trees , unless one generates the new trees by metarules or lexical rules (Vijay-Shanker and Schabes 1992, Becket 1990). It would also separate the syntax of adverbial ctitics from that of argumeutal ones attd disallow many non local dependencies.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> One might also considcr cxtensious of TAGs, such as FOTAG or MCTAG variants. In Multicomponent TAGs, used for extunple by Kroch and Joshi 1986, the elementary units of the grauunar are tree sets (notexl hcrc with braces) instead on single trees. Adjunction (or substitutimt) thus becomes simullaneous adjuuction (or substitution) of the different members of a tree set into a tree (or into the members of another tree set). The different members of such a set need not be of the same type, ~md we could use a set compristhg an auxiliary tree beaded by the clitic and an initial tree headed by tile empty striug for the ct)rrespondiug argument position:</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> volt \ k la <refl>=- / e x, // Figure 1..lean la volt with MCTAGs Tile substitutien node corresponding to the NP realization of the ctunplement is thus filled with the empty string when the citric adjoins, ltowevel', this will not work for PP complements, since in this case, the whole PP subtree with the prelxmition &quot;co-he4ul&quot; woukl have to be &quot;zeroed&quot; when the citric adjoins, an opcratiou not provided by the forumlism 6.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> S (l~ce>=-NO ,I. PP j /~._ &quot; V t<dat>=+./,&quot; 1 ! &quot; &quot;~&quot; cc>=ressemble a lui Figurc 2. llkx:king Jean lid ressernble with MCI'AGs. &quot;Free Order&quot; TAGs is a variant analogous to the ID/LP format for GPSG which was first introduced by Joshi 1987b and developed by Becket et al. 1991. Argument clitics would thus N: treated as moved NPs (substituted at the same NP nodes) according to LI' statements such as the following: Nl(+Clit) < V. This representation might he attractive for handling cases of &quot;clitic climbing&quot; er non local dependencies but faces unescapable problems: I It is similarly unable to account for dm argument PP/clitic alternation, since the nixie to be substituted is an NP, not a PP in the non citric case.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> - It prevents from having an unified syntactic representation of the different tittles (it dcms not make any syntaclic distinction between NP and clitic subjects) - It does not regard tittles-verb as a constituent ill die syntax, and it is difficult to see how corestrictions between citrics could be handled (the ~uue warning heMs tk}r prohibiting adverb insertion between citrics and verb). Current TAGs versions thus do not provide a satisfactory account of die lion trltzen prmmminal clitics. We now turn to au alternate representation which will nut be strictly syntactic but involve the syntactico-scmantic interl)ce defined in the Synchronous TAGs fimnework. 2. A Synchrnuous 3'At;, representation 2.1. Synchronous TAGs Synchronous TAGs have been introduced by Shieher and Schabes 1991) to characterize correspondences between Tree-Adjoining lauguages. They can he used for relating two TAGs for two different hutguages for the purpose of machine translation (Abeilld et al. 1990), or lk~r relating a</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> 5. Two different trees would lm needed for Jean le lui donne (/can gives it to him) where first clilic=N1, second clltic =N2, and for Jean me le donne (Jean gives it m me) where first clitic=N2, secemd clitic -N1.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> 6. We recall that. due it) their lack of semantic autonomy, we consider argument marking t)repc~sitions as co-heads of the elementary tree of their predicate, contrary to prepnsitions heading adjLmcts wifich are autonomous heads of their auxiliary tree.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> ACIES Dr COLING-92. NArgrl~s, 23-28 Ao~r 1992 6 1 PRO(:. OF COL1NG-92, NAN'iI~S, AUG. 23~28, 1992 syntactic TAG and a semantic one for the same language, .7 for the purpose of generation or semantic analysts . We consider here the latter case and assume that both syntactic and .semantic TAGs are lexicalized and feature-based 8.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> In Synchronous TAGs, TAG elementary trees are paired with semantic units expressed in a logical form language which is also a lexicalized TAG. The correspondences are stated as tree pairings with some of the nodes of the paired trees possibly linked. The following are examples The links between syntactic and semantic nodes mean that an operation at one node in the syntactic tree has an equivalent combination at the linked node in the semantic tree (and vice versa). More precisely, the semantic interpretation of a sentence is built &quot;synchronously&quot; with its syntactic derivation, by choosing a pair of elementary trees (a syntactic one:T1, a semantic one:L1) from the grammar and repeatedly updating it as follows (Shieber and Schabes 1990): - choose a link between two nodes nl and n2 in the pair (T1, L1), - choose another pai r of trees (T2 and L2), the root nodes of which match the respective categories of the two nodes chosen above, - form a new pair by combining T2 at node nl and L2 at node n2 and remove the link (if T2 and L2 have links, these are preserved in the resul0.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> The definition allows for the operations performed at each node to differ, one being an adjunction and the other a substitution for example. It also allows for a node to be linked to several other nodes: in this case, only the &quot;consumed&quot; link is removed (the others are preserved and 7. See Shieber and Schabes 1991 for some arguments for the use of trees instead of flat structures in Logical Form, and for the use of adjunction as an alternative to substitution in LF. 8. We refer the reader to Schabes ct al. 1988 for more details on LexTAGs. Suffice here to say that the TAG elementary trees are systematically associated with lexical &quot;heads&quot; anchoring them in the lexicon (and required not to be empty) and are combined together either by substitution or adjunction. Feature structures are also associated at the nodes of the elementary trees and constraints on combining trees can be expressed in terms of success or failure of unification (Vijay-Shanker and Joshi 1988). Not all featur/:s are shown here.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> 9. The non terminal names in the semantic TAG are mnemonic for Formula, Term and Relation. Only the relevant links are shown.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="17"> we adopt here the convention that they are &quot;pushed&quot; * . . 10 upwards m the case of an adjunctton) .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="18"> Since multiple links are allowed, one syntactic node may be linked to .several semantic nodes, and conversely, one semantic node to several syntactic nodes. This allows for the ability of a given syntactic element to play different semantic roles and for differeut syntactic realizations of the same .semantic role. For example, as explained by Abeill6 and Schabes 1990, this formalism naturally accounts for file adverbial status of adjectives inserted into idiomatic expressions: Jean a pris une vraie veste = Jean a vratment pris une veste (Jean has really come a cropper). We want to show here that, provided it is taken as part of the well-formedness conditions of the grammar, it also accounts for the properties of French pronominal citrics.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="19"> 2.2. Augmenting TAG wellformedness conditions with synchronicity Sofar, well-formed sentences of a TAIL have been defined in the syntax only* In this respect, an input sentence is accepted by the TAG parser iff it obeys the following conditions: - it can be derived from an initial tree rooted in S, - all features unify at each node in the corresponding derived nee.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="20"> It is however possible to allow for the definition of the well-formed sentences of the language to be given jointly by the syntax and by the semantics, so that among the ill-formed sentences certain will be accepted by the syntax but rejected by the semantic rules if they cannot assign any interpretation to them. Such semantic filtering is not without history (Cf Pullum 1984) but it seems especially fruitful with the Synchronous TAG formalism because: - the syntax and the semantics use extactly the same formalism, - the syntactic and semantic derivations are necessarily built up in parallel.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="21"> The following well-formedness constraint is thus added to the parser: a sentence is acceptable iff it has at least one valid semantic interpretation built &quot;synchronottsly&quot; with it. By valid semantic interpretation, we mean that: - it can be derived from an initial semantic tree, - all features unify at each node in the corresponding derived semantic tree.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="22"> Several linguists have also suggested such semantic filtering for cases usually thought of as more syntactic (e.g. Sag and Klein 1982). The purpose of this paper is to advocate this device in various cases which all involve the syntax-semantic interface among which French pronominal clitics, 2.3. French pronominal elitics with Synchronous TAGs We rely on the existing elementary trees in the grammar to which we add substitution nodes for all possible clitics. Both clitics and corresponding NP, AP or PP nodes are optional in the syntax, their alternate realization is triggered by the 10. We refer the reader to Shieber and Schabes 1990 for formal aspects of Synchronous TAGs (which are more powerful than TAGs).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="23"> A~s DE COLING-92. NANTES, 23-28 AOt3X 1992 6 2 PREC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 associated semantic representation. We show how we get the following distribution: The four sentences (Ta)-(7d) are allowed in the syntax but only ,sentences (7a) and (7b) are associated a synchronous interpretation. No interpretation is possible for sentence (7c) because its derived semantic tree is incomplete: dte T1 is obligatory in the semantics. No interpretation is possible for sentence (Td) because whenever the clitic or the NP tree is substituted, it synchronously fills the T1 term and prevents the other to be substituted.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="24"> A motivation tor treating cases (7c) and (Td) (i.e, cases of argument missing or cooccurrence between clitics and full phrases) as &quot;semantically&quot; deviant is that it seems to be always possible to construct a context in which they could be accepted 11. We thus consider all the argument nodes to be optional and compatible in the syntax, their realization will be incompatible in the semantics (and might be obligatory if the semantic representation specifies so), Handling elitic corresponding to PPs is now straightforward, as shown in the following pairing: Notice 1hat although N! is the argument of the verb, it is the PP as a whole which as marked as optional (and will be prevented to cooccur with a dative clitic).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="25"> The same result could be achieved if one considers the elitics to be adjoined (instead of substituted) on the syntactic side but this will necessitate a richer feature system to check clitic ordering and compatibility (see Abcill6 1991a for a previous accomtt along these lines). In order to keep the feature system as simple as possible, we provide in fact nodes for all possil)le clitic realization (argumeulal or adverbial ones) in the corresponding elementary trees. The complete tree for a transitive verb like voir is thus the following (with clitic numbering as in section 1.1) I 2: We will titus get Jean yen voit, Il se volt etc...</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="26"> 2.4. Ambiguity and haplohtgy Ambiguities are provided by the multiple links coming out of a clitic node: en for example can correspond to an accusative or a genitive complement, y can Ire a dative complement or a locative adjmtct... If one takes a verb with an optional complement (such as songer) and the ambiguous clitic y, sentence (Sa) below is parsed as ambiguous whereas only the adverbial reading is selected fory in sentence (8b)13: (Sa) Jean y songe. (1:Jean is dreaming there/2:Jean is dreaming about this) (8b) Jean y songe d ses soucis. (Jean is dreaming there about his problems) 11. In fact (7d) is OK in spoken French, which can be shown to exhibit &quot;clitic doubling&quot;, and (7c) may be improved as in: ? Si Jean n'est pas intdressara c'est parce qu'il ne salt pas int~resser.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="27"> 12. See Miller 1991 for arguments for having the subject clitics separated from the complements ones, 13. Contrary to Miller 1991, we do not consider that (84) has a third &quot;haplology&quot; interpretation (Jean is dreaming there about it). nor do sentences such as Jean en remplit. Notice that sentences (lb) and (2b) above are not generated since there is only one position for y and one for en in the syntax.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="28"> 2,5, Further constraints Clitic insertion is ruled out in extraction contexts: (9) Je sais qui Jean regarde (I know who Jean is looking at) (9a) * Je sais qui Jean le regarde (9b) C'est Marie que Jean regarde (It is Marie that Jean is looking at) (9c) * C'est Marie que Jean la regarde In these constructions, which correspond to distiuct elementary syntactic trees (in the tree family of their head) the obligatory syntactic realization of the extracted element naturally prevents the substitution of the corresponding clitic.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="29"> This representation is also directly suitable for marking various constraints, e.g. structural ones (ruling out en direct object for PP complements) or lexieal ones (verbs which forbid cliticization of their complement such as pen.wr & Nhum or aimer que P). As for feature equations, certain links are structurally defined as part of the elementary trees reg,'u'dless of their lexical head (and there will be no link between en and the T complement node in the tree family for verbs with a PP complement), other links are brought by the lexical head and only certain verbs with a PP complement (ressembler but not penser) will define a link between the dative Clitic and their T complement node.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="30"> We now show how the representation sketched above naturally extends to some cases of so-called &quot;non local&quot; dependencies and to cases of cooccurrence between the clitic and the corresponding argument.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="31"> 2.6. Locality constraints and non local dependencies. As noted by Shieber and Schabes 1990, locality constraints are inherent to the formalism of Synchromms TAGs. Contrary 1o Miller 1991, who runs the risk of allowing too many non local dependencies with the FFP, we titus do not need to add specific locality constraints.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="32"> Notice first that some &quot;non local&quot; dependencies in a PSG are treated locally in a TAG framework. Examples of these are sentences with raising verbs (adjoining to VI) or attxiliaries (adjoining to V0) following the word order : Jean peut le voir, Jean l'a vu. Adjoining a raising or an auxiliary verb only updates tile links coming out of the Vl or V0 node and does not interfer with the links of the clitics. We straightforwardly get: Jean aurait dtd aimd de Marie= Jean en aurait dtF aimF (Jean would have been loved by Marie). The agreement equations are the following (with o-agr for object agreement): Cliticization of the complement of an adjective is directly allowed in copular consmtctions: Jean estfidele g~ Marie = Jean lui est fiddle (Jean is faithful to Marie). Copttlar constructions are (independently) treated as extended elementary trees in the TAG grammar, with the adjective co-heading the elementary tree with the verb and the chic and PP(de) complement nodes belonging to the i4 same flee .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="33"> However, such cliticization is ruled out lin modifying adjectives. Sentences snch as: J'ai rencontrF une fille fidOle d Jean = * Je lui ai rencontrd une fille fidOle (I met a girl faithful to Jean) are not generated since the T node corresponding to the complement of the adjective does not belong to the same semantic tree as that of NO rencontrer N1 with which the clitic tree must be cmnbined.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="34"> The same &quot;local&quot; treatment holds for cliticization of complements of nouns. It is allowed in light-verb constrnctions such as: Jean a fair le portrait de Marie = Il en afait le portrait (Jean made a picture of Marie), which are represented as exl~nded elementary trees with the light verb and the predicate nominal co-heading the slructure. It is rulod out by our treatment when the NP is in a 15 productive argument position 14. There are differences in acceptability for cliticization with verbs taking adjectival arguments : Je lui (sais + ?*trouve) Jean fiddle. (I know\]find Jean faithful to her). The difference is the same for extraction out of tile AP : A qui (sais+ ?*trouves)-tu Jean fidt?le ? and is acounted for by different syntactic elementary trees (an extended one for savoir, one with die AP to be substituted for trouver). 15. This is obviously too strong a constraint since there are cases where tile clitic corresponds to a complement of a noun at an arbitrary levet of entbedding, such as: Le bord de la couverture de ce livre est ddchir~e = Le bord de la eouverture en est ddchird (The ctmler of lhe cover of the book is tom out).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="35"> AorEs Dr! COLING-92, NANTIiS, 23-28 AoI%r 1992 6 4 PROC. Or: COLING-92, NANTES, AUC/I. 23-28, 1992 en, which allows a direct object with a null he.~l-noun: Jean achdte deux potatoes = .lean en aehdte deux (Jean boys two apples). In such cases, the determiner heads a syntactic N initial tree but its solnantic tree is an attxiliary T tree which adjoins to the T node filled by the clitic. We also account lot cases where the dative (humml) clitic is semantically equivaleot to a l}ossessive, a construction typical of nouns of inalienable possession (such as txxly parts) combined with certain action verbs: Ce docteur selene les dents de Jean = Ce docteur lui soigne les dents (This doctor treats JeAufs teeth), llere, the clitic lui will paired with an auxiliary T tree (as that for possessive determiners) and its node will be linked wilh tile T node of the direct comlllement (for tile verbs allowing this): it may thus cooccur with Ihe NP COlOpleiIlcnt.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="36"> For lack of space, we do uot develop here Ilclitic climbing&quot; in causative constructions which require either multicomponent trees on the semantic side or lexical rules adding causative double-headed elementary trees to the existing tree families.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="37"> 2.7. Cuoccurcence between clitics and I'11tl phrases Such c{x}Ccorrences are exhibited by inverted contexts such its: Qui Jean voit-il ? Such inverted clitics are represented ia the syntax as auxiliary trees which trigger an mversiou feature (Ahei116 1991 a) and adjoin to the right of tile inflected verbal form. On the semantic side, they are reprcsented as ambiguous: they are associated witii Terms and may thus alternate with uon inverted clitics or NP suhjccts (Qui voit-il ?), provided the verbal nodes are linked with the subject T uede. But they are also associated with auxiliary trecs adjoining a question marking at the top F node (and thus allowed to cooccur with NP subjects).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="38"> Otlrer cooccurrences are exhibited hy dislocated constructious such as : .lean, Marie l'a vu or Marie l'a vu, Jean (Jean, Marie saw) which tend to gencralize in spoken language. Right dislocation for complement clitics can be accounted lot straightforwardly with the cxisting elementary trees if one allows for an alternative semantic representation of the clitics, nan~ely an auxiliary emphatic scmantic trec (adjoining to the Term Multiple dislocations are thus allowed : Je le lui ai confiE l'argent, ti Jean (I gave Jean the nloncy) :is well its &quot;mediaiP' ones :,lean l'a eonfiPS l'argent, d Marie. We do not consider here left dislocations which have different 16, This alternative represenuttion of clitic l}ronouns as semantically vacuous is similarly used by Grmlshaw 1982 for Spanish clitic doubling (optional feature Pred in the clitic entry).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="39"> syntactic properties and for which a purely semantic principle see, ms neces.~ary in order to bind the pre~l NP (Cf Hirschbuhler 1975, Fr'~lin 1988).</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="5" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3. F.xt ensions </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> We show how tile synchronous 'FAG framework naturally handles other cases of discrepancies between syntactic attachment and semantic role, for various non canonical configurations, while keeping the semantic component very simple and strictly comlx}siti{mal.</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.1 &quot;Argument-adjuncts&quot; It has often been noted </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> that syntactic adjuncts may behave semantically as 17 arguments . q't~ese adjuncts may be in complemenulry distribution with arguments, such as possessive determiners and PP(de) coulplement.s: la venue de Jean/ sa venue (Jean's coming, his coming) vs * la venue/*sa venue de .lean* Syuebronous TAGs uatorally allow to represent such possessives as auxiliary trees m the syntax and as initial trees in tile semantics. For example, tile above dislrihution with the noun venue is accounted for by linking the attactonent lx}tht of the determiner (the top N) and the substitution node {11' the PP complement tO one and the S~lllle snbstitlltiou node in tile The phrase * la venue is di~llowed because substitution is obligatory at &quot;II) and the definite article la is not paired with a Term initial tree. Other such alternations involve &quot;relational&quot; adjectives such as voyage pr&~Mentiel/voyage du prdsident and are handled sinfilarly (with the relational adjective paired with a senumtic term).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> 3.2. &quot;F, xtended&quot; adjuncts It has also been noticed that a(ljuncts inay \[lave a Selllantic SCOl~ well t}eyood their syntactic attachorent point. For examl}le, raising verbs, negative adverbials, quautifiers all llave a semantic sentential scope ahh{}ugh they attach to verbal {}r nominal items. These discrepancies are easily handled with Synchronous TAGs provided correst}nnding links are added to the elementary tree pairs (e.g. between VI and the F uode for raising verbs; Cf Abeilt6 199 l b).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Convcrsely, we can ball{lie cases of I'narftlW&quot; scol)~3 snch as extraposed relative clauses which attach to S allhongh they semantically modify an NP: tile syntactic S tree of tile relative chnlse is paired with an aaxiliary T rooted tree in tile scmaulics which adjoins t{} the T ilode 17. We leca\[I lhat in TAGs, there is a structural distinction between modifiers (which are adj{}ined) 1ti1(.1 complements (which are substituted).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> 18. For some linguistic argumePds \[or representing determiners as sylttactic adjullcts, see for example Abeill6 1991a ACII!S \]}I!COLIN(I-92, NAN&quot;rE8, 23 28 A{}UI' 1992 6 5 P~(}c. {}F COLING-92, NANrI!s, AI:{I. 23 2g. 1992 corresponding to the modified NP (provided S nodes are linked with the argument T nodes) 19.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> Conclusion We have shown how some non canonical arguments can be naturally handled using the formalism of Synchronous TAGs, provided the syntax-semantic synchronicity is incorporated as a well-formednesss condition in the grammar. We have applied this treatment to French pronominal clitics and handle the; r complementary distribution with complements, without increasing the number of elementary trees in the grammar. Thanks to the extended domain of locality of TAGs, their locality constraints are handled (similarly as subjaeency) without specific stipulations. We also handle cases of non local dependencies, provided one adds alternative semantic representation for ambiguous clitic complements. The same idea can be extended to other cases of mismatches between syntactic attachment and semantic role, such as &quot;extended&quot; adverb scoping or exWaposition.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> 19. This case has been handled by &quot;local&quot; MCTAGs (Kroch and Joshi 1986) with &quot;empty&quot; trees for coindexing tile NP and the extraposed relative. Due to the inherent locality of Synchronous TAGs, the same effect of clause boundedness as &quot;local&quot; MC-TAGs is achieved.</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> class="xml-element"></Paper>