<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P94-1043">
  <Title>REAPING THE BENEFITS OF INTERACTIVE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS*</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="310" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
WHEN TO COMMUNICATE
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Syntax and semantics should interact only at those times when one can provide some information to the other to help reduce the number of choices being considered. Only when the parser has analyzed a unit that carries some part of the meaning of the sentence (such as a content word) can semantics provide useful feedback perhaps using selectional preferences for fillers of thematic roles. We need to design a parsing strategy that communicates with semantics precisely at such points. While pure bottom-up parsing turns out to be too circumspect for this purpose, pure top-down parsing is too eager since it makes its commitments too early for semantics to have a say. A combination strategy called Left Corner (LC) parsing is a good middle ground making expectations for required constituents from the leftmost unit of a phrase but waiting to see the left corner before committing to a bigger syntactic unit (E.g., Abney and Johnson, 1991). In LC parsing, the leftmost child (the left corner) of a phrase is analyzed bottom-up, the phrase is projected upward from the leftmost child, and other children of the phrase are projected top-down from the phrase.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  While LC parsing defines when to project topdown, it does not tell us when to make attachments. That is, it does not tell when to attempt to attach the phrase projected from its left corner to higher-level syntactic units. Should it be done immediately after the phrase has been formed from its left corner, or after the phrase is complete with all its children (both required and optional adjuncts), or at some intermediate point? Since ambiguities arise in making attachments and since semantics could help resolve such ambiguities, the points at which semantics can help, determine when the parser should attempt to make such attachments.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> LC parsing defines a range of parsing strategies in the spectrum of parsing algorithms along the &amp;quot;eagerness&amp;quot; dimension (Abney and Johnson, 1991). The two ends of this dimension are pure bottom-up (most circumspect) and pure top-down (most eager) parsers. Different LC parsers result from the choice of arc enumeration strategies employed in enumerating the nodes in a parse tree. In Arc Eager LC (AELC) Parsing, a node in the parse tree is linked to its parent without waiting to see all its children. Arc Standard LC (ASLC) Parsing, on the other hand, waits for all the children before making attachments. While this distinction vanishes for pure bottom-up or top-down parsing, it makes a big difference for LC Parsing.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> In this work, I propose an intermediate point in the LC Parsing spectrum between ASLC and AELC strategies and argue that the proposed point, that I call Head-Signaled LC Parsing (HSLC), turns out to be the optimal strategy for interaction with semantics. In this strategy, a node is linked to its parent as soon as all the required children of the node are analyzed, without waiting for other optional children to the right. The required units are predefined syntactically for each phrase; they are not necessarily the same as the 'head' of the phrase. (E.g., N is the required unit for NP, V for VP, and NP for PP.) HSLC makes the parser wait for required units before interacting with semantics but does not wait for optional adjuncts (such as PP adjuncts to NPs or VPs). The parsing spectrum now appears thus:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Given a grammar and an empty set as the initial forest of parse trees, For each word, Add a new node T~ to the current forest of trees {Ti} for each category for the word in the lexicon mark T~ as a complete subtree Repeat until there are no more complete trees that can be attached to other trees, Propose attachments for a complete subtree Tj to a T~ that is expecting Tj, or to a T~ as an optional constituent, or to a new Tk to be created if Tj can be the left corner (leftmost child) of Tk Select an attachment (see below) and attach If a new Tk was created, add it to the forest, and make expectations for required units of Tk If a T~ in the forest has seen all its required units, Mark the T~ as a complete subtree.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Consider a PP attachment ambiguity and the tree traversal labelings produced by different LC parsers shown in Figure 1. It can be seen from Figure la that AELC attempts to attach the PP to the VP or NP even before the noun in the PP has been seen. At this time, semantics cannot provide useful feedback since it has no information on the role filler for a thematic role to evaluate it against known selectional preferences for that role filler. Thus AELC is too eager for interactive semantics. ASLC, on the other hand, does not attempt to attach the VP to the S until the very end (Fig lb). Thus even the thematic role of the subject NP remains unresolved until the very end. ASLC is too circumspect for interactive semantics. HSLC on the other hand, attempts to make attachments at the right time for interaction with semantics (Fig lc).</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="310" end_page="311" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
WHAT TO COMMUNICATE
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The content of the communication between syntax and semantics is a set of grammatical relations and thematic roles. Syntax talks about the grammatical relations between the parts of a sentence such  as Subject, Direct-object, Indirect-object, prepositional modifier, and so on. Semantics talks about the thematic relations between parts of the sentence such as event, agent, theme, experiencer, beneficiary, co-agent, and so on. These two closed classes of relations are translated to one another by introducing what I call &amp;quot;intermediate roles&amp;quot; to take into account other kinds of linguistic information such as active/passive voice, VP- vs.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> NP-modification, and so on. Examples of intermediate roles are: active-subject, passive-subject, VP-With-modifier, subject-With-modifier, and so on. While space limitations do not permit a more detailed description here, the motivation for intermediate roles as declarative representations for syntax-semantics communication has been described in (Mahesh and Eiselt, to appear).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The grammatical relations proposed by syntax are translated to the corresponding thematic relations using the intermediate roles. Semantics evaluates the proposed role bindings using any selectional preferences for role fillers associated with the meanings of the words involved. It communicates back to syntax a set of either an Yes, a No, or a Don't-Care for each proposed syntactic attachment. A Yes answer is the result of satisfying one more selectional preferences for the role binding; a No for failing to meet a selectional constraint; and a Don't-Care when there are no known preferences for the particular role assignment.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="311" end_page="311" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
HOW TO AGREE
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Since syntax and semantics have independent preferences for multiple ways of composing the different parts of a sentence, an arbitrating process (that I call the Unified Process) manages the communication and resolves any conflicts. This unified process helps select the alternative that is best given the preferences of both syntax and semantics. In addition, since the decisions so made are never guaranteed to be correct, the unified process is not deterministic and has the capability of retaining unselected alternatives and recovering from any errors detected at later times. The details of such an error recovery mechanism are not presented here but can be found in (Eiselt et al, 1993) for example.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Syntax has several levels of preferences for the attachments it proposes based on the following criteria: Attachment (of a required unit) to an expecting unit has the highest preference. Attachment as an optional constituent to an existing (completed) unit has the next highest preference. Attachment to a node to be newly created (to start a new phrase) has the least amount of preference. These preferences are used to rank syntactic alternatives.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The algorithm for the unified process: Given: A set of feasible attachments {AI} where each Ai is a fist of the two syntactic nodes being attached, the level of syntactic preference, and one of (Yes, No, Don't-Care) as the semantic feedback, If the most preferred syntactic alternative has an Yes or Don't-Care, select it else if no other syntactic alternative has a Yes, then select the most preferred syntactic alternative that has a Don't-Care else delay the decision and pursue multiple interpretations in parallel until further information changes the balance.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>