{ "paper_id": "J75-4002", "header": { "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", "date_generated": "2023-01-19T02:41:00.922071Z" }, "title": "", "authors": [], "year": "", "venue": null, "identifiers": {}, "abstract": "The paper describes a colnnuter m d e l oC s v s t e m i c grammar. a penerative prammar f o r natural l a n p u p p e. P propram is explained which piven t h e f e a t u r e s OF an fterr, determines t h e structure of t h a t item accordinp t o a s v s t e r i c E r a m a r s~e c i f i e c as 8ata. The vrograr thus deaonstrates the ~r i n c i p l e s of systemic grammar, a b r i e f sursarv of the vechanicg of which is a l s o i n c l u d e d. Some imvlications of the proarm for systemic grammar i t s e l f are d i s c u s s e d. In ~articular, jt is shown t h a t ~r e v i o u s d e f i n i t i o n s of t h e o n e r a t i o n o f qtructure-huildfnp rules require modification. North-Holland. McCarthy , J. (1965). L i s~ 1.5 programmer's manual. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Power, R. 19 7 4. A comuter model of c o n v e r s a t i o n. Ph. D m thesis, University of Edinburgh. Self, J. A. (1975). CBLPa computer based learning ~rogramrning , J system. J. of. I n s t. of Computer Sciences, in Dress, Winograd, T. (19 72 1. Understanding n a t u r a l lanpuage. N~H York : Academic Press.", "pdf_parse": { "paper_id": "J75-4002", "_pdf_hash": "", "abstract": [ { "text": "The paper describes a colnnuter m d e l oC s v s t e m i c grammar. a penerative prammar f o r natural l a n p u p p e. P propram is explained which piven t h e f e a t u r e s OF an fterr, determines t h e structure of t h a t item accordinp t o a s v s t e r i c E r a m a r s~e c i f i e c as 8ata. The vrograr thus deaonstrates the ~r i n c i p l e s of systemic grammar, a b r i e f sursarv of the vechanicg of which is a l s o i n c l u d e d. Some imvlications of the proarm for systemic grammar i t s e l f are d i s c u s s e d. In ~articular, jt is shown t h a t ~r e v i o u s d e f i n i t i o n s of t h e o n e r a t i o n o f qtructure-huildfnp rules require modification. North-Holland. McCarthy , J. (1965). L i s~ 1.5 programmer's manual. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Power, R. 19 7 4. A comuter model of c o n v e r s a t i o n. Ph. D m thesis, University of Edinburgh. Self, J. A. (1975). CBLPa computer based learning ~rogramrning , J system. J. of. I n s t. of Computer Sciences, in Dress, Winograd, T. (19 72 1. Understanding n a t u r a l lanpuage. N~H York : Academic Press.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Abstract", "sec_num": null } ], "body_text": [ { "text": "This paver describes a computer model of s~s t s m i c grammar, a prammar for n a t u r a l languages developed by H a l l i d a y and colleagues at U n i v e r s i t v College, London (Halliday , 1961, 197fl) . (1) feature-realisation rules ", "cite_spans": [ { "start": 185, "end": 209, "text": "(Halliday , 1961, 197fl)", "ref_id": null } ], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "? n t r o d u c t i o n", "sec_num": "1." }, { "text": "!PROCESS ) !HEAD) !STEM) -1 !BINDER) !SUBJECT) ! FINITE -) !SUBJECT) ! PINTTE) -1 ! MOOD-FOCUS TNDEPENDENT) ( + !QUEG'PION = !BINDER) DEPENDENT -1 -1 ( + !QUESTION = !MOOD-FOCUS ) INDEPENDENT) ?ALTERNATIVE (!OUESTION = !SUBJECT) WH) ( !ALTERNATIVE = ! SUBJECT) ALTERNATIVE: ! MODAL -1 -1 -1 !GOAL) ?ACTOR (NOT ACTOR- UNSPECIFIED) ) !TRANSITIVE) + ! ATTRI BUANT = !SUBJECT) ! ATTRIBUTE) ! COPULAR) ( + TACTOR = !SUBJECT)) ! INTRANS ) (!ACTOR = !SUBJECT)) (!GOAL = !", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Svstemic grammar has recentlv been", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "NO SEQUENCE RULE 1 (.(!HOOPFOCUS OR !BINDER) = > ( IPRE-SUBJECT -> !SUBJECT) -> !POST-SUBJECT =, !PROCESS -> !POST-VERB) 2 ( !FINITE = ( ! PRE-SUBJECT = (!MODAL -> !PASSIVE)", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Svstemic grammar has recentlv been", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "-> !PROCESS)) (dl Compatibility rule 1 means \" !POST-SUBJECT must not be conflated with ! PRE-SUBJECT\"", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Svstemic grammar has recentlv been", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "( 3 1 function-realisationrules Rule 12 meas \"if an item has none of the functions !SUBJECT, !GOAL, !ATTRIBUTE or !AGENT then if it has !BINDER, it has t h e feature CONJUNCTIONf'", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "NO COMPATIBILITY RULE:", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "1 (!COPULAR 2 ( ! E N 3 ( !FINITE 4 ( !INTRANS 5 ( !MODAL 6 (!PASSIVE 7 (!PROCESS 8 ( !TRANSITIVE 9 ( !AGENT 10 (!ALTERNATIVE 11 ( ! ATTRIBUTIVE 12 ( !BINDER CONDITION COPULAR-VERB ) BIN-FORM) FINITE-VERB) INTRANSITIVE-VERP) MODAL-VERB) BE ) EXICAL-VERB 1 TRANSITIVE-'VERB PREPOSITIONAL) DISJUNCTIVE) (OR ADJECTIVAL NOMINAL PREPOSITIONAL) CON JUNCTION (NOT (OR ! SUBJECT ! GOAL ! ATTRIBUTE !AGENT) 1 ) ( OR NOMINAL DEPENDENT 1 1 QUESTIONING) ( OR NOMINAL DEPENDENT ) ) *", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "NO COMPATIBILITY RULE:", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "Rule 10 means \"an item with feature INTMISITIVE also has one of the features ATTRIBUTIVE and NO?!-ATTRIBUTIVE , and also has the features naming its supersystems, i . e . 9, 2 3 and 1, i.e. CLAUSE and ITEM\". When A , B, . . are all functions, then these appear as, e . g . Thus, the structure generated is \"Which of the tents were erected?\"", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "NO COMPATIBILITY RULE:", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "! GOAL !POST-SUBJECT !TRANSITIVE !QUESTION ! FINITE ! EN ! IjOOD-FOCUS !PASSIVE ! P R O C E S~ ! SU3JECT", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "NO COMPATIBILITY RULE:", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "\"Which of the tents were ", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "NO COMPATIBILITY RULE:", "sec_num": null }, { "text": "' h e obvious canelusionthat the mechanics of svstemic grammar (as described by Hudson) are s u f f i c i e n t l y well-defined to form the basis of a computer vodelis, f o r l i n g u i s t i c descriptions , a s i g n i f i c a n t one. However, the program also demonstratks that some pule-descriptions require c l a r i f ieation . Further possible extensions to the work could involve trying t o specify a lexicon so t h a t t h e generative process ends up with a structure with words as leaves, and one could also attempt to apply the rules in reverse, i . e . To start with a s t r i n g of lords and produce a etructurdl description. Both problems are, of course, very d 3 f f i c u l t ones.", "cite_spans": [], "ref_spans": [], "eq_spans": [], "section": "Conclusion", "sec_num": "4" } ], "back_matter": [], "bib_entries": { "BIBREF0": { "ref_id": "b0", "title": "Aspects of the theory of svntax", "authors": [ { "first": "N", "middle": [], "last": "Chomskv", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1965, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Chomskv, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of svntax.", "links": null }, "BIBREF2": { "ref_id": "b2", "title": "A computer model of transformational grmar", "authors": [ { "first": "J", "middle": [], "last": "Friedman", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1971, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Friedman, J. (1971). A computer model of transformational grmar. New York: American Elsevier.", "links": null }, "BIBREF3": { "ref_id": "b3", "title": "Categories of t h e theorv of g r a r w", "authors": [ { "first": "M", "middle": [ "A K" ], "last": "Halliday", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1961, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Halliday, M . A . K . (1961). Categories of t h e theorv of g r a r w .", "links": null }, "BIBREF4": { "ref_id": "b4", "title": "Language structure and languape function", "authors": [ { "first": "M", "middle": [ "A= K" ], "last": "Halliday", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1979, "venue": "New horizons in l i n g u i s t i c s", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Halliday , M. A=. K. (1979 1. Language structure and languape function. In J. Lyons (ed. ) , New horizons in l i n g u i s t i c s , London : Pelican,", "links": null }, "BIBREF5": { "ref_id": "b5", "title": "English complex sentences", "authors": [ { "first": "R", "middle": [ "A" ], "last": "Hudson", "suffix": "" } ], "year": 1971, "venue": "", "volume": "", "issue": "", "pages": "", "other_ids": {}, "num": null, "urls": [], "raw_text": "Hudson, R.A. (1971). English complex sentences. London :", "links": null } }, "ref_entries": { "FIGREF0": { "type_str": "figure", "uris": null, "num": null, "text": "o f i n t e r e s t t o comoutational grammarians, arimarily as a result of the imn~essive work .of Winograd. ( 1972 ) , who develoaed a natural l a n p u a~e understandinp system one component o f which was s t r o n g l v influenced bv t h e ~r i n c i p l e s of systemic grammar. More recently, Power (1974) has a l s o investigated how svstemic pramnar can be used t o ,analvse natural language. There have, however, been no attempts to use a computer to investi.gate systemic grammar itself. As Friedman (1971) says, in introducing her computer model of transformational grammar, adequate n a t u r a l lanquage grammars are bound to be so complex t h a t some mechanical a i d in investigating their ~r o~e r t i e s will be mandatory. The a i m s , t h e n , of d e v e l o~i n g a computer m o d e l of svsteric prammar are threefold. First, t h e model e n a b l e s t h e Rrammar to be t e s t e d , i . e . it enables contradictions, amhip,uities and incomnletenesses i n the grammas to be found. P e c o n d l v , t h e model enables systemic grammar i t s e l f to he imnroved, slnce t h e consequences of a d f u s t i n p parameters a n d rules can be more e a s i l v followed. And, t h i r d l y , the model serves as a demonstration of how systemic grammar 'works ' Earlier d e s c r i~t i o n s of systemic grammar were somewhat ihcomplete, b u t that of Hudson (1971) seems s u f f i c i e n t l v ~r e c i s e t o encourage t h e f e e l i n g t h a t a computer program could be based upon it. The progpam d e s c r i b e d below g e n e r a t e s (in t h e linguistic s e n s e ) n a t u r a l language s e n t e n c e s , i .e. \" a s s i g n s s t r u c t u r a l daacri~tions t o s e n t e n c e s \" (Chomskv, 1 9 6 5 1. It is n o t concerned directly with u n d e r s t a n d i n g o r producing s e n t e n c e s : 2 . The Mechanics of Svstemic Grammap T h i s section b r i e f l u d e s c r i b e s t h e ~e n e r a t i v e apnaratus of systemic grammarf o r a fuller d i s c u s s i o n , and for l i n g u i s t i c j u s t i f i c a t i o n s of t h e procgsses, the reader i s referred t o Hudson (1971), from which tfrc? example gripmrnar and g e n e r a t i o n s given later are taken." }, "FIGREF1": { "type_str": "figure", "uris": null, "num": null, "text": "n s y s t e m i c grgmmar, ' l s t r u c t u r e s are e n t i r e l y medictable from features: given a11 of an item's f e a t u r e s , w e can p r e d i c t e x a c t l y what i t s s t r u c t u r e . w i l l beff (Hudson. pg 8 7 ) . I n general t'erms, an jtemTs fearures or classes are those categories to which i t belongs i r r e s~e c t i v e of t h e articular sentknce t o which the item belongs; an item's f u n c t i o n s are those c a t e g o r i e s t o which it belongs as a r e s u l t of i t s r o l e i n a sentence. For example, \"mustN has the features MODAL-VERB , FINITE-VERB (among others and i n t h e sentence \"Must it grow darker?\" has the functions !PRE-SUBJECT, ! MOOD-FOCUS (among others ( A preceding ! will be used t o distinguish functions from features.) An item's structure i s defined by i t s immediate constituents ' functions and the sequence i n which they occur, ~i v e n all the features t h a t an item has, tKe item's structure may be determined, according to systemic hnammar, by the sequential application of rules of four kinds : ( 1 ) feature-realisation rules In the simplest case, these rules a r e of the form \"if item has feature x then i t s structure w i l l contain function y vy is said t o be the r e a l i s a t i o n p f x . Some rules ape conditional i n that the r e a l i s~t i o n only holds i f certain o t h e r features are or are not present. Also, some r u l e s specify t h a t tktb functions must be conflated, i . e . bath functions apply t o the same immediate constituent. (Further d e t a i l s of these an? the f o l l o w i n g rules ape given later when the program i s d i s c u s s e d . ) The application of the feature-realisation rules p r o v i d e s an unordered s o t of f u n c t i o n s , some o f which may be c o n f l a t e d ." }, "FIGREF2": { "type_str": "figure", "uris": null, "num": null, "text": "structure-buildinp rules These rules expand and arder th?a set of fwnctions to provide the structure of the item. Structure-building rules are themselves of four k i n d s , which i n t h e simplest case are of the following form: (-a) a d d i t i o n rule3: \"if function y (or some combination of functions) i s present, then so must be function z sequence rules: \"if two functicns y and z are resent then y must be canflated with, orecede o r n o t follow z\" . ( d l compatibility rules: \"functiops v and z must not be conf lated\" . Addition and conflation rules are onlv applicable i f the resultant structure does not conflict with a sequence or c o m a t i b i l i t y rule. Structure-building rules are n o t extrinsically ordered in any wav. After applying these rules, we have a complete. specification of the item's atructum , i n t h a t we have s p e c i f i e d function-\"bundlesw, each of which consists of the functions of one s f ?he immediate constituents of the i t e m . ( 3 function-realisation rules These rules s p e c i f y which features are implied bv an item's functions. They are of the form \"if a structure contains function y t h e corresponding item must have feature x l ' . Applied to the function-bundles obtained from (21, these rules h e l p to determine the features possessed by the immediate constituents. ( 4) systems System networks s p e c i f y which features are implied by other f e a t u r e s . These networks are equivalent to rules of the form \"if feature x is present then so is one (or a l l ) of a s e t of features, and conversely\". These rules expand a s e t of feature$ (possibly t h e result of applying ( 3 ) , n o t necessarily i n t o a complete set, since some f e a t u r e s mav be freely selected. \"he feature-realisation rules may then be recursivelv a p p l i e d to this s e r of featuren, if reQuF~ed+ 3 , The Promam The program reads i n a d e f i n i t i o n of a systeric gramwar (provided as d a t a so t h a t it may be changed w i t h o u t n e c e s s i t a t i n g major modifications to the program) and generates a structure from a s p e c i f i e d l i s t of f e a t u~e s . The i n t e r e s t e d reader s h o u l d have no d i f f i c u l t y in r e l a t i n g t h e rules given below to thb grammar given by Hudson ( p~. 53-101). The rules are shown i n t h e form i n which t h e v are presented t o the p r o p a m , and are numbered to ease explanation and u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the program's execution. In order t o enable t h e reader t o follow the computer g e n e r a t i o n s given later, an English i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s e l e c t e d rules f o l l m~ :" }, "FIGREF3": { "type_str": "figure", "uris": null, "num": null, "text": "SUBJECT)) ?PASSI~FL) ( + !AGENT = !ACTOR)) -1 may conflate !ACTOR and !SUBJECT, but only if both are already present. (There are ~omplications , explained later, when the f u n e i o n to be canflated w i t h , e .g. !BINDER and !SUBJECT above, i s abeent. ) ( 2 structu+-bui lding mles ( a ) Addition rule 2 means \"?MODAL and !PASSIVE, if present, must be conf lated with ! POST-SUBJECT , added i f necessary\". Rule 1 means \"if !MOOD-FOCUS is present but n o t conflated with !SUBJECT then !PRE-SUBJECT must be added if n o t already prc .~t\" NO ADDITION RULE CONDITION (b) Conflation r u l e 1 means \"if !MOOD-FOCUS is not conflated with !OUESTION then !PRE-SUBJECT and !MOOD-FOCUS must be conflated, if present\". NO CONFLATION RULE CONDITION 1 ( ( IPRE-SUBJECT = ? MOOD-FOCUS 1 (?MOOD-FOCUS # !QUESTION)) 2 ((!PROCESS = !COPULAR !TRANSITIVE !INTRANS)) ( c ) Sequence rule 1 means \"whichever of !MOOD-FOCUS or !BINDER is present, i f e i t h e r , will precede or be canflated uith the first of !PRE-SUBJECT and !SUBJECT, if present, which,if both are present, will be in the specified orde~, and !POST-SUBJECP, if present, will follow the l a s t of these f u n c t i o n s , if any, and ?PROCESS, if present, will follow or be conflated w i t h the l a s t of these functions if any, and !POST-VERB, i f present, w i l l follow the last of these functions, if any\"." }, "FIGREF4": { "type_str": "figure", "uris": null, "num": null, "text": "8ystem are so numbered t a correspond with Hudson's labellings Cpg. 71)." }, "FIGREF5": { "type_str": "figure", "uris": null, "num": null, "text": "t h a t the f i r s t name& feature or rule is the \"defaultv oation, taken unless there are environmental reasons for selecting another, The rules of the grammar are in fact input and stored in the form of McCarthy l i s t s (McCarthy , 1965) , and the program is written in a list-processing extension of BCPL (Self, 1975).It is important to realise t h a t the Tules are not extrinsically ordered in any way, and t h a t the program may ( c o n c e p M l y ) execute the rules in any order, with the objective of finding a structure consistent with a l l r u l e s . Hence, rules are executed recursively, with backtracking when inconsistenices become apparent. The generation of the structure of a sentence w i t h the features CLAUSE, INDEPENDENT, INDICATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, NON-POLAR, WH , SUBJECT-FOCUS , NON-MODAL, TRANSITIVE, PASSIVE and ACTOR-UNSPECIFIED, e . g . \"Which of the tents were errected?\" (Audson , pg. 100 1 , @ is shown below. Each piece of outpw is preceded by an indication of t h e r h l e t h a t has been executed, e . g. FR 1 indicates the first feature-realisation rule. Tn t h e printout of structures, indicates t h a t A , B , . . (which may be functions or structures are conflated. Similarly,indicate, respectively, that A precedes B , that A precedes or is conflated with B, and that the order of A and B is undetermined." }, "FIGREF6": { "type_str": "figure", "uris": null, "num": null, "text": "= A B * * I , (GENERATE (CLAUSE INDEPENDENT INDICATIVE INTERROGATIVE NON-POLAR WH SUBJECT-FOCUS NON-MODAL TRANSITIVE PASSIVE ACTOR-UNSPECIFIED)) FR 1 ( ! P R O W FR 9 ( !SUBJECT !PROCESS) FR 10 (!FINITE ?SUBJECT !PROCESS) FR 12 (!MOOD-FOCUS !FINITE !SUBJECT !PROCESS) FR 16 (!FINITE !SUBJECT !PROCESS ( = IOUESTION !MOOD-FOCUS)) FR 18 ( ! FINITE !PROCESS ( = !OUESTION !MOOD-FOCUS !SUBJECT) ) FR 24 (!GOAL !FINITE !PROCESS ( = !QUESTION !MOOD-FOCUS !SUBJECT) ) FR 26 ( !TRANSITIVE !GOAL !FINITE !PROCESS = !QUESTION !MOOD-FOCUS !SUBJECT)) FR 3 3 (!TRANSITIVE !FINITE !PROCESS ( = ?GOAL ?QUESTION !MOOD-FOCUS !SUBJECT)) FR 34 (!PASSIVE !TRANSITIVE !FINITE !PROCESS ( = !GOAL !QUESTION !MOOD-FOCUS ! SUBJECT) ) GOAL f QUESTION !MOOD-FOCUS 1 SUBJECT) ( = 1POST-SUBJECT ! FINITE IPASSIVE)" }, "FIGREF7": { "type_str": "figure", "uris": null, "num": null, "text": "The progrdm may then generate the features .of t h e immediate constituents , using the function-realisation rules and sys terns , and then repeat the above process t o detemnine the structure of the immediate constituents.The first stage o f t h i s is indicated above. Of course, t h i s is a particularly simple sentence and structure designed to make it easy to see what t h e pTogram does, and it should be clear that considerably more complicated grammars can also be handled. The generative process i8self will n o t usually Dnvolve such s traightfarward intermediate s,tructbres or proceed so immediately t o the final s t r u c t u r e . For example, the generation of the structure of a sentence such as. \"Must it gr& darker?\", requiring f i v e 'loops' of the structure-building rules before a structure compatible with a l l rules i s obtained, is as follows : ( GmERATE ( CLAUSE INDEPENDENT IN D I C RTIVE INTERROGATIVE POLAR MODAL INTRANSITIVE AT TRTBVTIVE ) MOOD-FOCUS IFINITE ?MODAL !PRE-SUBJECT) ( = I ATTRIBUANT ! SUIJJECT 1 ( = !COPULAR IPROCEGS) ( = !POST-VERB !ATTRIBUTE)" }, "FIGREF8": { "type_str": "figure", "uris": null, "num": null, "text": "examle, feature-realisation and function-realisation rules are i m p I i c i t l y unordered (since features and functions are unordered) , m, more precisely, the rules are to be considered to apply simultaneously. This causes problems w i t h those rules which prevent features being introduced (e.g. rules such as Feat-ure-realisation rule 32, which means \"if !SUBLTECT is ~r e s e n t the realisation 1s as s t a t e d , otherwise the first function, i . e . !ACTOR, must not be introduced by any other feature-realis ation rulew). The solution seems t o be to reapply t h e rules, recursively, until a structura is produced which is combatible with a l l the rules. More seriously, the expectatiop t h a t the structure obtained is independent of the order of a~p l i c a t i o n of structure-building rules is not realised, a t least for t h e grammar specified. Polr example, considering t+re second of the above generations and applying rules SQ 1, SQ 2, ADDN 2 , SO 1, ADDN 1 (in t h a t order) to the s e t of functions obtained by t h e feature-realisation rules, strmctuH cannot s a t i s fv both sequence rules , i .e. the generative process is blocked. Clearly, either the grammar requires modification or i t does matrer which order the s tructure-bailding rules are applied. Hudson (personal communi\"cation) has concluded that there, are l i n g u i s t i c grounds f o r ordering e tructure-building rules , s.o t h q t ' abnormalT cases precede 'normal' ones, with the latter only applying i f the former had n o t already been applied. Whether it i e possible to do sc consistently requires further experimentation." }, "TABREF0": { "type_str": "table", "num": null, "text": "", "content": "
not already present) conflated w i t h !BINDER1'. Similarly, rule 32
NO FEATUREREAL1 SATIONC O N D I T I O~~
1 (CLAUSE
2 (PHRASE
3 (WORD
4 ( 1 NDEPENDENT
5 (DEPENDENT
6 (DEPENDENT
7 (DEPENDENT
8 (IMPERATIVE
9 (INDICATIVE
10 (INDICATIVE
11 (DECLARATIVE
12 INTERROGATIVE
13 ( INTERROGATIVE
14 (POLAR
15 (NO??-POLAR
16 (W)I
22 (NON4'mDAL
2 3 (INTRANSITIVE
24 CTMSXTIVE
2 5 (TRANSITIVE
(TRANSITIVE
ATTRIBWT. VFi
(ATTRIBUTIVE
( ATTRIBUTL VE
(NO#-ATTRIBUTIVE
(NON-ATTRIBUTIVE
I[ ACTIVE
tPAsSIVE
C\"PSSIVE
(ACTOR-SPECIf LED
", "html": null } } } }