The Meaning of OF and HAVE in the USL System

(1)

The Meaning of OF and HAVE in the USL System

M a g d a l e n a Zoeppritz

IBM Germany

Heidelberg Scientific Center

Tiergartenstrasse 15

D-6900 Heidelberg WEST GERMANY

This paper shows how the transformational relationship between H A V E - s e n t e n c e s and OF=phrases is used to represent data contained in s e n t e n c e s with H A V E as the main verb in the c o n t e x t o f an information system using natural language to access a relational data base. An overview o f the system first establishes the framework in which natural language processing is done. Then ways o f representing H A V E are discussed with emphasis on the relation b e t w e e n H A V E and OF. The interpretation proposed and the interpretation process are illustrated by a list o f representative queries and phrases against a small data base. In conclusion, this interpretation is extended to prepositional attributes with W I T H and W I T H O U T , and problems are discussed.

1. Introduction

T h e U s e r Specialty L a n g u a g e s (USL) System trans- lates input in n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e G e r m a n into e x p r e s - sions in the formal language of the d a t a base s y s t e m associated with USL, accesses the data base with these expressions a n d transmits the results to the user either directly or after p e r f o r m i n g additional o p e r a t i o n s on the output. The system was d e v e l o p e d at the Heidel- b e r g Scientific C e n t e r of I B M G e r m a n y b y H. L e h - m a n n , N. Ott, the s t u d e n t s K. Horl~inder a n d W. Sauermann, and the author.

U S L was designed to p r o v i d e data b a s e access for user groups whose r e q u i r e m e n t s are not satisfied b y standard p r o g r a m s and for w h o m having special p r o - grams written or learning to p r o g r a m themselves would not be feasible.

The system was to be c a p a b l e of dealing with natural language in a variety of different application c o n - texts and not restricted to a particular field or world. This p u r p o s e d e t e r m i n e d the m e t h o d s used a n d the c o r r e s p o n d i n g limitations of the system. Within these limits, we have tried in the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n to i n c o r p o - rate the syntactic constructions to b e e x p e c t e d in the c o n t e x t of d a t a b a s e i n t e r a c t i o n a n d to p r o v i d e the c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s for them.

The data base m a n a g e m e n t system is an i m p l e m e n - tation of the relational model, the Peterlee Relational Test Vehicle ( P R T V , Todd, 1975) with its data base language ISBL. This is the t a r g e t l a n g u a g e of the

translation process. T h e m e t h o d of translation is a substantial extension of the m e t h o d s used in the R E L S y s t e m ( R a p i d l y E x t e n s i b l e L a n g u a g e , T h o m p s o n et al., 1969, D o s t e r t et al., 1971). This s y s t e m treats natural language m u c h like a f o r m a l language in that syntactic constructions and function words are inter- p r e t e d b y the s y s t e m according to the semantics of the language built into the system, but nouns, verbs, and adjectives are t r e a t e d as variables of which only the data type - - the word class - - is known.

T h e u n d e r l y i n g a s s u m p t i o n is the following: T h e meanings of prepositions, dates, verbs like H A V E and BE and syntactic constructions, on the one hand, are i n d e p e n d e n t of the subject m a t t e r ; on the o t h e r hand, nouns, verbs, and adjectives and their meanings v a r y f r o m application to application. In the c o n t e x t of a given d a t a base, these w o r d s i d e n t i f y the n a m e s of relations; their m e a n i n g is restricted to the association b e t w e e n w o r d and c o r r e s p o n d i n g relation. N a m e s and n u m b e r s identify values within tuples.

In USL, these words can be added to the s y s t e m b y the user to m a t c h the shape of the relations in his data base. A p r o m p t i n g routine guides the v o c a b u l a r y definition and m a k e s sure that all i n f o r m a t i o n n e e d e d b y the s y s t e m is entered.

T h e a d v a n t a g e of not providing the user with the v o c a b u l a r y of his a p p l i c a t i o n a l r e a d y built into the s y s t e m is t h a t he is n o t r e s t r i c t e d in his choice of words, and new words can be added easily. T h e dis-

Copyright 1981 by the Association for C o m p u t a t i o n a l Linguistics. Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is g r a n t e d provided that the copies are not made for direct commercial advantage and the Journal reference and this copyright notice are included on the first page. To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee a n d / o r specific permission.

(2)

Magdatena Zoeppritz The Meaning of OF and HAVE in t h e U S L - S y s t e m

a d v a n t a g e is t h a t the s y s t e m k n o w s o n l y w h a t has b e e n explicitly defined b y the user, a n d c o m m o n sense knowledge, e.g. that an e m p l o y e e is a p e r s o n or that a salary d o e s not o w n a house, is not reflected in the s y s t e m and is n o t used in the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n process. This also m e a n s t h a t the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n can m a k e only very restricted use o f d e e p case relationships, b e c a u s e the i n f o r m a t i o n o n d e e p cases would h a v e to b e o b - tained f r o m the user. We see no w a y as yet to elicit this i n f o r m a t i o n reliably and consistently, w i t h o u t confusing o r b o r i n g the user.

W h e n u s e d f o r a n a p p l i c a t i o n , then, the s y s t e m w o r k s with t w o v o c a b u l a r i e s , o n e u s e r - d e f i n e d , c o n - taining the n o u n s , verbs, a n d a d j e c t i v e s r e f e r r i n g to the d a t a b a s e of his a p p l i c a t i o n , the o t h e r s y s t e m - defined, containing prepositions, quantifiers, i n t e r r o g a - tives, particles, n a m e s of days and m o n t h s , nouns ref- erring to o p e r a t i o n s like m i n i m u m , m a x i m u m , plus, minus, etc., the v e r b s BE a n d H A V E , a n d adjectives like G R E A T E R , M O R E , a n d LESS. T h e s y s t e m - d e f i n e d words a n d their meanings to the s y s t e m are the s a m e f o r all applications.

T h e p u r p o s e of this p a p e r is to discuss a n d d e m o n - s t r a t e the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of o n e of t h e s e s y s t e m - defined words: the v e r b H A V E w h e n used as the m a i n v e r b of a sentence. ( H A V E as an auxiliary h a s not b e e n i m p l e m e n t e d . ) A n o v e r v i e w of the s y s t e m first establishes the f r a m e w o r k in which this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has its place. This is f o l l o w e d b y a discussion o f H A V E in general a n d possible r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of it in USL. T h e solution p r o p o s e d here and i m p l e m e n t e d in U S L uses the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n H A V E - s e n t e n c e s a n d O F - p h r a s e s to r e p r e s e n t a n d search d a t a c o n t a i n e d in H A V E - s e n t e n c e s in the relation a d d r e s s e d b y the accusative o f H A V E . This in- t e r p r e t a t i o n is applied to a list o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e queries and phrases against a small data b a s e as a test of the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d as an illustration of the i n t e r p r e - tation process. In the concluding sections, the inter- p r e t a t i o n is e x t e n d e d to p r e p o s i t i o n a l attributes with W I T H and W I T H O U T , and p r o b l e m s are discussed.

2. The System

This section contains a brief o v e r v i e w of the system. M o r e detail, particularly on the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , is f o u n d in O t t ( 1 9 7 7 , 1978), a n d L e h m a n n ( 1 9 7 8 ) . I n f o r m a t i o n on l a n g u a g e c o v e r a g e is f o u n d in L e h - m a n n et al. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , and d o c u m e n t a t i o n on the g r a m - m a r is in p r e p a r a t i o n .

T h e s y s t e m consists of three parts: 1. Parser and g r a m m a r rules

2. F u n c t i o n p r o c e s s o r a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n routines

3. D a t a b a s e and d a t a base language

T h e s y s t e m contains a b o u t 800 syntactic and 200 lexical ( s y s t e m - d e f i n e d w o r d s ) rules. T h e rules are

m o s t l y c o n t e x t - f r e e , with s o m e c o n t e x t - s e n s i t i v e a n d s o m e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l rules, w r i t t e n in a m o d i f i e d B a c k u s N o r m a l F o r m ( B N F ) . E a c h rule contains the n a m e o f an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r o u t i n e w r i t t e n in P L / 1 , w h i c h p e r f o r m s o p e r a t i o n s in c o r r e s p o n d e n c e to the m e a n i n g of the s y n t a c t i c construction.

T h e p a r s e r a n d f u n c t i o n p r o c e s s o r are U S A G E ( U s e r A p p l i c a t i o n G e n e r a t o r ) , d e v e l o p e d at the I B M Paris Scientific C e n t e r , a l o n g the principles of K a y ( 1 9 6 7 ) , with c o n s i d e r a b l e m o d i f i c a t i o n s a n d e x t e n - sions. It w o r k s f r o m left to right, b o t t o m - u p , t h r o u g h the input string. T h e i n p u t is t e s t e d against the rules, a n d rules are applied w h e r e v e r there is a m a t c h , lexical rules first. T h e result is several d i s c o n n e c t e d subtrees, which are discarded, a n d one or m o r e trees s p a n n i n g the entire input. O n l y the full p a r s e s are p r o c e s s e d further. E a c h n o d e in the tree contains the n a m e of the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n routine f r o m the g r a m m a r rule used in its construction.

T h e f u n c t i o n p r o c e s s o r w a l k s d o w n t h e tree a n d calls the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n routines a s s o c i a t e d with e a c h node. In the original c o n c e p t d e v e l o p e d for R E L , the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n routines w e r e e x e c u t e d o n the spot and the result was p a s s e d as an input p a r a m e t e r to the next routine. This p r o c e d u r e p r o v e d insufficient f o r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of quantifiers, negation, a n d c o o r d i n a t e d structures. T h e original c o n c e p t was c h a n g e d so that n o w the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n routines do not simply pass on a result, b u t s u c c e s s i v e l y build a s t r u c t u r e reflecting s e m a n t i c d e p e n d e n c i e s i n d i c a t e d b y the s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s , the n a m e s of the relations, c o l u m n s a n d values taking p a r t in t h e s e d e p e n d e n c i e s , as well as i n f o r m a t i o n o n syntactic f u n c t i o n and scope o f individual e l e m e n t s in the tree. This structure is p r o c e s s e d recursively and t r a n s l a t e d into expressions in the d a t a b a s e l a n g u a g e I S B L (cf. O t t , 1979, and L e h m a n n , 1978, for detail on the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n process).

T h e resulting I S B L strings are passed to the d a t a - b a s e m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m to access the data base and p e r f o r m the u p d a t e or retrieval o p e r a t i o n s requested. In the simple case, if the a n s w e r is a list or table of items, a n d the q u e s t i o n calls f o r n o t h i n g m o r e , the a n s w e r is f o r m a t t e d a n d printed. F o r y e s / n o questions, the return c o d e f r o m the d a t a base is t r a n s l a t e d to the p r o p e r answer. Q u e s t i o n s involving s o m e types of q u a n t i f i c a t i o n a n d arithmetic n e e d f u r t h e r p r o c e s s - ing o n the answer.

T h e d a t a b a s e is relational. R e l a t i o n s can be t h o u g h t of as tables with rows and columns. N o u n , verbs, a n d adjectives r e f e r to relation n a m e s ; they can be words in the language or words i n v e n t e d f o r a specific p u r p o s e . N a m e s o f c o l u m n s within relations, so-called role n a m e s are s t a n d a r d i z e d in USL. T h e y c o r r e s p o n d to the c o m p l e m e n t s of the nouns, verbs, or adjectives. This o f t e n coincides with their valence, but is not v a l e n c e in the strict sense, b e c a u s e it does not

(3)

Magdalena Zoeppritz The Meaning of OF and HAVE in the USL-System

matter in U S L whether complements are obligatory or optional in the language, but only whether these c o m - plements are needed in the application. Thus, a relation S U P P L I E R can be d e f i n e d with two, three, or more columns, depending on the data and purposes o f the data base containing it, e.g.:

supplier of product

supplier of product to recipient

supplier of p r o d u c t to recipient at time The standard role names are:

N O M nominative with verbs, with nouns and adjectives, set of objects referred to A C C accusative

D A T dative G E N genitive

O F genitive attribute L A place

L O origin L G goal L D distance LP path

T A point in time, date T O start

T G end TD duration

(preposition) e.g. F U E R , name of preposition g o v e r n e d

Thus, a sentence like:

J o a n is the daughter of H a r r y

makes the system look for a relation D A U G H T E R with t w o columns, N O M and O F , to a d d the tuple Joan, Harry.

DAUGHTER NOM OF

Joan Harry

The words IS, T H E , and O F , as well as the c o n s t r u c t i o n s S U B J E C T - O F and P R E D I C A T E - N O M I N A L - O F , are u n d e r s t o o d by the system. D A U G H T E R is k n o w n to be a noun and therefore a relation name. J O A N and H A R R Y are u n k n o w n strings and therefore assumed to be values in a relation. Within this framework, the verb H A V E is one of the system-defined words. The following section dis- cusses the interpretation of H A V E in the U S L system and the reasons for this interpretation.

3. The Interpretation of HAVE

C o m p a r e d with the extensive discussion of the verb BE, which is accorded special treatment b o t h in linguistics and logic, the verb H A V E does n o t seem to have appeared in any way problematic. Syntactic pe- culiarities have b e e n o b s e r v e d - - a transitive verb which does n o t readily admit the passive - - and a

wide range of meanings are given in any dictionary, m a n y of them idiomatic. F o r sentence analysis within a data base context, the m a j o r q u e s t i o n is that o f where to store information contained in sentences with H A V E as the main verb and from where to retrieve it. In the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o u n d in Cresswell ( 1 9 7 3 ) or B e n n e t ' s ( 1 9 7 4 ) e x t e n s i o n of M o n t a g u e , H A V E ap- pears as a two-place predicate.

This interpretation is also widely accepted in artificial intelligence. BUt, as we are going to show, the interpretation leads to incorrect results and should be a b a n d o n e d .

H A V E as a two-place predicate in a relational data base would have to be set up as a relation H A V E with two columns, one for the subject, one for the objects of H A V E - s e n t e n c e s . The tuples of the relation would contain the individuals (names, part numbers, figures) a m o n g which the relation H A V E holds. H o w e v e r , a closer look at the c o n t e n t s of such a relation shows that two places, one for the subject and one for the object, are not enough. Given the facts that:

J o h n has a secretary by the name of Pauline J o h n has a daughter n a m e d Polly, who is a

secretary

The c o r r e s p o n d i n g data base entries in the relations H A V E , D A U G H T E R , and S E C R E T A R Y would read:

HAVE DAUGHTER SECRETARY NOM ACC NOM OF NOM OF John Polly Polly John Polly Bill John Pauline Pauline John F r o m this would follow c o r r e c t l y that " J o h n has (daughter) Polly" and " J o h n has (secretary) Pauline" but also that " J o h n has two secretaries", because b o t h Polly and Pauline are secretaries. The relationship b e t w e e n elements expressed as "x has y" is too vague; it can apply in too m a n y cases, and can often be reversed "if x has (daughter) y, then y has (parent) x"; so that at least the specific relationship that makes it possible to speak of x having y would have to be re- corded in a third column: "x has y as z". In that case, the examples above would not lead to J o h n ' s having two secretaries:

HAVE

NOM ACC AS John Pauline secretary John Polly daughter

(4)

relationship exists b e t w e e n the individuals in question. With different aims and from a different point of view, this has already b e e n o b s e r v e d by B a c h ( 1 9 6 7 : 4 7 6 - 7 7 ) :

It has often been said that

be

has no meaning by itself but only in connection with

Predicate,

the passive construction, and so on. The same is true of

have.

The two forms are distinguished syntac- tically from most true verbs by the fact that they have no selectional restrictions in themselves, but occur in constructions where the selections reach across from "subject" to "object" or complement. Likewise, from a semantic point of view, their contribution tO the meaning of the sentence is determined completely by the items that they link. Conversely, H A V E can only be used meaningfully to link elements where some other relationship deter- mining the nature of that link is expressed or can be inferred. The vague term " s o m e o t h e r relationship" needs more clarification than can be given at this time. It is clear that the relationship must be representable as a two-place predicate, but m a n y such predicates do not serve as the basis for deriving H A V E . It seems, for instance, that the relations expressed by action verbs do n o t permit H A V E to be derived directly, though their agent nominalizations o f t e n do:

J o h n teaches Jack

• # J o h n has Jack # Jack has J o h n J o h n is the teacher of Jack

= Jack has J o h n as his teacher

The relationships most often associated with H A V E are those of possession and ownership. T h a t the meaning of H A V E is much wider is c o m m o n p l a c e . (A detailed analysis of the syntactic properties of H A V E and their association with different meanings is f o u n d in Pitha 1971 and 1972). Still, the verbs O W N and POSSESS can be replaced by H A V E without interven- ing nominalization and the extension of

J o h n has a bicycle from

J o h n owns a bicycle to

J o h n has a bicycle in his possession

seems artificial. On the other hand, the conclusion: If J o h n has a bicycle, then he owns a bicycle is plausible and often true, but not necessarily so, and will be false with different choices of objects. In the case of inalienable possession as the objects of H A V E sentences, the conclusion is absurd, so that the objects of H A V E and O W N are taken to refer to different entities (Bierwisch, 1965). Nevertheless, while it is clearly impossible to restrict the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of H A V E to possession, any other interpretation will face the problem that H A V E is often used as a s y n o n y m of O W N or POSSESS (cf. section 6). This m a y be the reason why H A V E is often regarded as a primitive for

possession (e.g. L a n g a c k e r , 1975). There is a transformational relationship b e t w e e n H A V E and OF, already discussed e.g. in Bach ( 1 9 6 7 ) :

Peter has a d a u g h t e r J o a n J o a n is the daughter of Peter

But there is a peculiarity: Whereas H A V E can be used with names, as well as with names and c o m m o n nouns, w h e r e b y a relationship is implied if if is not overtly expressed (e.g., We each have our o w n room, I have A 1 0 1 ) , O F is rarely used only with names:

Peter has A 2 0 2 ?(The) A 2 0 2 of Peter but

Peter has a r o o m The r o o m of Peter

This seems to show that, unlike H A V E - s e n t e n c e s , O F - p h r a s e s are acceptable only where the relationship b e t w e e n individuals is not implied but overtly stated. There is no base relationship u n d e r l y i n g the use of OF, the base relationship is the one preceding O F in the O F - p h r a s e . F u r t h e r m o r e , O F - p h r a s e s seem to be the specific means to express such relationships. The " s e c r e t a r y of P e t e r " is the individual which is related to P e t e r via the relationship " s e c r e t a r y o f " . O F - phrases c a n n o t be e x p a n d e d in the same w a y as H A V E - s e n t e n c e s c a n be e x p a n d e d b y A S - complements to introduce the "real" base relationship. And, because the base relationship is overtly stated, O F - p h r a s e s c a n n o t be reversed:

?(The) Peter of the secretary

In this sense, O F - p h r a s e s can be considered as being more explicit t h a n the H A V E - s e n t e n c e s into which they can be transformed.

This led to the decision to interpret H A V E sentences in U S L as t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s of O F - p h r a s e s and c o n s e q u e n t l y to search or store information in H A V E - sentences not in a relation representing the verb, but in the c o l u m n s with the r o l e - n a m e O F in relations addressed by the nouns in the sentence.

The following uses of O F are not t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - ly related to H A V E and are excluded here:

Helen

of

T r o y piece

of

chalk distance

of

3 miles love

of

G o d angel

of

a nurse

the destruction

of

the city basket ( f u l l / o u t )

of

w o o d man

of

p r o p e r t y

F o r the purposes of data base query, some of these constructions with O F do not seem to be necessary. Measure expressions are desirable, but have not been implemented. A n u n s o l v e d p r o b l e m is h o w O F - phrases resulting from nominalizations of verbs can be related within the U S L f r a m e w o r k in a general w a y to

(5)

t h e v e r b o r to t h e e v e n t r e f e r r e d to. T h e r e m a i n i n g u s e s o f O F h a v e a r a n g e o f m e a n i n g s i m i l a r t o H A V E in e x p r e s s i n g n o t o n l y p o s s e s s i o n a n d p a r t - o f r e l a t i o n - s h i p s , b u t a l s o a n y n u m b e r o f o t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w h i c h , in t h e c a s e o f O F , a r e e x p l i c i t l y n a m e d b y t h e n o u n p r e c e d i n g O F a n d , in t h e c a s e o f H A V E , c a n b e i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e n o u n s o r o c c u r e x p l i c i t l y in t h e A S - c o m p l e m e n t .

A l l u s e s w h e r e O F is r e l a t e d t o H A V E , as w e l l as s o m e o f t h e o t h e r u s e s , c a n in G e r m a n a l s o b e e x - p r e s s e d b y g e n i t i v e a t t r i b u t e s ( n o t all a r e p o s s i b l e in

E n g l i s h b e c a u s e o f t h e r e s t r i c t e d use o f t h e g e n i t i v e ) . T h e u s e s r e l a t e d t o H A V E a l s o a p p e a r as p o s s e s s i v e p r o n o u n s . G e n i t i v e a t t r i b u t e s , as w e l l as p o s s e s s i v e p r o n o u n s , a r e i n t e r p r e t e d in t h e s a m e w a y as O F - p h r a s e s . A n a d d i t i o n a l s e l e c t i o n o p e r a t i o n f o r p o s s e s - sive p r o n o u n s is n e c e s s a r y t o o b t a i n a m a t c h b e t w e e n t h e i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r s o f t h e s e t s r e f e r r e d to b y t h e p o s s e s s i v e a n d a d d r e s s e d b y t h e h e a d n o u n o f t h e p o s s e s s i v e .

I f t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n H A V E - s e n t e n c e s a n d O F - p h r a s e s is t o b e u s e d , a n d H A V E - s e n t e n c e s a c c e s s t h e O F - c o l u m n o f r e l a t i o n s ( t h e c o l u m n w i t h t h e r o l e n a m e O F ) , t h e r e a r e still t w o p o s s i b i l i t i e s : G i v e n t h e s e n t e n c e :

W h i c h m a n a g e r h a s a s e c r e t a r y ?

a f i r s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a d d r e s s e s t h e O F - c o l u m n o f M A N A G E R a n d c o m p a r e s t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h a t c o l - u m n w i t h t h e list o f s e c r e t a r i e s : " I s t h e r e a m a n a g e r o f s o m e b o d y , is t h a t s o m e b o d y a s e c r e t a r y , a n d if so, w h o is t h e m a n a g e r '

The set of x, such that x is a manager of y and y is a secretary:

{x[ E y ( M ( x , y ) A S(y))}

T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is v a l i d o n l y w h e r e s e c r e t a r i e s a r e m a n a g e d b y t h e p e o p l e w h o s e s e c r e t a r y t h e y a r e , b u t fails f o r :

W h i c h m a n a g e r h a s r o o m 3 5 ?

u n l e s s t h e r o o m o f t h e m a n a g e r is a l s o c o n t a i n e d in t h e O F - c o l u m n o f M A N A G E R . I n g e n e r a l , t h i s i n t e r - p r e t a t i o n will w o r k o n l y w h e r e e v e r y t h i n g a m a n a g e r c a n h a v e is c o n t a i n e d in t h e O F - c o l u m n o f M A N A G - E R a n d is t h e r e f o r e n o t u s e f u l as a g e n e r a l s o l u t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is u n a b l e t o h a n d l e c o r r e c t l y s e n t e n c e s like:

W h i c h m a n a g e r h a s a m u s i c i a n as his s e c r e t a r y ? W h i c h m a n a g e r h a s a s e c r e t a r y as his m u s i c i a n ? 1 I t a s s i g n s t h e f o l l o w i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o b o t h s e n - t e n c e s :

{ x l E y ( M ( x , y ) A S(y) A Mu(y))} t h o u g h t h e i r m e a n i n g is c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t .

1 The possessive pronoun here and in the examples below makes for better reading of the English glosses, the German examples do not have it and it is not necessary for the discussion.

A s e c o n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c e b e l o w : W h i c h m a n a g e r h a s a s e c r e t a r y ?

s e a r c h e s in t h e O F - c o l u m n o f t h e a c c u s a t i v e , S E C R E - T A R Y , f o r a n e n t r y t h a t is a l s o l i s t e d in M A N A G E R :

" I s t h e r e a s e c r e t a r y o f s o m e b o d y , is t h a t s o m e b o d y a m a n a g e r , a n d if so, w h o is i t " :

The set of x such that there is a y who is a secretary and y is secretary of x and x is a manager:

{ x l E y ( S ( y , x ) A M(x))} A c c o r d i n g l y :

W h i c h m a n a g e r h a s r o o m 3 5 ?

The set of x such that the room of x is 35 and x is a manager:

{xl A(x,35) A M(x)}

T h e s e c o n d s o l u t i o n d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h a t e v e r y - t h i n g a m a n a g e r c a n h a v e is f o u n d in t h e O F - c o l u m n o f m a n a g e r . T h e s e l e c t i o n s t a r t s w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n n a m e d b y t h e d i r e c t o b j e c t o f H A V E . I n t h i s w a y it is a l s o g u a r a n t e e d t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s p e c i f i e d a c t u a l l y o b t a i n s b e t w e e n t h e r e s p e c t i v e i n d i v i d u a l s . I n t h e e x a m p l e :

W h i c h m a n a g e r h a s a s e c r e t a r y ?

t h e s e c r e t a r y r e q u e s t e d is n o t j u s t a n y s e c r e t a r y , b u t t h e s e c r e t a r y o f t h i s m a n a g e r , n o t p e r h a p s a c o l l e a g u e o f t h i s m a n a g e r a n d t h e s e c r e t a r y o f a n o t h e r .

T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n t h e t w o s e n t e n c e s w i t h A S - c o m p l e m e n t s , w h e r e b y t h e c o m p l e m e n t t a k e s t h e p l a c e o f t h e a c c u s a t i v e a n d t h e a c c u s a t i v e is t r e a t e d as a n a p p o s i t i o n to it.

W h i c h m a n a g e r h a s a m u s i c i a n as his s e c r e t a r y ? The set of x such that y is secretary of x

and y is a musician and x is a manager: { x l E y ( S ( y , x ) A M(x) A Mu(y))}

W h i c h m a n a g e r h a s a s e c r e t a r y as his m u s i c i a n ? The set of x such that y is musician of x

and y is a secretary and x is a manager: { x l E y ( M u ( y , x ) A M(x) A S(y))}

T h e f i r s t s o l u t i o n c o u l d b e u s e d as a n e s c a p e if t h e o t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d o e s n o t y i e l d a r e s u l t , b u t it l e a d s t o m u l t i p l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s w i t h t h e s a m e r e s u l t f o r r e l a t i o n s t h a t a r e d e f i n e d as c o n v e r s e s o f o n e a n o t h e r . I n o t h e r c a s e s , t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n l e a d s t o . a n s w e r s w h e r e t h e a n s w e r s h o u l d b e u n d e f i n e d :

W h i c h m a n a g e r h a s 5 0 0 0 ? ( s a l a r y , p e r s o n n e l , o r w h a t ) W h i c h m a n a g e r h a s A 2 0 2 ?

( r o o m , c a r , p e r s o n n e l n u m b e r )

(6)

b e c a u s e w h a t c o r r e s p o n d s to the relation a p p e a r s f r o m the context.

4. T e s t of t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

In o r d e r to see w h e t h e r relating the s u b j e c t of H A V E to the O F - c o l u m n of the accusative of H A V E is a c o r r e c t a n d g e n e r a l solution to the p r o b l e m of i n t e r p r e t i n g H A V E , this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was tried out with s e n t e n c e s c o n t a i n i n g H A V E a n d six t y p e s of n o u n phrases r e l e v a n t in USL: names, quantified c o m - m o n nouns, c o m m o n nouns p r e c e d e d b y interrogatives, relative p r o n o u n s , i n t e r r o g a t i v e p r o n o u n s , a n d n o u n phrases with apposition, all b o t h in subject and o b j e c t positions. C o o r d i n a t e d n o u n phrases were not tested s e p a r a t e l y , b e c a u s e t h e y are e x p a n d e d into as m a n y s e p a r a t e s e n t e n c e s as t h e r e are n o u n p h r a s e s in the coordination. Similarly, where there is no negation, c o m m o n nouns p r e c e d e d b y quantifier or p r e c e d e d b y i n t e r r o g a t i v e do n o t require d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s with r e s p e c t to H A V E . Q u a n t i f i e r s trigger s e v e r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o p e r a t i o n s on the I S B L - s t r i n g resulting f r o m the translation (Ott, 1977), but the t r a n s l a t i o n is the same. I n t e r r o g a t i v e s indicate which columns of the result are to figure in the answer. A p p o s i t i o n s of the t y p e " s e c r e t a r y M o s e r " , " M o s e r as s e c r e t a r y " (including A S - c o m p l e m e n t s of H A V E ) h a v e b e e n in- eluded, b e c a u s e the first t y p e furnishes a selection f r o m the relation addressed, and the second t y p e the relation itself.

T h e relevant f e a t u r e s then are: n a m e , noun, inter- r o g a t i v e , r e f e r e n t of relative p r o n o u n , a n d n e g a t i o n . T h e following section lists the test p h r a s e s f o r these cases, b u t not all their p e r m u t a t i o n s . Also, appositions are n o t s h o w n f o r relative clauses, f o r the s a k e of brevity. T h e list illustrates h o w the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of H A V E outlined h e r e is i m p l e m e n t e d in USL. F o r each case, the general I S B L expression which results f r o m the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of H A V E is f o r m e d . T h e n e x a m p l e s are f o r m u l a t e d a g a i n s t a s a m p l e d a t a b a s e and translated into I S B L expressions according to the general s c h e m a , and the results of the data b a s e o p e r a - tions t r i g g e r e d b y the I S B L e x p r e s s i o n are s h o w n , t o g e t h e r with the columns taking p a r t in the selection o p e r a t i o n s . T h e e x a m p l e s have b e e n left in G e r m a n , with glosses in English, b e c a u s e s o m e of the c o n s t r u c - tions t e s t e d c a n n o t be f o r m u l a t e d in English in the s a m e way.

T h e sample d a t a b a s e contains the following relations:

MANAGER SECRETARY MUSICIAN

NOM OF NOM OF NOM

Stern Moser Moser Sauer Moser

Stern Mahle Mahle K i S n i g Pahle Sauer K i S n i g Maier Ki.ifer Peter

Notation:

NOM relation/value in the nominative of HAVE ACC relation/value in the accusative of HAVE

APP relation/value in the apposition

NOMnom NOM-column of the relation in the nominative OFnom OF-column of the relation in the nominative NOMacc NOM-column of the relation in the accusative OFacc OF-column of the relation in the accusative NOMapp NOM-column of the relation in the apposition OFapp OF-column of the relation in the apposition NOMwh NOM-eotumn of the relation with interrogative NOMrel NOM-column of the relation governing the

relative pronoun

MA relation MANAGER

SEK relation SECRETARY

NOMma NOM-column of the relation manager, similarly NOMsek, OFma, OFsek, NOMmus

x join operator

; select operator

% project operator

subtract

= equal

& and

T h e string

( ( N O M x A C C ) ; N O M n o m = O F a c c ) % N O M w h

reads as "join the relations a d d r e s s e d b y the n o m i n a - tive a n d a c c u s a t i v e of H A V E , select t h o s e tuples w h e r e the N O M - c o l u m n of the relation in the n o m i n a - tive equals the O F - c o l u m n of the relation in the accusative, a n d p r o j e c t f o r p r i n t i n g the N O M - c o l u m n of those relations w h e r e the n o u n phrases c o n t a i n inter- r o g a t i v e s . " In t e r m s of a question against the sample d a t a b a s e this means:

Which m a n a g e r h a s which s e c r e t a r y ?

N O M , the relation in the n o m i n a t i v e , is M A f o r M A N - A G E R , A C C is S E C R E T A R Y : M A x S E K . N O M n o m is the N O M - c o l u m n of M A N A G E R , O F a c e is the O F - c o l u m n o f S E C R E T A R Y , the relation in the accusative: N O M m a = O F s e k . B o t h n o m i n a t i v e and accusative n o u n p h r a s e s contain interrogatives. T h e r e f o r e the N O M - c o l u m n s of b o t h m u s t be p r o j e c t e d f o r output: ° / b N O M m a , N O M s e k .

( ( M A x S E K ) ; N O M m a = O F s e k ) % N O M m a , N O M s e k

T h e following d a t a b a s e o p e r a t i o n s result f r o m this string: join of the relations M A N A G E R a n d S E C R E - T A R Y :

MANAGER SECRETARY

NOM OF NOM OF

Stern Moser Moser Sauer

Stern Moser Mahle K~Snig

Stern Moser Maier KiJfer

Stern Mahle Moser Sauer

Stern Mahle Mahle KiSnig

Stern Mahle Maier Kiifer

Sauer KiSnig Moser Sauer

Sauer KiSnig Mahle KiSnig

Sauer KiSnig Maier Kiifer

In the actual i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , the select o p e r a t i o n p r e c e d e s the join f o r r e a s o n s of e c o n o m y . T h e result is an equi-join, w h e r e o n l y t h o s e tuples are joined w h e r e the e q u a l i t y r e q u e s t e d b y the select o p e r a t o r

(7)

e x i s t s . T h i s j o i n is s h o w n f o r t h e t e s t c a s e s w h e r e v e r it a p p l i e s . S i m i l a r l y , w h e r e o n l y o n e r e l a t i o n is i n - v o l v e d , t h e t u p l e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e s e l e c t i o n o p e r a - t i o n a r e s h o w n , n o t t h e w h o l e r e l a t i o n . T h e c o l u m n s i n s p e c t e d f o r s e l e c t i o n a r e s h o w n in full. F o r t h e p r e s e n t e x a m p l e , t h e r e s u l t o f t h e e q u i - j o i n is t h e t u - pie:

( MA x SEK ) Sauer Konig Moser Sauer

T h e c o l u m n s i n s p e c t e d f o r s e l e c t i o n a r e t h e N O M - c o l u m n o f M A N A G E R a n d t h e O F - c o l u m n o f S E C - R E T A R Y :

NOMma = OFsek Stern Sauer Stern Koni g Sauer KiJfer

E q u a l i t y is t r u e f o r " S a u e r " . T h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g d a t a is n o w p r o j e c t e d , S a u e r a n d t h e s e c r e t a r y o f S a u e r :

NOMma , NOMsek Sauer Moser

T h e p r i n t e d r e s u l t o f t h e o p e r a t i o n s a n d a n s w e r t o t h e q u e s t i o n

W h i c h m a n a g e r h a s w h i c h s e c r e t a r y ? t h e n is:

MANAGER SECRETARY Sauer Moser

I n t h e c a s e o f n e g a t i o n in w h - q u e s t i o n s a n d r e l a t i V e c l a u s e s , a set t h u s f o u n d is s u b t r a c t e d f r o m t h e set t o b e p r o j e c t e d , so t h a t " w h i c h m a n a g e r d o e s n o t h a v e a s e c r e t a r y " is i n t e r p r e t e d as " f i n d t h e m a n a g e r s w h o h a v e s e c r e t a r i e s a n d s u b t r a c t t h e m f r o m t h e s e t o f m a n a g e r s , t o g e t t h e m a n a g e r s w h o d o n o t h a v e s e c r e - t a r i e s " . I n y e s / n o q u e s t i o n s , a l s o , t h e p o s i t i v e c a s e is s e a r c h e d in t h e d a t a b a s e , a n d t h e a n s w e r d e p e n d s o n w h e t h e r t h e r e s u l t is a n e m p t y set. So, "does: M o s e r h a v e n o m a n a g e r " is i n t e r p r e t e d as " f i n d t h e m a n a g e r o f M o s e r " . If t h e r e s u l t i n g list is e m p t y , t h e r e is n o m a n a g e r o f M o s e r a n d t h e a n s w e r is Y E S , if it is n o t , t h e a n s w e r is N O . 2

T h e t e s t c a s e s a r e o r d e r e d as f o l l o w s : A. N o negation

1. Questions

a. Two relations: subject and o b j e c t are nouns b. Relation and interrogative pronoun:

subject or object is an interrogative pronoun c. Relation and name: subject or object is a name d. Apposition, two relations, one in the nominative e. Apposition, two relations in the accusative f. Apposition, three relations

g. Apposition, name in the accusative h. Apposition, name in the nominative i. Apposition and two interrogative pronouns

the apposition belongs to one of the pronouns

2 DOCH was selected as the answer in GERMAN, because NO confuses those speakers who use NO to answer negated questions in the affirmative.

2. Relative clauses a. Two relations b. Relation and name B. Negation

1. Questions a. Two relations

b. Relation and interrogative pronoun c. Relation and name

d. Appositions 2. Relative clauses a. Two relations b. Relation and name

F o r e a s e o f r e f e r e n c e , t h e a c t u a l t e s t c a s e s b e l o w a r e e a c h p r e c e d e d b y t h e i r s e c t i o n h e a d i n g s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e o u t l i n e a b o v e .

A. N o negation

A . I . Questions

A , l . a . T w o relations

G e n e r a l s c h e m a :

( ( N O M x A C C) ;NOMnom = O F a c c ) % N O M w h W e l c h e n M a n a g e r h a t w e l c h e Sekret~irin? W h i c h m a n a g e r d o e s w h i c h s e c r e t a r y h a v e ?

( ( SEK x MA ) ;NOMsek=OFma) %NOMma,NOMsek Moser Sauer Stern Moser Moser Moser Stern Moser Mahle Konig Stern Mahle Mahle M a h l e Stern Mahle

Maier Konig

W e l c h e S e k r e t a r i n h a t w e l c h e r M a n a g e r ? W h i c h s e c r e t a r y d o e s w h i c h m a n a g e r h a v e ?

( ( MA x SEK ) ;NOMma=OFsek) %NOMsek,NOMma Sauer Konig Moser Sauer Stern S a u e r M o s e r Sauer

Stern Konig Sauer Kufer

A . l . b . Relation and interrogative pronoun

General s c h e m a :

( A C C ; O F a c c ) % O F a c c , N O M a c c W e r h a t w e l c h e S e k r e t a r i n ? W h o h a s w h i c h s e c r e t a r y ?

( SEK ;OFsek) %OFsek,NOMsek Moser Sauer S a u e r S a u e r Moser Mahle Konig K o n i g K o n i g Mahle Maier Kufer Kufer Kufer Maier

Wen h a t w e l c h e Sekret~irin? W h o m d o e s w h i c h s e c r e t a r y h a v e ?

The a c c u s a t i v e i s n o t a r e l a t i o n ; t h e a n s w e r is n o t d e f i n e d .

A . l . c . Relation and name

G e n e r a l s c h e m a :

( A C C ; O F a c c = N O M ) % N O M c c W e l c h e r M a n a g e r h a t M o s e r ? W h i c h m a n a g e r h a s M o s e r ?

(8)

Magdalena Z o e p p r i t z T h e M e a n i n g o f OF and H A V E in t h e U S L - S y s t e m

W e l c h e n M a n a g e r hat M o s e r ? Which m a n a g e r does M o s e r have?

( MA ;OFacc=Moser) %NOMma Stern Moser Moser Stern

Mahle Kon i g

A . l . d . Apposition, two relations, one in the nominative

G e n e r a l schema:

((NOMxAPP)) ;NOMnom = OFapp) % NOMwh only for appositions to the accusative

The relation in the apposition takes the place of the relation in the accusative in the scheme for A . l . a . If one of the two relations is in the nominative, and the other in the apposition to the accusative, the f o r m u l a - tion " w h o m as" is equivalent to " w h i c h " .

Which m a n a g e r has w h o m as a s e c r e t a r y ?

is equivalent to

Which m a n a g e r has which s e c r e t a r y ?

If the question begins with the accusative, there are two readings: one placing the apposition with the p r e - ceding nominative, and a second reading which places it with the accusative. This second reading is the pre- ferred reading. T h e r e f o r e , the e x a m p l e s

Welcher M a n a g e r hat w e n als Sekret~irin? Which m a n a g e r has w h o m as his s e c r e t a r y ?

W e n hat welcher M a n a g e r als Sekret~irin?

W h o m does which m a n a g e r h a v e as his s e c r e t a r y ?

are all translated like:

Welcher M a n a g e r hat welche Sekret~trin? Which m a n a g e r has which s e c r e t a r y ?

A . l . e . Apposition, both relations in the accusative

((ACCxAPP) ;NOMacc= NOMapp) % OFapp,NOMwh

W e r hat welehen M a n a g e r als Sekret~irin? W h o has which m a n a g e r as his s e c r e t a r y ?

W e l c h e n M a n a g e r hat wer als Sekret~trin? Which m a n a g e r does w h o h a v e as his s e c r e t a r y ?

( (Ma x SEK ) ;NOMma=Nomsek) %OFapp,NOMma There is no e q u a l i t y Stern Moser NONE FOUND so the j o i n i s empty Stern Mahle

Sauer Maier

A . l . f . Apposition, three relations

G e n e r a l schema: ((NOMxACCxAPP);

NOMnom= OFapp&NOMacc= NOMapp) % OFapp

Welcher M a n a g e r hat einen M u s i k e r als Sekret~irin? Which m a n a g e r has a musician as his s e c r e t a r y ?

(( MAx MUS x SEK ) ;NOMma=OFsek&NOMmus=NOMsek) %OFsek Sa. Ko. Mo. Mo. Sa. Stern Sauer Moser Moser Sauer

Stern Konig Pahle Mahle Sauer Ku'fer Peter Maier

A.l.g. Apposition, name in the accusative

(ACC;NOMacc=APP) %OFacc

W e r hat die Sekret~irin M o s e r ? W h o has the s e c r e t a r y M o s e r ?

( SEK ;NOMsek=Moser) %OFsek Moser Sauer Moser Sauer

Mahle Meier

W e r hat M o s e r als Sekret~irin? W h o has M o s e r as his s e c r e t a r y ?

T h e n a m e a n d the a p p o s i t i o n are p e r m u t e d b y the g r a m m a r , so t h a t the input to the t r a n s l a t i o n is the same as in the previous example.

A . l . h . Apposition, name in the nominative

(APP;OFapp=NOM) % N O M a p p only for appositions to the accusative

W e n hat Sauer als Sekret~irin?

W h o m does Sauer h a v e as his s e c r e t a r y ?

In o n e r e a d i n g of this s e n t e n c e , " a s a s e c r e t a r y " is I I 11

r e a d as a p p o s i t i o n to Sauer , a n d the question c a n n o t be answered. T h e second, p r e f e r r e d , reading of the s e n t e n c e places the a p p o s i t i o n with the accusative:

( SEK ;OFsek:Sauer) %NOMsek Moser Sauer Sauer Moser

K~n i g Kufer

W h e r e the n a m e is in the apposition,

W e n hat die Sekret~irin M o s e r ?

W h o m does the s e c r e t a r y M o s e r h a v e ?

there is no second reading: the a n s w e r is not defined.

A.l.i. Apposition and two interrogative pronouns

(APP;NOMapp) °/b NOMapp,OFapp only for a p p o s i t i o n s to the accusative

W e r hat wen als Sekret~irin? W h o has w h o m as his s e c r e t a r y ?

( SEK ;NOMsek) %OFsek ,NOMsek Moser Sauer Moser Sauer Moser Mahle Konig Mahle Konig Mahle Maier KiJfer Maier Ku'fer Maier

W e n hat wer als M a n a g e r ?

W h o m does w h o have as his m a n a g e r ?

Again, the first r e a d i n g associates " m a n a g e r " with the n o u n phrase p r e c e d i n g it, and there is no answer. T h e s e c o n d reading places the a p p o s i t i o n with " w e n " a n d is t r a n s l a t e d like the p r e v i o u s e x a m p l e , t h o u g h with different relations.

( MA ;NOMma) %NOMma,OFma Stern Moser Stern Stern Moser Stern Mahle Stern Stern Mahle Sauer Konig Sauer Sauer Konig

(9)

Magdalena Zoeppritz T h e M e a n i n g o f OF and H A V E in t h e U S L - S y s t e m

A.2. Relative clauses

A.2.a. Two relations

((NOMxACC) ;NOMnom= OFacc) %NOMrel

M a n a g e r , der eine Sekret~rin hat M a n a g e r , who has a s e c r e t a r y

( ( MA x SEK ) ;NOMma=OFsek) %NOMma Sauer Konig Moser Sauer Stern Sauer Sauer

Stern Konig Sauer KiJfer

M a n a g e r , den eine Sekret~irin hat M a n a g e r , w h o m a s e c r e t a r y has

( ( SEK x MA ) ;NOMsek=OFma) %NOMma Moser Sauer Stern Moser Moser Moser Stern Mahle Konig Stern Mahle Mahle Mahle

Maier Konig

A.2.b. Relation and name

(AC C; OFacc = NOM) % NOMrel

M a n a g e r , den M o s e r hat M a n a g e r w h o m M o s e r has

( MA ;OFma=Moser) %NOMma Stern Moser Moser Stern

Mahle Kiln i g

M a n a g e r , der M o s e r hat M a n a g e r w h o has M o s e r

T h e accusative is not a relation; the a n s w e r is not defined.

B. Negation

B.1. Questions

B . l . a . Two relations

(NOMwh- ( ( (NOMxAC C) ;NOMnom= OFacc) % NOMwh) )

Welcher M a n a g e r hat keine Sekret~irin? Which M a n a g e r does not h a v e a secretary?

(NOMma-(( ( MA x Sek) ;NOMma=OFsek) %NOMma) ) Stern Sauer K~nig Moser Sauer Stern Sauer Stern

Stern Stern Konig

Sauer Sauer KiJfer Sauer

W e l c h e n M a n a g e r hat Keine Sekret~irin? Which m a n a g e r does no s e c r e t a r y h a v e ?

(NOMma-(( ( SEK x MA ) ;NOMsek=OFma) %NOMma) ) Stern Moser Sauer Stern Moser Moser Moser Stern Stern Mahle K~nig Stern Mahle Mahle Mahle Stern

Sauer Maier Konig Sauer

B . l . b . Relation and interrogative pronoun

W h o does not have a secretary?

T h e general s c h e m a would look like:

(NOMwh-(ACC;OFacc) % NOMacc)

But since the interrogative p r o n o u n does not contain a relation, there is no set to s u b t r a c t from. T h e s e questions c a n n o t be a n s w e r e d in U S L , b e c a u s e the set

o f t e n implied b y the c o n t e x t or the m e a n i n g of words is not known. T h e set is given b y f o r m u l a t i o n s like "which x does not h a v e y " .

B . I . c . Relation and name

NOT(ACC;OFacc=NOM) %NOMacc

H a t M o s e r keinen M a n a g e r ? D o e s M o s e r h a v e no M a n a g e r ?

NOT( MA ;OFma=Moser) %NOMma

Stern Moser Moser Stern the set is

Mahle not empty:

Maier DOCH

H a t M o s e r kein M a n a g e r ? D o e s no m a n a g e r h a v e M o s e r ?

T h e a c c u s a t i v e is not a relation; the a n s w e r is n o t defined.

B . l . d . Appositions

W e r hat die Sekretfirin M o s e r nicht? W h o does not have the s e c r e t a r y M o s e r ?

W e r hat keine Sekret~rin M o s e r ? W h o has no s e c r e t a r y n a m e d M o s e r ?

T h e s e e x a m p l e s c a n be i n t e r p r e t e d as " w h o of the p e o p l e having secretaries h a v e a s e c r e t a r y o t h e r t h a n M o s e r " . This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is not i m p l e m e n t e d , b e - cause for the m a j o r i t y of n e g a t e d questions containing i n t e r r o g a t i v e p r o n o u n s , t h e r e is no i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in USL. So the exceptions are not i n t e r p r e t e d either, to avoid confusion.

T h e general s c h e m a would look like:

(OFacc- ( (ACC ;NOMacc = APP) % OFacc) )

T h e e x a m p l e s a b o v e would be translated as:

(OFsek-(( SEK ;NOMsek=Moser) %OFsek) ) Sauer Moser Sauer Moser Sauer

KiJnig Mahle Konig

KiJfer Mai er KiJfer

B.2. Relative clauses

B.2.a. T w o relations"

(NOMrel-(((NOMxACC);NOMnom=OFacc) %NOMrel))

Sekret~rin, die keinen M a n a g e r hat S e c r e t a r y w h o does not h a v e a m a n a g e r

(NOMsek-(( ( SEK x MA ) ;NOMsek=OFma) %NOMsek) ) Moser Moser Sauer Stern Moser Moser Moser Moser Mahle Mahle K~nig Stern Mahle Mahle Mahle Mahle

Maier Maier Konig Maier

Sekret~rin, die kein M a n a g e r hat Secretary, w h o m no m a n a g e r has

(NOMsek-(( ( MA x SEK ) ;NOMma=OFsek) %NOMsek) ) Moser S a u e r Konig Moser Sauer Stern Sauer Moser

Mahle Stern Konig Mahle

(10)

i

Magdalena Zoeppritz The Meaning o f OF and HAVE in t h e U S L - S y s t e m

B . 2 . b . R e l a t i o n and n a m e

General schema:

(NOMreI-((ACC;OFacc=NOM) %NOMrel)) Sekret~irin, die den Sauer nicht hat

Secretary, w h o does not have Sauer

The accusative is n o t a relation; the a n s w e r is not defined.

Sekretiirin, die der Sauer nicht hat Secretary w h o m Sauer does not have

(NOMsek- ( ( SEK ;OFsek=Sauer) %NOMsek) ) Moser Moser Sauer Sauer Moser

Mahl e Koni g Mahl e

Mai er Kufer Mai er

5. W I T H a n d W I T H O U T

Prepositional phrases containing W I T H and W I T H - O U T can also be related to O F - p h r a s e s ( L e e s 1 9 6 0 : 9 3 ) a n d to H A V E ( P o l d a u f I 9 6 7 : 3 3 f . ) , unless the prepositions are g o v e r n e d b y the verb or are part of instrumental, comitative, or adverbial phrases.

W h e r e W I T H - p h r a s e s are defined as prepositional complements of nouns, verbs or adjectives, they are related to the c o r r e s p o n d i n g W I T H - c o l u m n in t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g relation. W I T H O U T should t h e n b e t r e a t e d as " n o t w i t h " , but this is n o t i m p l e m e n t e d . Phrases containing W I T H a n d W I T H O U T that are not complements are interpreted in tile following m a n n e r : The N O M - c o l u m n of the relation a d d r e s s e d b y the n o u n governing the prepositional phrase is related to the O F - c o l u m n of the relation addressed b y the p r e p o - sitional phrase. As a result, except for the columns, for p r o j e c t i o n a n d s u b t r a c t i o n , the following groups of phrases each have the same transIation:

( S E K ; O F s e k = x ) secretary of x x has secretary x with secretary x's secretary N O T ( S E K ; . O F s e k = x )

not secretary of x x has no secretary x without secretary n o t x ' s secretary

( ( M A x S E K ) ; N O M m a = O F s e k ) secretary of m a n a g e r m a n a g e r has secretary m a n a g e r with secretary m a n a g e r ' s secretary

N O T ( ( M A x S E K ) ; N O M m a = O F s e k ) not secretary of m a n a g e r m a n a g e r has n o secretary manager without secretary not m a n a g e r ' s secretary

6. P r o b l e m s

In conclusion, some of the problems of this interpretation must be p o i n t e d out. If there are relations POSSESS or O W N in the data base, H A V E sentences could be m e a n t to refer to these relations. But there is no m e c h a n i s m that a u t o m a t i c a l l y w o u l d look for such relations and either access them directly or resort to them if the standard interpretation fails. A solution to this problem is f o r the user to define H A V E as a s y n o n y m for POSSESS. He c a n then delete the s y s t e m - d e f i n e d H A V E altogether, if he is sure to use H A V E only in the sense of O W N . But he will p r o b a - bly w a n t his definition in addition t o the system defined H A V E . This leads t o t w o parses and interpretations. I n m a n y cases only o n e of them will bring re- suits, but sometimes b o t h lead t o the same answer. Thus,

D o e s J o h n have a secretary? will be interpreted b o t h as:

Is there a secretary of J o h n ? and

D o e s J o h n o w n a s e c r e t a r y ?

where the s e c o n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n will fail. B u t the query

Does J o h n have a car?

can bring answers to b o t h interpretations, depending on the structure of the data base.

A c o n s e q u e n c e of n o t having a relation H A V E on the o n e h a n d and on the o t h e r of expecting alt adverbials a n d prepositional phrases t o refer t o columns in relations causes difficulties where p r e p o s i t i o n s are used in c o n j u n c t i o n with H A V E and also with BE, as in questions like:

Where does Peter have his office? T o w h o m is P e t e r m a r r i e d ? W h e n is P e t e r ' s birthday? Is P e t e r ' s birthday o n F r i d a y ?

The G e r m a n equivalent of the last t w o questions uses the verb H A V E :

W a n n hat P e t e r G e b u r t s t a g ? H a t P e t e r am Freitag G e b u r t s t a g ?

F o r sentences with H A V E a n d BE as the main verb, the adverbials a n d p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases which have been attached to the verb b y the g r a m m a r are relocated to the n o u n phrase addressing the relation that c o n t a i n s the c o r r e s p o n d i n g columns. F o r the examples above, this m e a n s t h e columns L A , P = t o , a n d T A , respectively, in the relations O F F I C E , B I R T H D A Y , a n d M A R R I E D .

A serious p r o b l e m for which we currently have no solution results f r o m the fact that there is no interpretation w h e r e the accusative does not contain a relation. As can be seen f r o m the examples, it is often intuitively clear what the interpretation of such sen-

(11)

Magdalena Zoeppritz The Meaning o f OF and HAVE in t h e U S L - S y s t e m

tences could be. " T h e s e c r e t a r y w h o has Sauer" could easily be the s e c r e t a r y of Sauer in the c o n t e x t of " w h o has w h o m to w o r k f o r " , but in the c o n t e x t of " w h o has which m a n a g e r " , the " s e c r e t a r y w h o has Sauer" c a n be the o n e w h o s e m a n a g e r is Sauer. As was shown above, the predicate H A V E is a derived predicate, it is applicable only where a m o r e basic association exists b e t w e e n the e l e m e n t s in question. This predicate is f o u n d explicitly expressed, where H A V E sentences are e x p a n d e d by A S - c o m p l e m e n t s .

Peter has a musician as secretary

If there is no A S - c o m p l e m e n t and the accusative of H A V E contains a c o m m o n noun, that noun generally points to the predicate; the A S - c o m p l e m e n t would be redundant.

Peter has a musician can be r e a d as

P e t e r has a musician as his musician

But in the p r o p e r context, the base predicate can be clearly s o m e t h i n g else: In a c o n v e r s a t i o n a b o u t h o b - bies of secretaries, the s a m e s e n t e n c e " P e t e r has a musician" can m e a n

P e t e r has a musician as his s e c r e t a r y

In h u m a n dialogue the general rule that the b a s e predicate a p p e a r s in the accusative noun phrase can be o v e r r i d d e n b y special contexts, but in the general case the rule holds and can be used in the f r a m e w o r k of data b a s e interaction. In the a b s e n c e of r e f e r e n c e to a predicate in the accusative of H A V E , the b a s e predicate can only be deduced f r o m the context. It c a n be one of the properties of the e l e m e n t in the accusative, e.g. S a u e r ' s being a m a n a g e r , a father, or an e m p l o y e r , or it can coincide with the predicate r e f e r r e d to b y the nominative. T h e r e f o r e , the a t t e m p t at i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of such sentences would lead to choosing a m o n g plausible alternatives, choices that would r e m a i n a r b i t r a r y e v e n if carefully made, and the results would be unre- liable. We h a v e a v o i d e d this at the cost of not providing general i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r these cases, e v e n though the individual case is o f t e n intuitively i n t e r p r e t a b l e , b e c a u s e we feel that in the f r a m e w o r k of d a t a b a s e i n t e r a c t i o n it is m o r e i m p o r t a n t for the s y s t e m to react consistently and reliably than to simulate h u m a n dialogue.

Since this p a p e r was originally w r i t t e n , the U S L System has m o v e d to using System R as the data b a s e m a n a g e m e n t system, with S Q L as the query language a n d t a r g e t language f o r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . T h e P R T V - v e r s i o n of U S L has b e e n used b y small groups in their applications, and initial results are encouraging ( L e h m a n n et al., 1978, Krause, 1979). F u r t h e r study is n e c e s s a r y , p a r t i c u l a r l y with r e s p e c t to d a t a - b a s e design and v o c a b u l a r y definition by users.

R e f e r e n c e s

Bach, E. (1967): "Have and be in English syntax," Language 43,

462-485.

Bennet, M.R. (1974): "Some extensions of a montague fragment of English," UCLA Dissertation, Indiana Linguistics Club (1975). Bierwisch, M. (1965): "Eine Hierarchic syntaktisch-semantischer

Merkmale," Studia Grammatika V, 29-86.

Codd, E.F. (1972): "Relational completeness of data base sublan- guages," Research Report R J 987, IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose, California.

CressweU, M.J. (1973): Logics and Languages. London.

Dostert, B.H., and Thompson, F.B. (1971): "The syntax of REL English," R E L Report No. 1, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.

Kay, M. (1967): "Experiments with a powerful parser," Second

International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Grenoble,

August 1967,

Krause, J. (1979): "Preliminary results of a user study with the 'User Specialty Languages' System and consequences for the architecture of natural language interfaces," Technical Report

TR 79.04.003, IBM Heidelberg Scientific Center.

Langacker, R.W. (1975): "Functional stratigraphy," Papers f r o m

the Parasession on Functionalism, April 17, 1975, (ed. R.E.

Grossmann, L.J. San, and T.J. Vance), Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.

Lees, R.B. (1960): The Grammar o f English Nominalizations, The Hague.

Lehmann, H., Ott, N., and Zoeppritz, M. (1977): "Language facilities of U S L / G e r m a n , Version III," Technical Note TN

77.04, IBM Heidelberg Scientific Center, 1977.

Lehmann, H., Ott N., and Zoeppritz, M. (1978): "User experiments with natural language for data base access," Proceedings

7th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Ber-

gen, Norway, August 1978.

Lehmann, H. (1978): "Interpretation of natural language in an information system," I B M Journal o f Research and Development

22, 5, 560-572.

Ott, N. (1977): "Interpretation of questions with quantifiers and negation in the USL System," Technical Report TN 77.10.005,

IBM Heidelberg Scientific Center.

Ott, N. (1979): "Das experimentelle, auf natOrlicher Sprache basierende Informationssystem USL," Nachrichten fuer Doku-

mentation 3, 129-139.

Pitha, P. (1971): "Remarks on Possessivity," Prague Bulletin o f

Mathematical Linguistics 16, 33-46.

Pitha, P. (1972): "Remarks on Possessivity II," Prague Bulletin o f

Mathematical Linguistics 17, 25-36.

Poldauf, I. (1967): "The have construction," Prague Studies in

English 12, 40.

Thompson, F.B., Lockemann, P.C., Dostert, B.H., and Deverill, R.S. (1969): "REL: A rapidly extensible language system,"

Proceedings 24th National A C M Conference, New York, August

1969.

Todd, S.J.P. (1975): "PRTV - A technical overview," Technical

Report UKSC 0075, IBM Scientific Center, Peterlee, England,

(also in I B M Systems Journal 15, 285-308).

The Meaning of OF and HAVE in the USL System