A Syntactic Description of German in a Formalism 
Designed for Machine Translation 
Paul Schmldt 
IAI-Eurotra-D 
Martln-Luther-Str. 14 
D-6600 Saarbrlickcn 
West-Germany 
Abstract: 
This paper presents a syntactic description of a fragment of 
German that has been worked out within the machine 
translation project Eurotra. It represents the syntactic part of the 
German module of this multilingual translation system. The 
linguistic tool for the following analyses is the so-called CAT- 
framework. 
In the first two sections of this paper an introduction of the 
formalism and a linguistic characterization of tile framework is 
given. The CAT formalism as a whole is a theory of machine 
translation, the syntactic analysis part which is the subject of 
this paper is an LFG-like mapping of a constituent structure 
onto a functional structure. 
A third section develops principles for a phrase structure and a 
functional structure for German and the mapping of phrase 
structure onto functional structure. 
In a fourth section a treatment of unbounded movement 
phenomena is sketched. As the CAT-framework does not 
provide any global mechanisms I try to give a local treatment of 
this problem. 
O. Introduction 
There are two basic givens for Eurotra: 
(i) Stratificational description of language. 
The description of language consists of an analysis on three 
levels: 
ECS (Eurotra-Constituent-Structure) which describes language 
according to part/whole relations and word order, 
ERS (Eurotra-Relational-Structure) which describes language in 
terms of syntactic functions and 
IS (Interface Structure) which describes language according to 
deep syntactic relations enriched by semantic information such 
as semantic features for characterizing lexical units. 
(ii) The CAT-formalism. 
The CAT-formalism is the linguistic tool for the description of 
language. As this formalism has no global mechanisms there are 
some restrictions concerning the treatment of unbounded 
dependencies. 
Taking thc.~;e givens into account, I would like to present the 
following topics: 
(i) An introduction to the formal language as far as necessary 
for the treatment of the linguistic phenomena 1 would like to 
describe, 
(ii) A characterization of the Eurotra stratifieational description 
of language as a functionally oriented theory, 
(iii) A development of principles for a syntactic description of 
German 
(iv) A sketch of the treatment of unbounded dependencies 
1. The formalism 
I would like to introduce only those parts of the CAT-formalism 
"which build the basis of my analyses. That is two kinds of rules: 
(i) soealled b-rules (structure building rules). They build 
structures qud transform structures into structures. 
(ii) so-called feature-rules and killer-filters. They are put 
together into one class as both of them operate on structures 
created by b-rules expressing generalizations over attributes. 
1.1. b-rules 
(1)(a) {cat=s} I {cat=np},(cat=vp} 1. 
(b) {eat=vp}l (cat=v},{cat=np} l. 
(c) {cat=np}\[ {cat=det},{cat=.} \]. 
(d) (cat=v,lu=kaufen,lex=kau ft,t.s=tensed} 
In (l)(a)-(d) we have b-rules, which define a small ECS- 
grammar. (d) is a rule for a terminal. The dominance relation is 
expressed by square brackets. The grammar in (1) assigns 
sentence (2)(a) structure (2)(b). 
(2)(a) Das Haus kauft der Mann 
(The house, the man buys) 
(b) s I 
np vp 
det n v np I 
__I__ det n 
I I das haus kauft der mann 
The same way as in (l)(a)-(d) an ECS-grammar was written we 
can write b-rules defining functional structures. (3) is a b-rule 
defining the functional structure for (2)(a): 
(3)(a) {cat=s} \[{sf=gov,cat=v,frame=subj obj}, 
(sf=subj,cat=np,case=nom}, 
(sf=obj,cat=np,case=acc), 
* (sf=mod}l. (sf=syntactic function) 
(b) {l.=kanfen,sf=gov,frame=su bj obj }. 
b-rule (3) creates the functional structure (4) for sentence (2)(a). 
(4) _,s 
f gov,v subj,np obj,np 
L L L 
kaufen mann der haus das 
The transformation will De done by tile translation b-rule (5). 
(5) tsl = S:(cat=s} INPl:{cat=np}, 
~:{cat=vp} IV:{cat=v},NP2:{cat=np}ll 
S:{cat=s} <V,NP2,NPI>. 
A translation-b-rule (t-rule) consists of a left hand side (Ihs) 
which defines a representation, in our case it would unify with 
the ECS-strueture in (2)(b), and a right hand side (rhs) which 
defines a dominance and precedence relationship between the 
items represented by the variables (capitals). If there is a b-rule 
on the next level, in our case ERS, which satisfies these 
conditions, the translation succeeds, t-rule (5) says that structure 
(2)(b) shall be translated into a structure which is dominated by 
a node of category s which dominates the three items 
represented by the variables in the order given in the rhs of the 
t-rule. As the verbal governor, in our case 'kaufen', requires a 
subj obj frame, expressed by the frame feature, (3)(a) is tile 
ERS-b-rule which would match with the rhs of t-rule (5) and 
create (4). 
589 
1.2. f-rules and killer-filters 
1.2.1. f-rules 
f-rules and killer filters allow for the definition of a context 
part (those features after the slash) and an action part as 
example (6) shows. An f-rule applies to a representation only if 
the context part strictly unifies with the object. 
(6) { case=C,nb=N,gead=G,/cat=np} 
I {/cat=det},{case=C,nb=N,gend=G,/eat=n} I 
(6) says that for each np consisting of a det and an n case, 
number and gender of the n have to be percolated into the 
mother node. 
I would like to make two remarks: (i) the feature percolation in 
example (6) could be done in b-rules. Thus, it might seem that 
f-rules are superfluous. However, as section 4 will show, there 
are many cases where we need feature percolation by f-rules. 
(ii) I will make a special use of f-rules. I will take everything as 
context and action part. That means, if f-rule f unifies with 
representation r, r will be replaced by the result of unification, 
if not, r survives unchanged. 
1.2.2. killer-filters 
Killer filters specify structures which are not well-formed and 
which therefore have to be deleted. We might imagine a rule 
which kills nps having a pronominal head and an np in genitive. 
(7) killer-filter: 
{cat=rip} \[{cat=detJ,{cat=n,n type=pron},{cat=np,case=gen } I. 
2. CAT as a functionally oriented framework 
2.1. A comparison with a configurational framework 
For the linguistic ctmracterization of the Eurotra framework 1 
would like to make a brief comparison between two kinds of 
linguistic theories: 
(i) those which assume syntactic functions as universal 
primitives of language (prototypical: LFG) 
(ii) those which claim that syntactic functions could be reduced 
to configurational facts (prototypicah GB). 
Each of the two possible ways of describing language forces the 
linguist to describe linguistic facts as word order, binding 
relations, agreement, case assignment or long distance 
movement in a certain way. 
The configurational framework claims that there is a general 
schema for phrase structure rules which is the universal pattern 
according to which all constituent structures of all possible 
languages are built. It is the x-bar schema: 
(s) 
spec 
Xdoublebar I 
xbar 
xbar beta I 
gamma 
(8) represents the x-bar schema, also D(eep)-Structure in GB. 
On this structure movement rules operate creating S(urface)- 
structures. 
So, this is the kind of explanation a configurational framework 
gives: There is a canonical schema (the x-bar schema) and each 
configuration not fitting into this schema is explained as derived 
by universally restricted movement transformations. 
The functional alternative has to rely on syntactic functions as 
universal primitives. So, phrase structure does not necessarily 
claim a universal status, and movement rules are not even 
necessary. This requires a different treatment of the linguistic 
phenomena. How does the CAT framework fit into this? The 
adoption of the three level system (ECS,ERS,IS) makes Eurotra 
functionally oriented as it adopts the way of linguistic 
description a functional approach has to adopt. While a 
configurational desoription consists in mapping given 
configurations onto a canonical schema, the x-bar schema, by 
explaining configurations which do not fit into x-bar as having 
590 
undergone movement transformations, a functional description 
consists in a mapping of phrase structures onto functional 
structures. 
2.2. Completeness and coherence in Eurotra 
There is an essential which holds for all functional frameworks, 
namely the completeness and coherence principle. 
This principle says: A functional structure is well-formed iff it 
is complete and coherent. A functional structure is complete iff 
it contains all the syntactic functions required by the frame of 
the framebearing element. A functional structure is coherent iff 
it contains only the required syntactic functions. Enrotra allows 
for the expression of this principle in two different ways: 
(i) Enumeration of frames 
The ERS grammar has to enumerate all possible patterns, all 
frames which are possible, as b-rules, and the value of the 
frame feature of the gov determines that only the wanted and 
nothing but the wanted governors go into the structure building 
rule. 
(9) {cat=s} \[ {sf=gov,cat=v,frame=subj obj}, 
{sf=snhj,cat=np,case=nom}, 
{sf=obj,cat=np,case=acc}, 
*{sf=mod} \] 
In (9) completeness is expressed by the fact that both 
framebound syntactic functions are obligatory. So, if one of the 
functions is missing, the structure is not well-formed. 
Coherence is expressed by the fact that the structure building 
rule only allows for the two syntactic functions and nothing else. 
This prevents e.g. the creation of an oblique object. 
(ii) Completeness and coherence by f-rules and killers 
There is, however another way of expressing completeness and 
coherence which does not require the enumeration of all 
frames. We need the following rules: (a) One ERS b-rule which 
enumerates all possible syntactic functions optionally as (I0) 
does: 
(10) :b: {cat=s} \[ {sf=gov,cat=v}, 
^ {sf=snbj,cnt=np,case=nom}, 
^ {sf=obj,cat=np,case=acc}, 
^ {sf=obj2,cat=np}, 
^ {sf=obl,cat=pp}, 
^ {sf=scomp,cat=s}, 
* {sf=mod,cat=pp} 
^ {sf=topic} \] 
(b) A separate encoding of the functions a verb is 
subcategorized for, i.e. the frame feature is given up and a 
feature for each syntactic function is introduced: 
(11) {lu=see,subj=yes,obj=yes,sf=gov} 
All other syntactic function feature values will have to get the 
default "no" (by default f-rules). 
(12) {lu=see,subj=yes,obj=yes,obj2=no,obl=no,scomp=no,sf=gov} 
We can now state completeness and coherence independently by 
killer filters: 
(13) :k: {cat=s} l {sf=gov,cat=v,subj--yes}, 
^ {sf=obj,cat=np,case=acc}, 
^ {sf=obj2,cat=np}, 
^ {sf=obl,cat=pp}, 
^ {sf=scomp,cat=s}, 
* {sf=mod,cat=pp} 
^ {sf=topic) I 
(13) determines that if the feature for subj=yes then there must 
be a syntactle function "sub j" in this representation. Expressed 
by a killer it reads: if there is a structure whose gov has an a-v- 
pair subj=yes and contains only functions which are not subj 
then this structure is not well-formed. The same which has been 
stated here for subj can be stated for all functions. To get 
coherence we use a killer filter as in (14). 
(14) :k: {cat=s) \[ {sf=gov,cat=v,subj=no}, 
{sf=subj,cat=np,case=nom}, 
" 0 I 
(14) says: If the structure whose gov has the feature-value 'no' 
for the feature 'subj' contains a feature bundle containing the 
feature sf=subj, plus anything else, then this structure is not 
well-formed. 
3. Syntactic description of German 
3.1. Principles of syntactic description 
As we have seen above, the syntactic description of a language 
in Eurotra follows a functional approach. In our description this 
is not only reflected by the existence of a functional level but 
also by the uonhierarehical, nonconfigurational description of 
the sentence constituent we offer. As we do not use the given x- 
bar schema we need no empty elements on ECS and we describe 
German as a uonconfigurational language. 
Though in German matrix clauses we have SVO word order, 
German is usually considered an SOV language. Matrix clause 
word order is considered as derived from subordinate clause 
word order by movement transformations. (of. Koster 1975, 
Thiersch 197~ L Reis 1985.. 
On this basis we would like to make another assumption 
concerning phrase structure which says that there is a unique 
structure underlying all German sentences (matrix clause and 
subordinate clause). This hypothesis is called "Symmetry 
Hypothesis" or "Doppelkopfanalyse" (ef. Reis 1985). It is shared 
by most of the generative syntacticiens such as H. den Besten, 
H. Haider, J. Lenerz and J. Koster. I will adopt some version of 
this "Symm~try Hypothesis" (SM) which will be developed in 
the following: 
3.2. Phrase structure description (ECS) of German 
(i) The initial base rule is (15) 
(15) sbar --> co,up s 
(ii) There are two left peripheral positioqs compl and comp2. 
We would like to represent this fact by the following expansion 
rule'. 
(16) cutup --> COMP1 COMP2 
where COMPI and COMP2 represent positions which will be 
described thus: 
(iii) The B .. position has the feature +- tnsd which specifies it 
as the verb/complementizer position, being filled in the base 
component only by lexical complementizers. This analysis yields 
the following structure: 
(17) sbar I 
comp s 
COMPI COMP2 vfin 
(iv) Two movement rules operate on this structure, deriving all 
non SOV structures. These two rules are: TI : Verb fronting and 
T2 : Topicalization where COMP2 is the landing site for the 
finite verb and COMP1 thb landing site for X-double-bar. 
We will show now in (18) how possible German sentence 
structures can be derived according to SM. 
(IB) sbar 
I comp s 
I I__ \] \[ np np vfin 
I I I (a) dass der mann die frau liebt 
(that the man the woman loves) 
(b) liebt(i) der mann die frau e(i) 
(loves the man the women) 
(c} der mann(i) liebt(j) e(i) die frau e(j) 
(the man loves the woman) 
(d} die frau(i) liebt(j) der mann e(i) e(9 ) 
(the woman loves the man) 
(e) wet(i) liebt(j) e(i) die frau e(j) 
(who loves the woman) 
(f) der(i) e(i) die frau liebt 
(who the woman loves) 
(g) wet(i) e(i) die frau liebt 
(who the woman loves) 
(18)(a) represents the base structure description. (18)(b) V/I 
representation as in yes/no questions, tile finite verb having 
moved into COMP2 leaving behind a trace. (18)(c) represents 
ordinary matrix clause word order derived by the two 
movement rules TI and T2. (18)(d) represents matrix clause 
word order with a topicalized direct object. (18)(e) is a case of 
a matrix clause word order interrogative. (18)(f) a relative 
clause and (18)(g) a subordinate clause interrogative. (18)(e) and 
(g) represent a case of wh-movement. Untensed subordinate 
clauses which would not fit into this schema would be analysed 
as PPs: 
(19) pp\[pohne\[vp\[vzufragen\]\]\] 
(without asking ) 
This SH-analysis can at least make the following claims: (i) The 
COMP2-position as complementizer position and as lauding site 
for the verb-fronting transformation nicely explains the relation 
between occurrence of complementizer and the occurrence of 
the finite verb (ii) As (18)(e) and (g) show, wh-movement can 
be represented equally for matrix clauses and subordinate 
clauses, namely as movement into COMP2. (iii) The Sll-- 
analysis is compatible with the productive traditional 
"Stellungsfelderhypothese" (c-f. Olson 1984). 
Another subject of phrase structure should be mentioned here: 
the treatment of tile verbal-complex. We adopted the following 
approach: Every-"~'erb is a full verb. Auxiliaries are subject 
control verWs (of Netter1986, 1988, and Bresnan 1982). 
~20) sbar 
comp 
I .............. np vp vfin 
.... I ....... vp vinfJ.n 
I 
vp vinfin 
Ivinfin 
dass der brief von ihm zu schreiben versucht worden is~ 
(that tile letter by him to write tried been has) 
This treatment allows an easy calculation of tense, voice and 
aspect on ERS, as there is still structural information. As 
representation (20) shows, all nonfinite verbs are treated on 
ECS the same way, namely as the head of left recursively 
branching vp-constituents. This enables an easy treatment of 
auxiliaries as raising verbs on ERS (see section 3.3.). 
3.3. Relational structure (ERS) 
3.3.1. Principles 
The relational stgucture of a language is constituted by the 
property of lexical units (lu) to bind certain other elements. This 
property is usually called "valency". Formally this fact is 
reflected in the formalism by the property of local trees. Each 
local tree contains just one gov(ernor), its valency-bound 
elements which are the comp(lements) and its non-valency- 
bound elements which are the mod(ifier)s: 
591 
(21) subj,np 
gov,n mod,ap mod,detp 
gov,adj gov,det 
mann alt d- 
man old the 
The valency of a lu is its property to bind a certain number and 
a certain kind of syntagma. In other words: a valency theory is 
a theory on how many and which kind of syntagma occur given 
that a certain lu occurs. We consider verbs, nouns, adjectives 
and prepositions as having the property of being able to bind 
other syntagmas. A major part of every valency theory is the 
design of a test which is meant to determine the difference of 
complement and modifier. In the history of valency theory a lot 
of tests have been developed, among others the following: 
Elimination test, free addability test, adverbial clause test, verb 
substitution test, do-so-test, backformation test. We adopted a 
revised addability test (ef. Schmidt 1986). 
3.3.2. Word order 
The most important aspect with the decriptiou of the relation 
between ECS and ERS is that the present formalism allows for 
the treatment of free word order languages. We consider 
German as having a relatively free word order. The decisive 
feature is that the rhs of the t-rules are able to specify only 
dominance relations which is expressed by the parenthesis in 
(22). Permutations in the German middle field can easily be 
treated as shown in example (22). 
(22) S:{eat=shar} 
I-:{eat=comp} ITOPIC,V:{cat=v}I, 
~:{cat=s}\[ADVl:* {cat--adv2}, 
NPh(cat=np}, 
ADV2:* {cat=adv2}, 
NP2:{cat=np}, 
ADV3:* (cat=adv2}, 
NP3:{cat=np}, 
ADV4:* {cat=adv2}, 
VP:{cat=vp}l\] 
=> 
S:<(TOPIC,V,ADV1,NP1 ,ADV2,NP2,ADV3,NP3,ADV4,VP)> 
3.3.3. The verbal complex on ERS 
As shown in structure (20), auxiliaries are analysed as full verbs. 
The structural analysis in (20) makes it easy to treat auxiliaries 
as raising verbs on ERS, as (23) shows. 
(23) 7.-- 
~ov 
dass 
OOV,V subj, up(i)__ 
gi v'v 
sein brief wer- der den 
scompls 
I subj, scomp,s 
np(i) __.l ~ev,v subj, scomp,s 
n~(i>~ov <~j, by_phi,up 
ver- a schrei- e yon ihm 
suehen ben 
3.3.4. Passive 
The problem with passive is the following: There is a relation 
between the two sentences in (24) 
(24) Die Kommission verabschiedet den Besehluss 
(The Commission adopts the decision) 
Der Besehluss wurde yon der Kommission verabschiedet 
(The decision was adopted by the council) 
which is in terms of surface syntactic frames that the phrase 
being the subject in (a), namely 'die Kommission', is the by obj 
in (b) and the direct object of (a) is the surface syntaetie 
subject of (b) (bearing all features surface syntactic subjects 
usually have, as e.g. nominative case). In terms of thematic roles 
we could say that the agent is in both eases 'die Kommission' 
once realized as an NP in nominative case, once realized as a PP 
with the preposition 'you'. 
592 
We keep surface syntactic information and aim at the following 
structure: 
(25) undef 
I gov subj scomp 
~v Isubj .by_?bj 
I I warden beschluss verabschieden e von kommission 
In universal grammar passive usually is treated in a general way, 
as passivization is considered a universal process: 
- In GB passivization is considered as a movement process 
which is contained in the general move alpha schema. 
- GPSG also treats passive on the syntactic level in form of a 
metarule. 
- LFG being a "lexicalist" theory treats passive inthe lexicon by 
a lexical rule which is s.th. like 
(subj) -> zero/(by obj) 
(obj) -> subj 
In Eurotra we have neither of these devices, neither movement 
rules nor metarules, nor lexical rules. However, it seems as if 
we could simulate the lexical rules just by putting the "active 
frame" into the b-rule as in (26). 
(26) {cat=s,voice=passlve} l {sf=gov,cat=v,frame=subj_obj}, 
(sf=subj,eat=np,case=nom}, 
{sf=by ohj,eat=pp,pform=von), '1}I 
{lufverabschleden,sf=gov,cat= v,framefsu bj obj } 
This has the same effect as the LFG lexical rule: only one 
encoding of the verb with its active sub obj-frame is necessary. 
4. Treatment of Unbounded Movement Phenomena 
4.1. Wh-movement 
4.1.1. The Representation 
I would like to explain my approach with an example: 
(27)(a) was sagt Hans, behauptet Peter, verabschiedet der Rat 
(what says Hans claims Peter adopts the council) 
what does Hans say that Peter claims the council adopts 
(b) was sagt Hans 
According to our ECS grammar the following ECS tree is 
created: 
(28) sbar 
l comp s 
i sbar 
topic v u __l-- 
comp s 
I __I v np sbar 
_I comp 
I v np 
I I was sagt Hans behaup- Peter verab- der rat 
tet schiedet 
(what says Hans claims Peter adopts the council) 
We imagine a functional representation like (29), 
under (29) (~~ 
I JSCOmp t--~(i) gOV gOV subJ 
I % ......... i gov 
I I I I I I sagen hans behaup- Peter verab- Rat e(i) e(i) e(i) was 
tat schisdet what) (say hans claim peter adopt council 
In (29) we can see that a chain was created from the topic of the 
matrix clause via the topic of the embedded clause to the correct 
syntactic function slot. We have to guarantee that it is a correct 
chain which I understand as a chain that is correctly coindexed 
with the correct function in the ERS b-rule. 
4.1.2. The Creation of the Correct Structure 
The structure in (29) is created by inserting empty elements by 
t-rule application in a very controlled way. 1 would like to give 
an exemplification by NP-complements. Structure insertion by 
t-rules exploit the fact that movement has its landing site which 
is the node called eompl in representation (17). In the lhs of the 
t-rule this information is exploited. We also know that each 
phrase whk:h occupies the eompl position on ECS has to go to 
an ERS slot which has sf=topic. We need the four t-rules for 
doing the job. 
(30) tsl= S:{cat=shar) 
I~:(cat=comp,tns= tensed} 
\[TOPIC:{cat=np},V:(cat=v} h 
~: {cat=s,tns=untensed} 
\[NP2;{cat=np),~:^{cat=pUnCrt},SBAR:^ {cat=shar)l\] 
=). 
S:{cat=s} 
<V,NP2,{cat=np,n type=empty},SBAR,TOPIC:{sf=toplc} >. 
The t-rule in (30) treats" local wh-movenrent as in (2)(a) and 
creates structure (31 ). 
( 31 ) unde f 
gov subj obj topic ( i ) 
I I I I kaufen mann e(i) haus 
(30) creates an empty np-slot which has to be interpreted as one 
of the b-rule slots subj, obj or obj2 in (10). It will go to 
sf=subj,sf=obj and sf=obj2. It is up to completeness and 
coherence to determine that (31) is well-formed in our case. 
For the top of an unbounded dependency construction (29), we 
need t-rule (32) which puts the topicalized np into the topic slot 
on ERS, but without creating a corresponding empty up. 
(32) ts2= $:{cat=sbar} 
\[~:{cat=comp,tns=tenscd} 
\[TOPIC: {cat=up}, V: {cat=v}l, 
~:{cat=s,tns=untensed} 
\[NP2: ^{cat=up}, 
~: ^{cat=punct}, 
SBAR: ^(cat=sbar}ll 
=> 
S:{cat=s} < V, NP2, SBAR, TOPIC:{sf=toplc,cat=np} >. 
(33) treats the middle of unbounded dependency constructions 
i.e. a sentence structure which has an empty topic. The middle 
builds the link between embedded sentences and matrix clause. 
It has no empty correspondent in the structure. This structure is 
created by a t-rule which operates on an ECS representation 
which has an empty topic landing site (see (28)). 
(33) is3= S:{cat=sbar} I~: {cat=comp,tns=tensed} lV:{cat=v}l, 
~: {cat=s,tns=untensed} 
\[Np2: ^{cat=up}, 
-: ^{cat=puuct}, 
SBAR: ^{cat=:sbar}l\] 
=> S:{cat=s} < V,NP2,SBAR,{cat=np,n type=empty,sf=topic} >. 
For the bottom of the structural representation we finally need a 
t-rule which creates an empty topic and an empty corresponding 
np. (34) is this rule. It is also applied only under the condition 
that the ECS landing site for wh-movement is empty. 
(34) ts4= S:(cat=sbar) I~:{cat=comp,tns=tensed) IV:{cat=v}l, 
~:{cat=s,tns=untensed) 
\[ NP2: ^{cat=,tp), 
-: ^{cat=punct}, 
SBAR: ^{cat=shar}l\] 
=> 
S:{cat=s} 
<V,NP2,{cat=np,n type=empty), 
SBAR,(cat=np,n type=empty,sf=topic } >. 
We now have all the pieces needed for creating the correct 
structures which can occur in unbounded dependency structures. 
(28) only represents a three-fold s-structure, however rule (33) 
eaters for all possible middles as it will be applied as many times 
as there are middles. 
A few comments seem to be in order on these rules: (30) and 
(32) on the one hand and (33) and (34) on the other hand have 
the same lhs which might cause overgeneration. 
Rule (31) caters for the case that the s is tile matrix-clause 
containing a moved NP which has to find its functional slot 
downwards somewhere in a functional structure of an embedded 
clause. For this case we need a topic which has up correspondent 
on the same level. 
If we take (27)(b), rule (30) as well as rule (32) will be applied, 
both of them putting "was" into the topic function, (30) creating 
an empty NP-slot, (32) not creating an empty NP. So, we have 
two rules (30) and (32) which apply to the same lhs producing 
two different ERS structures. The completeness and coherence 
test determines which t-rule (30) or (32) creates the correct 
structure. Both of them will be applied but only one, namely 
(30) creates the correct structure according to the completeness 
and coherence criterion. In the case of rule (33) and (34) we 
have the same problem. Both of them apply to the same lhs, 
once inserting an empty np, once not. Again, completeness and 
coherence has to determine whether the result of (33) or (34) is 
correct. 
4.1.3. Feature Checking 
The creation of the correct structure is only half of the story. 
We have not guaranteed yet that only correct structures are 
created and above all that only correct chains are created. This 
will be done by an interaction of f-rules percolating the relevant 
features such as gender, number, case and the index feature 
and by killer filters which guarantee that only correctly indexed 
chains survive. First of all we need f-rules which percolate the 
relevant features. 
(35) :f: a_top to__s= {cat=z} 
\[ {sf=gov}, 
^{sf=subj}, 
^{sf=obj}, 
^{sf=obj2}, 
{sf=scomp,top index=l,top .b=N,top _gend=G}, 
*{sf=mod}, 
{sf=topic,iudex=l,.b=N,gend=G} I. 
(35) is an example which percolates number, gender and index 
from topic to scomp. Another f-rule of the same style will 
percolate these features from scomp to the topic node of the 
embedded sentence, and a third f-rule from topic to the empty 
functional slot. So, if we consider example (28) the pereolatiou 
of the relevant features follows the following path: 
(36) 
scomp topic 
I__ I scomp topic 
___I__ I obj topic 
I I e e 
The same kind of f-rule will percolate the case feature 
independently the same path. (For the reasons see below). For 
feature ehecking we need killer rules which kill all structures 
which are not correctly indexed and those which represent an 
empty chain. E.g. (37) is a rule which deletes all structures 
where the case feature of the empty topic and the 
corresponding empty up is not the same. 
59) 
(37) :k: ktopic3= {cat=s} \[{sf=gov,cat=v}, 
"0, 
{cat=np,type=empty,case~=C,lndex=l), *ll, 
{sf=topic,cat=np,case=C,index=l}l. 
Actually we need another 6 killers which cheek number and 
gender. 
Rule (37) makes clear what has been the sense of the separate 
case-feature-percolation. If we percolated the ease feature in 
rules like (35) we could not use the index - feature for feature 
checking. 1 would like to explain this with an example. We need 
a rule to filter out the wrong representation (39) which is the 
representation of the following ill-formed sentence: 
(38) * Den Beschluss sagt Hans, behauptet Peter, verabschiedet 
den Beschluss 
• (The decision says Hans, that Peter claims, adopts the 
decision) 
(39) under I 
gov sub3 scomp topic(i) 
I I topic(i) gov gov subj scomp 
gov gov subj obj topi (i) 
sa- Hans be- Peter verab- e(i) beschluss e(i) e(i) be- 
gem hauptst schiedet den schluss den 
(say Hans claim Peter adopt the decision the deci- sion) 
According to our f-rules the index is percolated down into the 
empty subject slot in the lowest scomp. (It cannot go elsewhere). 
This subject has case=nom which is stated in the ERS b-rule. 
The case feature is the means to get rid of the wrong chain as 
there will be a clash between the "arriving" case=accusative and 
the already stated case=nominative. If the case feature had not 
been percolated independently we would not have any 
possibility of applying killer rule (37) as the f-rule would not 
have been applied for the reason of the impossibility of 
unification. My rules percolate the index into the sub j-slot and 
make possible the application of (37).. 
4.2. Control 
Let us consider the following case of subject control: 
(40) dass er den Beschluss zu verabschieden zu versprechen 
versucht 
that he tries to promise to adopt the decision 
Our ECS-grammar would assign the ECS-strueture (41): 
(41) sbar 
I comp 
subcon mp 
I 
n np 
vp 
I vp prep v 
I__ prep 
dass er den beschluss zu verab- zu vet- rer- 
schieden sprechen sucht 
The ERS representation would look like (42). 
In the case of control-structures it is easy to control the 
insertion of structure by t-rule as embedded control structures 
are vps in our system. As we have seen in section 3, each vp is 
lacking a subject np which is inserted on ERS by t-rule (43): 
594 
(42) under I__ 
gov comp I_ 
gov subj(i) 
I gov gov 
I dass ver- er 
suchen 
subj 
I gov 
I vet- o(i) 
sprechen 
(43) tvpl = VP:{cat=vp} 
scomp 
I_ scomp 
I gov subj obj 
gov gov 
verab- e(±) be- 
schieden schluss 
\[ NPl:{cat=np},VP:(cat=vp},~:{cat=prep}, 
V:{cat=v,tns=untensed}\] 
=> 
VP:{cat=s} • V,{cat=np,type=empty,sf=subj},NPl,VP >. 
In control structures feature checking works the same way as in 
wh-constructions. We only need a correct feature percolation 
which puts the relevant features to the scomp-node and from 
there to the sub j-slot. We only have to take care that in the 
scomp-node features are not confused with topic-features. This 
can be guaranteed by using ctl case etc. in scomp. 
(44):f: f ctll = {cat=s}\[{sf=gov,cat=v,ctl=subj}, 
{sf=subj,cat=np,nb=N,geud=G,index=I}, "{}, 
{sf=scomp,cat=s,ctl_nb=N,ctl_gend=G,ctl index=I}, 
*1}1. 
5, Summary 
The descriptions of a significant fragment of German above 
seem to be a good basis for a translation system. The functional 
structures created in our system can easily be mapped onto deep 
syntactic predicate-argument-structures which are enriched by 
semantic information. From there transfer should happen. 
As far as the treatment of unbounded dependencies is concerned 
there might be some problems in transfer. Certain pied piping 
phenomena and multiple wh-movement might make necessary a 
more powerful mechanism. 

References

Abraham,W.(ed)(1985) Erkl~irende Syntax des Deutschen, 
Tiibingen, (=Studien zur deutsehen Grammatik 25). 

Arnold,D. et a1.(1987) The Eurotra Reference Manual, Release 
2.1., ms. Utrecht. 

Bresnan,J.(1982) The Passive in Lexical Thoery, in: Bresnan,J 
The Mental Representation of Grammaticasl Relations 
Cambridge, Mass./London Engl. 

Koster,J.(1975) Dutch as an SOV Language. Linguistic Analysis 
l,pp.l 11-136. 

Lenerz,J.(1984) Diachronic Syntax: Verb Position and COMP in 
German, in: Toman (1984). 

Netter,K.(\]986) Getting Things out of Order. An LFG Proposal 
for the Treatment of German Word Order, Coling 
Proceedings (1986),p 494 - 496. 

Olson,S.(1984) On Deriving V-1 and V-2 Structures in German, 
in: Toman (1984). 

Reis,M.(1985) Satzeinleitende Strukturen. Ueber COMP, Haupt- 
und Nebensaetze, w- Bewegung und Doppelkopfanalyse, 
in: Abraham (1985). 

Steiner,E., Sehmidt, P,, Zelinsky, C. (1988) (forthcoming) 
from Syntax to Semantics. (New Insights from Machine 
Translation). London 1988. 

Schmidt,P.(1986) Valency Theory in a Stratificational MT 
System,in: Coling Proceedings (1986). 

Thiersch, C.: Topics in German Syntax, unpub. Diss. 1978. 
