Syntactic Analyses for Parallel Grammars: Auxiliaries and 
Genitive NPs 
Miriam Butt and Christian Fortmann and Christian Rohrer 
institut fiir Masc.hin(:ll(: Sprachv(:rarbeitung 
Universil, St Stutl;gart 
Azenbergstr. 12 
70174 Stutl;gart, Germany 
{ mul, t I for(,man n \]rohrer } (c~i ms. uni-stu (;l;gar t.de 
Abstract 
This paper tbeuses on two disparate as- 
I)e(:ts of German syntax from the per- 
speetive of paral\]eJ grammar develop- 
menl;. As part of a eOOl)erative project, 
we present an innovative approach to 
auxiliaries and multiph: genitive NPs ill 
German. The LFG-based imph:men- 
ration t)resented here avoids unnessary 
structural eonq)lexity in the representa- 
tion of auxiliaries by challenging the tra- 
ditional analysis of auxiliaries as raising 
verbs. The approach developed for mul- 
tiple genitive NPs provides a mor(: at)- 
straet, language independent representa- 
ti(m of genitives associated with nomi- 
nalized verl)s. Taken together, the two 
ai)proa(:hes rei)resent a step (;owards pro- 
viding uniformly al)plical)le treatments 
for differing languages, thus lightening 
the burden for machine translation. 
1 Introduction 
Within the cooperative parallel grmmnar project 
PARGRAM (IMS-Stuttgart, Xerox-Pale Alto, 
Xerox-Grenoble), the analysis and representation 
of stru(:tures in the grammars must bc viewed 
from a more gh)bal perspective than l;hat of tile 
individual languages (German, English, French). 
One major goal of PAll.GRAM is the development 
of broad coverage grammars which are also mod- 
ular and easy to nm.intain. Another major goal 
is the construction of parallel analyses for sen- 
tences of the same type in German, English, and 
French. If this can be achieved, the prol)h'm faced 
by machine translation (MT) could tm greatly re- 
duced. Due to the recent developnmnt of a faster 
and more powerful version of the LFG (Lexical- 
Functional-Grammar) based Grammar Writer's 
Workbench (Kaplan and Maxwell 1993) at Xerox, 
tile implementation of a linguistically adequate, 
broad coverage grammar aI)pears via.tile. Given 
the flexible t)rojection-based architecture of LFG 
(l)alrymple el; al. 1995) and the MT approach pre- 
sented in Kaplan et al. (1989), 1 a rolmst MT sys- 
tem is already in place. 
In this paper, we (:oncentrate on two issues 
within the broader perspective of I>AI{GII.AM: the 
treatment of auxiliaries and the transi)arent rep- 
resentation of multilfle genitive NPs in German. 
'these phenoinena I'eI)resent two are.as for which 
generally accepted proposals exist, but, whose iln- 
plelnentation in the context of par'aiM gram- 
mar development throws up quest;ions as to their 
wider, crosslinguistic, feasibility. With restleet to 
auxiliaries, the standard raising at)preach that is 
usually adopted yields undesirable structural com- 
plexity and results in idiosyncratic, language par- 
ticular analyses of the role of auxiliaries. With 
regard to genitive NiPs, the standard analysis tbr 
German yields strtlctures which are too alnbigu- 
ous for a succesflfl at)plication of madfine transla- 
tion. The fbllowing sections present a solution in 
that morphological wellformedness conditions are. 
stated at a separate eonlponent, the 'morTfl~ology 
projection. Furthermore, a representation of argu- 
inent structure is implenmnted that is related to, 
1)ut not idcnl;ical to the ret)resentation of grain- 
matical flmel,ions. Language particular idiosyn- 
cratic requirements are thus separated out from 
the language universal information l(:quired for 
further semantic interpretal;ion, or machine trans- 
lation. 
2 The Formalism 
The architecture of LFG assumed here is the 
"traditional" architecture described in Bresnan 
(1.982), as well as the newer advances within LFG 
(Dalrynq)te et al. , 1995). A grammar is viewed 
as a set of correspondences expressed in ternls of 
projections fl'om one level of representation to nil- 
other. Two fundamental levels of representations 
within LFG are the c(onstitutent)-structure and 
the f(unctional)-structure. The c-structure en- 
codes idiosyncratic phrase structural prope.rties of 
a given language, while the f-structure provides 
1See also Sadler et al. (1990), Sadler and Thomt> 
son (1991), Kaplan mtd Wedekind (1993), Butt (1994) 
for fllrther work on MT withii, LFG. 
182 
a language mfiversal rel)resenl;adon of Gramm;rl,i- 
(:a\] funcl;ions (e.g., Sllll3(~(:\[;, OiLI(~(:(;), COml)h,m(:n- 
l;a.i;ion, l,(:nsc, binding, ('.(x:. The (:orrcsl)ond(:nc(: 
|)(:l;w(:Oll (>,'-;trl1(;(;IIre ;l.Ii(| f-sl;rtlctur(! is llOt; oIll;o or 
O/l(>(;o-ollc~ blll; in~_t/lyq;o-()ii(:~ ~-tllowillg 0Al 'tl, bs|;r~t(:- 
(;ion ow:r idiosyncra.(;ic c-structure proper(Jes of a 
la.nguage ((:.g., discon(;inuous cons(;ituenl:s). 
In addil;ion, severM proi)osals ext)loring t)ossi- 
hie rO, l)r(~s(;lli;;~l;ioll,q of & s(0Ill&Ill;ic)-sl;rllt:l;llr(! h;LVe 
l)ce.n ma.dc ovt'.r tim y(;ars (e.g. \[lalvo)'s(m and t(a- 
lJan (1988), l)a,h',ymplc el; al. (1993)). As (;he r(:- 
Miz~l;ion of a SCl)a)~(;(: s(:m;m(;ic compon(:n(; is only 
l)lmmed fl)r (;h(,. lal;l;(:r stages wil;hin I'AIIGIIAM, llo 
\['llrtht;r discussion of possible f()vma, limns will l;ake 
l)la.t'.e ht'.rc, t(; should b(, noi,ed, how(;ver, l;ha.l, rudi- 
m(:nLary s(:mm~ti(: inform;t(;ion, su('.h a.s a.rtgmt(~nI; 
S(;I'llCI,llI'O illf()I'lllil,\[;iOll (\]exical StHIIDAII,iCS), iS (;Ii.- 
(:oded within l;he t'-s(xuc(;m'e,~ in ord(:r Ix) fa.cilil;ate 
la'a,nsfl~r in s()m(,, cases. A case in t>oin(, is t)res(m(,(~d 
in l;he s(:c(;ion on (\](!rman g(;ni(;ive Nl's. 
3 Auxiliaries- -a flat approach 
3.11 The Received Wisdom 
Auxiliaries have given li,qe. 1,<) lively debai;es con- 
(:(w/ring (,heir (:xa, t:(, synl:a,c(:ic si,al;us (e.g. (\]h()m-- 
sky (1957), \]h>ss (1967), Pulhtn, and Wil- 
son (1.()77), Al(m;kjia, ii el, al. (1979), Gazda, 
(!1; M. (1!)82)): are (;hey simply main verbs 
wit,h Sl)ecial l)rOlmrl,ies , or should Lhey insl,an- 
d;1ol:e a stmcia\] c;1o(;egory AUX'? WiLhin cmren(; 
lexica.1 n.i)proacht~s (\[a xl( M--\[ lllI( tlOtl;tl-(, l ;!l'~lIll I,l 
(1,1 G), Hea.d-driven I)hrase S\[;ruc, tm'(', (~laml m,~ 
(IIPSG)), auxiliaries (e.g. h, rzve, be',) and modal,q 
(e.g. musl,, ,sh, o',,hl) arc (;rt:a, Led ;ts r,,i,sin9 verbs, 
which are marked as special iu some way: in 
tlI'SG through ;m \[AtrX: -I\] feal,m'e (l'ollard and 
Sag 1994), in IAVG (llresmm 1.¢)82) by a ditl'erence 
ill Pill'\]l) Va,ltl(L 2 Ih)wew~r, newt, work wil;hin I,f,'(I 
(13resnan 1995, T.II. King 1995) has been moving 
;~xvay from (;he r;fising ;~l)lntm,ch I,ow;uds ;m ;ma, l 3' 
sis where auxiliaries are O,\](!Ill(;lll;,q which conl;rilm(;c 
1,o (;hi' dause only I,(ms(',/aSl)ecl, , ;~greenmn(,, or 
voice informal;ion, 1)ul; no(; a sul)t:;Lt;egorizat;ion 
f'rmno. This view is also in line wil,h at)proaches 
wil;hin GB (Govermneni-Binding), which s(:e mtx- 
ilim'ies simply as possit)le insl;;m(,iat;ions of t, he 
l'uncl;ionat (:~(;(;gory i (st;(: ;tls¢) Iia,lh; a,nd Mmmll,z 
(1 :)!):3)). 
The "tradit, ional" tle;ttmenl, ot' ;mxilim'ies in 
1)o(;h Ill S(, (l)ollm'(t and Sag 1994) a ttd I,F(', has 
il;s roo|,s in l{oss's (1967) tlrol)osa.l 1,o I;re;~l; mtx- 
ilim'ies and moda,ls on a, par wil;\]l main v(!rlm. :~ 
US(!(; Falk (1984) for im ea, rly I,FCI l,l(:tloI;lil(;Ii(; of 
%; in line wil;h l;h;1o(; l)lOpos(:d herr:, ;md Abeilh',' and 
Godm'd (71994) for a similm' I;rt!.q£int!nt in l~}(:nt:lt. 
3t\]'ll(~ (;(~l'lll awxiliary has ofl,t:n been tAtk(!ll to Slll)- 
sume bol;h modMs ~md (;\](?lll(~ll\[;S Sll(;h ;is have ;tn(l be. 
lh)wev(w, (;he disl;incl;ion l)(~l;wt:(:n (.he Lwo is nt!t:t!ssmy 
not only semanl;i(:ally, bul, Mso synl;a(:t;i(',ally. In ('er- 
IIt I)m'l;icular, mlxiliaries are (a'ea.t;od as a sul)- 
class of raising vcrl)s (e.g. I%ll;u'd ;rod Sag (t994), 
Falk (1984)). l)br exmnph',, a simple seni;ence like, 
(\]) would correspond l;o (,he c-structure and f 
sl;rucl;ur(; shown in (2) ;rod (3), respecdvt',ly. Note 
(;hat the level of elnlmdtting in the f-structure ex- 
acl;ly mirrors t, he c-st, ructure: each verbM (:|cnwnt 
takes a c(/mpl(:m(:n(;. 
(1) Der Fahrer wird d(',n lh;1)el g(:drch(; haben 
the driver ,viii l;tl(: h:wn turne(l gave 
"l'he driver will have tinned t;h(: h!ver.' 
(~,) 
,% 
NI' VP 
der l"ahrer V\[ I mix\] VI' 
wird NP VP 
den llelml V' 
W v\[ 4.,.xl I 
V I 
gedre~ht: hah(m 
(:~) 
l'll)",l) 
TENSE 
,EIIB,I 
X(',OMI) 
'wird < xc > s' 
PItI'\]H 
l'l/l",l) 
( :ASIq 
(IEND 
NUM 
Sl'l';(~ 
PHI'H) 
SUH,I 
X(R)iVlI' 
N()M > 
MASC 
SG 
I)I'\]F -~J/ 
'halmn < xc > s' --- 
\] __ ~ 2 \[ 1 
pro,;1) 'drehen < s,o > ' \[ \]> 
SUB,I \] 
i'11)';I) q\[elml' 
CASE A(\](\] 
()ILl (IF, NI) MAS(\] 
NIJM S(,' 
S PI",( : DI'\]F 
The triain reasons (,o (;r(:a(; a.uxilim'i(:s as (:ompl(> 
lllCll(; taking verbs in English axe: 1) ;m m:(;oun(; 
of VP-(:llipsis, VP-l;ol)i(:aliz~i;ion, etc. follows im- 
m(:diaAx:ly; 2) l'C,';l;l'iCl;i()IlS ()ll (,lit: lDl,{;l/l'(~ Of l;hc VCl- 
hal COml)h;m(:nL (t)rogressive , t)as(; t)ard(:iph!, e((:.) 
following the auxiliary c;m l)e sl;al;(:d six;right;for 
wardly (l>ullum mM Wilson (1977), Akmajian (:I; 
hohls for (\]Cl'IH~-LII }1o,'4 well, ;rod in fact,, wil;hout 
man and (some di;1olect;s of) Fatglish modals (:;1oil lm 
sl;a.cked, while (;he disl;ribul, ion of mtxilim'it'.s is more 
resi;ricl;ed. Also, assuming thai; scream;it interpret;t- 
don is driven l)rinmrily off' of l;he fsl;ru(:lmr(:, l;he rel- 
ative embedding of modals mnsI; be preserved ~1oI; that; 
level in order to allow an inl;erl)rei:a(Aon of their scope 
a, tld S(:lll&lltic fol'c(!, 
183 
some sort of a hierar(:hieal stru(:ture, stating well- 
formedness conditions on a string of multiple aux- 
iliaries become.s wellnigh impossible, in light of the 
greater ordering possibilities gra.nted hy the flex- 
ible German word or(ler. There are a,lso major 
reasons, however, tbr nol; adopting this analysis: 
1) linguistic adequacy; 2) unmotivated structural 
complexity; 3) lion-parallel analyses for predica- 
tionally equivalent sentences. Consider the French 
e{luivalent of (\]) in (4). 
(4) Le {:ondu(:teur aura tourn6 le levier 
the driver will have turned the lever 
'The driver will have turned the lever.' 
As argued by Akmajian el; al. (1979), erosslin- 
guistic evidence indicates that elements bearing 
only tense, mood, or voice should helong to a dis- 
tinct syntacti(: category. In many languages, like 
Fr(;nch or Japalmse, the infornmtioll (:arried by 
'will (future), or have (perfect) is realized mort)ho- 
logically rather than i)eriphrastically. The analy- 
sis in (4) thus effcetiw?ly claims that there exists 
a dee t) difference in the pr{;{lieational structure of 
auxiliaries like will and have and the l~ench aura. 4 
This is not {lesirable flom ~L crosslinguisti{: point, 
of view, nor is it, helpful f{}r MT. 
3.2 Alternative Implementation 
The approach adopted here is a fiat analysis of 
auxiliaries at f-structure ((5)). 
(8) 
PI{EI) 
TENSE 
SUBJ 
O B J 
'drehen < 
FUTPEI/.F 
PRED 
CASE 
(I1,;N D 
NUM 
SPEC, 
PII,E/) 
CASE 
(\]I"N1) 
NUM 
SPIBC 
SUB,l, OBJ > ' 
~Fahrer' 
NOM 
MASC 
S(\] 
DEF 
'ttebel' 
ACC 
MASC 
S{-I 
DEF 
The auxiliaries wird 'will' and haben 'have' now 
only contribute information as to tit(', overall tense, 
lint do not subcategorize for complements. Struc- 
tural phenomena like VP-ellipsis, coordination, 
or topicalization can, however, still be accounted 
for ill terms of an apl)roi)riate emt)e, hling at c- 
structure (cf. (2)). The role of a.uxiliaries in nat- 
m'al language is now adequately modeled, ill par- 
tieular with respect to a more realistic treatment 
of tense (compare (3) and (5)), as the 1,¥ench (4) 
has essentially the same f-structure as (5)) 
4Note that wird 'will' is often analyzed as a modal 
in accordance with Vater (1975). However, the argu- 
inents i}resented there are not conclusive. 
'~The construction of the wflue for the cmnposed 
tenses results fl'om a complex interaction between the 
Ilowever, the fiat f-structure in (5) providc's 
no room for a statement of selectional require- 
ments, allowing massive overgeneration (e.g. noth- 
ing blocks the presence of two haben ill (1)). Nci- 
ther (:all the particular order of auxilia.ries be regu- 
lated. Our solution takes advantage of LFG's flex- 
iMe projection-based architecture by implement- 
ing a projection which models the hierarchical se- 
leetional requirements of auxiliaries, yet does not 
interfere with the sul)categorizatiomfl prot)erties 
of verbs, as wouhl he the ease under a raising anal- 
ysis. 
(@ 
VP 
t t M* --~ it* (I t M* 1)) -~ it* 
AUX VP 
wird ~J---J $=$ 
(~ xc* (;v) =4 # v* -- I'.* 
NP V' 
den tIebel 
?=$ $-~ 
(# M* l/) = It* t t M* -- #* 
V AUX 
I I 
gedreht haben 
in LFG, the flexihle word order of German is 
handled via flmctional wnccrtainty, which charac- 
terizes long-distance dependeneies without resort- 
ing to movement analyses (Netter (1988), Zaenen 
and Kaplan (1995)). As in (6), which illustrates 
our alternatiw; solution, functional uneertainty is 
represented by the Kleene Star (.).6 Tile annota- 
tion on the NPs indicates Lhat they could fulfill the 
role of any possible grammatical flmetion (GF), 
e.g. SUllJ or oB.I, and that the level of embedding 
ranges from zero to infinite. With e.very auxil- 
iary subcategorizing for an XCOMP, the two NPs 
could conceivably be arguments of three different 
verbs: wird, haben, or gedreht. Titus, the greater 
structural complexity unnecessarily increases the. 
search space for the deternfination of a verb's 
arguments. In (6), however, the m-structure is 
projected from the e-structure parallel to the f- 
structure through annotations similar to the usual 
f-structure annotations. 7 Statements about "mor- 
le~xical entries. Note that this treatment does not as 
yet include a fine-grained represention of tense and 
aspect. This is the subject of ongoing work. The 
treatment presented here provides th('~ basis needed 
for a thorougt, erosslinguistic analysis of temi)oral and 
aspectual phelmmena. 
6For space reasons, the xc indicates XCOMP, the D 
a DEP. 
rThe annotation p M* in (6) refers to the m- 
structure associated with the parent c-structure node, 
and t t* refers to the m-structure associated with the 
daughter node. The more familiar t and $ of I,FG 
are simply shorthand notations of the same idea, 
184 
1)h(/hlgi(:a,l" (hqmn(h!nt, s (1)l.;l') are duts dl~(:(/ul)h~(l 
from fun(:tiona, l un(:(;rl;a, inl;y: t;lm r(Ja, t;ion ()f NI' ar- 
gumenl,s t;(i l;heir l/re,(ti(',;~t(n' now (hies not; exl;(~n(t 
d.'ou,gh va,ri(ms layers (/i' m:l;ifi(',ial st, ru(:l,ural i:llm- 
1)h~xil;y (X(',OM Ps). For Vl)-l;ot)i(:~flization ()r ('~xt;r~> 
l/O,qition an unl/oun/|ed long-dist;an('(t de, l)(mdlm(:y 
must sl:ill 1)e a,ssmned, llow(w(~r, a,s die fun(:d/)na,l 
unl:lwl;Mnt;y 1)al;h f(n' mlxilia.ri(;n is disl:ril)ul;('xl only 
()V(U' l;h(~ lll-S(;l'llCtllI'(~ ()\[" the verb (:oml)le× ((p. \]" 
I)1';1'*) :- /;' -1-), and ih)<s not; involve 1,he r(~s()lu- 
tiou (/17 I,lm r(/h~ ill' NI) arguml'nt;s, t, her(~ ar/~ ill l'al:l, 
ditl'(;ring pat,hs of tTun('d/ma, l uu(:(ut, aint,y inv/)lv(~(l. 
'l'tm (h~p(;nd(',nc, ies 1)l,,lsw(~en llrl~di(:;~l, ors mM l,lmil 
a,rgmn(ml:s and auxiliari(~s a,ud I;h('ir d(q)lm(tents 
al'O (;hllS \[l(~,71t;ly r~Lc|;Ol,(~(| ()ill;, ~\['tl(} lII-S(,I'llC{;lll'(~ C()l'- 
rl~nl)on(ling t;o l;he ma, l;rix VI' in (6) is (7), Tim 
ih',sir(td liar; |L,'ql,rll(:l;lll'(; r(',suldng |?'ore t,he usual "\[ 
an(| -l- a.nll()l;a.l;i()lls iS as ill (5). 
I)lql' 
(V') 
AtlX t 
FIN I 
AUX 
I,'IN 
VI"Ott M 
1)El' 
IIASI,\] 
\[ b'/N 
VI,'()I{M I'l",l/VI' 
lake dm \[Stl'u(:l,url!, l;he ln-St;lll(%ltv(! is fin 
al, l, ril)ul,(>va.hl(~ ln~trix. It (!n(:()(h~s langn.ag(!-. 
st/('(:ific inf(n'uml;i(/n a,b(lul, idi(isyn(:rat;i(: i:/m- 
sl;ra,inl,s on morl)hol(/gi(:al l()rms. Tim m-sl;rn(:l,ur(~ 
is nol; ih',rived from t,he fstru('.l,url!. I{.al,lmr, ll/)l,t~ 
I'(!l)l'(~,S(~IlJ;:q,l.,i{)IIS a,l'(! ill Sillllll\[;allOt)llS C()IT(!SI)OII- 
(l(~n(:(~ wit, h (;l~l; (>st, l'llCl;llr(< ~\['\]1(~ following (;J> 
tn'cvia, ted) lexil:al /!nl;ry (~Xeml)lifi(~s l:lm pi(~l:cs o| 
in\['(/rma, l;il)n ne('xh~d. The (lisjm~cl;iv(! h~xi(:a,l en- 
t;ry for wi';¥l 'will' iu (8) l;akl!s 1,he various (:(nnbi- 
nalx)ry l)ossit)ilil;ies of auxilia.ries and maiu verl)s 
illtO ~L(:(',()lllll,, tLllll \])r(ivi(|(~,s 1;h(', ;q)propria,t;c t;Imse 
timt, m'e. |,'or i',xamph~, it; r(~lluires l;ha.1; l;he (unt)ell- 
d0d VV()IIM \])e BASI';, ,1/.i1(1 (;ha.t I;}l(!l'(t 1)o lto lmssive 
involved for a, simple ful:ur(~ likl,' wi'rd dvclu',n. 
(s) 
wird MIX 
(t;, M* AUX) ::-t 
{ (;,, M* .I.:~' w,'().M) --(: .~s~,: 
(I* M* l)l,;l, l)i,;t' \,'i,'()i(M) )/ I'I.;HI,'I' 
(t vAssw~,;) / + 
"simpl(~ fllt, llr(!: wird (\]l'/Jl(:ll" 
(I 'r~,:~sl,:)-: ~,'~'~' 
I 
(\]t M* I)1,;1' VI"(ltlM) --(: BASE 
(\]t, M* I)1,\]1' I)}",P VI"()I/M) -:(1 I'l';I{l"l' 
(1" IV.SSIVI,:) -7/- I- 
"fill;lit'(! t)(U'/'(~(:l;: wir(\[ gedrl!h(, hatlt!n" 
(I" 'l'l,;~s~,:) -: ~,'t;'rp~,;.~,' } 
iTui, l'(,slri,:ted 1;~, l,lm l,r,,i,,ct,i(m \['1'()11ll c stl'll(ttlll'(! 1:() 
f-sia'uci;ure: I" <t, m*,-1--- <lJ * 
~"l';lt;lll'(~s ll('.()(\](,~(l ()lily to (ulSUl'(~ la/lgllaP~e \[)al 
ti(:ulm wl;llformedu(:s,~ are no h)nger unified inl,o 
t;lm \[~struclmrl% clut, t(wing ;~ r(q)l'eS(:nl;~don l:ha.t, is 
m(!ant, tx) be language ind(;llendenl;. In our ana.ly- 
sis, only t'(!al;m'(!s nl!(;th;(l for fl~rtlmr stmmnl;ic iu. 
Ix!rl)r(!t, al;i/)n, MT, (n' for the e×l)ressh)n of \]all 
gua.ge univ(~rsa.l synl;;ml.il: gen(,,ra\]iza.l;i()ns are reI)- 
rt!sonl,(~d ~l,I; ft4rll(:tllr(< l,'()r (;Xaml)h~ , morpholog/- 
i(:ally (m(:{/(bd inf'ormalJ(m like case, g(m(|(w, //r 
al,~r(~(mmnt, is n(~(~ded f(n sl,at(tln(',nt,'-; as t() bind- 
ing, l)rl',dica.l:t>argmn(ml, relal;i()~ts, or 1;lm det;iwu6- 
ll~I,l,i()ll Of (;Oilll)l(;X (:la, use, SI;FllCl,/ltc.'-.; (,@vcll tha, t 
a,l~r(!(~,nl/!nt iS g(~nera.lly I:la.uSl;-1)(mnd(',d), and is 
1;|mr~\[or(~ r(~t)resr',nt(~d a.t. f4ru(:l,ur(< W(Jlt'(n'nmd- 
hess conditions (m a.(ljl~(:l;iv(~ intl(~(:ti(/n (it r(Jativc 
1)l'()ll()llll H,~l'(R!ill(ql\[;, how(~ver, C~-LII II()W 1)(! S\[,~Lt;O.(\[ 
im tlm lll-stru(:tlll(~ as i(lh)synl:ral;i(:, lang;uagt~ t)m- 
l,i(:ula, r intbrnu~l;i(in whi(:h (:a,n \])e ign(/r(!d for i)ur -- 
poses of MT or s(~nmnt;i(' int;ert)r(~l,a.ti(/u. 
4 MultiI)le Genitive NPs 
The dilf'ering surraue realizm,ion (ff ge.nit,iv(~s 
wit.hiu Nl's in I,'mgli.~h (pr(w(!rlml Nl's, l)OSt;ver- 
Iml I'l)s), l,~rench (posl.v(;rbal Pl's), mid (Ire'man 
(l)rew~rlm\] NPs, posl:verlm.1 PPs or NPs), poses 
a lmrl.imJar chall(m~,~, for a. I)a.ralh~l grammar (h> 
v(%t)m(mt; l)roj(~(:t, like I'AI((IIIAM. \]11 I:his ira. - 
1)(!r, w(~ Slll(gesl, a. l,r(!al;l\[l(~nl; ()f muli,iph~ g(midve. 
NPs whi(:h nol. only a(:c()unt.s for s()me r(;st.ricd()ns 
on t.lmir (lisl;rilmlion wilJml (Mrman, tml. a.ls()al- 
lows a languag(~ iml(!imlMe.t. (mfiversal) r(q)res(m- 
1,alion, thus f;t(:ilil,al;illg M~I '. 
In /,,etmral, I.he distribution of mull:iple NPs 
wil.hin NPs is an ar(m ol(',e, rman synl:ax whi(:h has 
IlOI, l'O,C(~iV(~d a sa,l,ist'4cl;()ry &ccolllll, I;o (I;tt;e ((!.g., 
I'()llztr(l and Sag (t994), llha,~;l; (1990), llai(hw 
(I !)88)). \]In (;(~1'I11~'111, 11()11IIS getmrally have at most 
()n\[~ g(mil;ive which ma.y o{:cu, r in ~ l)r(;l~ominal in 
i)ostnominal posil;ion adja(:enl; lx) t, lm noun. \]h)l;h 
kin(is of ge, nidv/~s ha,v(~ the sam(', morlJl(llogi('al 
slmpe. \[h-)wev(u', I,nninalizat;i(ms thai; a.re ihwiv(~d 
t'r(Im a l:ransidve verb all()w f(/r l;wo g/'mdv(',s, (/he 
ill 1;he l)renonfina\], \[h(! ()l:her in l;h(! l)ost.noulinal 
t)()sidlm. 
Tlm flml:l;iou of a g(!nil;iv(! is g/!n/u'a, lly (!xln(!ssed 
as in(li('al;in~,~ a Ii(/ssl'~s(ir: p(),~s witJfin Lt,'(;. I\[()w- 
(wer, in dm (:as(~ (if' two gl~nil;ivl',s, l:h(! assignml,.nl ()\[' 
l,wo poss va, hms vi(/la, tl;s l;tm uniqu(m(;ss-(:tlnllil,i(/n 
(m f-sl,ru(:l, url~s and is fut'l:h(wm(tr(; insuHi(',ilml; lxl 
(lim;i,guish t:h(', t,w(I ditiiwing kinds of g(midves. W(~ 
dmret'ore llrotlosl ,, lJm ul;ilizal;ion (/l' t:w(i flmcl;ions 
llallle(| (;I,;N\] a, ild (II,;N{2 ill orlhw txl avoid asso(:i:> 
lJl/n with any st)(~l:ili(' s(~nm,nl;i(: rob. |?ml;h(wmor(;, 
as g(',nidve, s iu I;h(~ NI ) arc g(Umlally ()l)t;ilma\], t,h(;y 
are l,aMm 1,o ('xt)ress n() ,t~ov(wned funct3()ns, i.e., 
l:hey m(~ n(/l, sut)(',al,iWiriz(~d for lly l,tm n(mn. So 
(;I';N\] ;/lid GI,;N2 ill'(! S(tllla, Ilti(; f'un(:t,i()ns ill \[,t5'(~ on 
a l)ar with, say, a(ljun(:l,s, q\]m NI' rule for German 
185 
then is (9). 8 
(9) NP ({DET: q'=; 
I NP: (T (raN1) =$ }) 
N: 
(NP: (\]" GEN2) =~.) 
If the head-noun is not derived from, say, a verb, 
the single genitive ill either position is interpreted 
as a possessor. In case of a derived nominal, how- 
ever, a genitive is interpreted according to tile the- 
matic roles assigned to tile arguments of the verbal 
base. That means the functions GFN1 and sc gen2 
have to be linked to the approt)riate roles. Neither 
of tile two functions is in principle restricted to 
any specific roh;. But if both genitives are present 
they must be interpreted according to a thematic 
role hierarchy. 
As (10) shows, if only one genitive is present, its 
prenominal interpretation may be as agent or as 
patient. A postnominal (single) genitive is inter- 
preted as agent if the head noun is derived fronl 
an intransitive, and as a patient/theme if derived 
from a transitive. 
(m) a. 
Elisabeths Lachen 
Elisabeth-Gen laughing 
'Elisabeth's laughter' 
b. l{oms Belagerung 
Rome-Gen siege 
'Rome's siege' 
However, if two genitives occur, as in (11), the 
prenominal genitive is restricted to an agent, and 
the postnominal one to patient. This restriction 
must be encoded at some lew;1, but does not fol- 
low from tile distiction between GEN\] and (IEN2, 
wtfich are flmctions that do not bear any semantic 
content on the.ir own. 
(11) 
Karls Behandhmg Pete.rs 
Karl-Gen treatment Peter-Gen 
'Karl's treatment of Peter' 
To obtain the correct linking, tile argument 
structure of the verbal base must be available. 
Since MT is based on f-structu,'es within PAtt,- 
(IRAM~ the argument structure has to be present 
at; this level of representation. '9 Nominalization 
is therefore implemented as a morphologically 
driven process (lexical rule) which eliminates suI~a 
and Ol<J fl'om the verb's subcategorization frame 
and enters tile verb's argument structure into tile 
8Abstracting away fl'om bar-level considerations 
and further ot)tional constituents, this ruh; captures 
the restrictions that determine the dislocation of a 
genitive in the matrix Nit 
9If a semantic or argulnelll; projection is assumed 
(e.g., Halvorsen and Kaplan, 1988), this informa- 
tion may be represented at another independent 
projection. 
lexical entry of the noun. This yields the option- 
ality of genitives while preserving tile underlying 
semantics, as shown in (12). The association of 
CEN1 and GEN2 then is determined according to 
a hierarchical order of arguments (Bresnan, 1995). 
This approach also provides a means of han- 
dling certain eases of categorial stfift. For in- 
stance, in German temporal and conditional ad- 
juncts mw be realized as PPs dominating an NP 
headed by a deverbal noun. English does not 
have this option, but employs an adjunct-clause 
instead. Ih;re, the GEN1 and GFN2 functions of 
the Germml fstructure have to be related cor- 
rectly to tile SUlIJ and OBJ functions of tile English 
f-structure. 
bei Naris 
at Karl-Oen 
nnlssten 
must-Past 
Darstellung des Vorfalls 
report tile accident-Gen 
alle lachen 
all laugh 
'when Karl reported the accident 
everyone had to laugh' 
Here the linking of the GEN1 and (;EN2 func- 
tions to the appropriate thematic rote in the Ger- 
man f-structure driw;s tile transfer of these func- 
tions to the SllllJ and oBJ time, lions of tile English 
f-structure. 
PREI) 'Darstellung' 
J 
ARG\] AGF, NT \] 
ARG-STI{ AI{G2 TIIEME 
GFN1 \[ I'll,H) 'Karl'\] 
(;EN2 \[ PI{E1) 'Vorfall' \] 
Pt{ED 'ret)ort < S/Ill,J, OIIJ > ' ~\] 
sulfa \[ pm,;~) 'Nm'l' \] l 
(mJ \[ PaEI) %ccident' \] 
Under this approach, languages now only dif- 
fer with respct to the categorial realisation of the 
flmction by ease-marked NP or PP. Thus, an ap- 
plication of this treatnmnt not only provides an 
adequate grammatical analysis of the NP in Ger- 
,nan, but also facilil, ates MT. 
5 Conclusion 
This paper has presented innovative approaches 
for two particular syntactic phenomena: auxil- 
iaries and multiple genitive NPs. The analyses 
proposed alh)w tile faetorization of language par- 
tieular, idiosyncratic information. This results in 
a cleaner treatment of auxiliaries by factoring out 
morphological wellformedness conditions, and al- 
lows for the preservation of argurnent structure 
186 
information in cases like that of the German mul- 
tiple genitive NP eoImtr,ction, where syntacti- 
(:ally dissimilar eonstru(:tions express essentially 
the same l)re(ticate-argulnent relations. As such, 
the work t)resented here can 1)e seen a.s a sma.ll t)ut 
necessary ste I) towards th(; re, alization of a/)road 
coverage grammar. In particular, the \[easil)ility 
of (levelot)ing paralM grammars for differing lan- 
guages is greatly increased through the formula.- 
don of uniformly applicable, transparent analyses. 
6 Acknowledgments 
We wouhl like to a(:knowledg(! .Judith Ib, rman, 
Mark Johnson, ll,on Kal)l;m, Marfa-l!iugenia Nif~o 
mtd Annie Zaenen for the many valuable discus- 
si()ns that served as input to this l)at)er. 
References 
Akmajian, A., S. Steele, and T. Wasow. 1979. 
The Category AUX in Universal Oratnlnar. 
Linguistic Inqwiry 1(/(1):1 64. 
l~hati,, C. 1!)911. Die syntaktisch(: Strukt'wr dcr 
Nominalphrasc im \])cuts(hen. 'Ciil)ingen: Narr. 
Berman, ,\]., and A. Frank. ~Ib ai)pear. Deutsche 
und FranzSsischc Syntax im I'brmalism'us der 
LFG. Tiibingen: Niemeyer. 
Bresnan, J. 1995. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Lec- 
ture Notes, ESSLI 7, Barcelona. 
Biesnan, J. (Ed.). 1982. Thc Mental Rcpw,.sc'n- 
to, lion of Grammatical R, clatio'ns. Cambridge, 
MA: MIT Press. 
l/uI;l;, M. 1994. Machine ~lhanslation and (\]om- 
plex Predicates In Proc(:cdings of KONVENS 
9~, 62 72. Vienna, September. 
l)alrymple, M., R. Kaplan, J. Maxwell, and A. Za- 
enen. (h;ds.). 1995. Formal Issues in Lexical- 
l,}tnctional Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI 
l?ublications. 
Da\]rymple,, M., J. Lamping, mid V. Saraswat. 
1993. LFG Semantics via Const;raints. In 
EA CL 5. 
Falk, Y. 1984. The English Auxiliary Sys- 
tem: a Lexi(:al-Fmmtional Analysis Language. 
60(3):483 509. 
ttaider, II. 1988. l)ie Struktur der dealts(:hen NP. 
Zcitschrift fiir Sprachwisscnschaft 7(1):32 79. 
Ilalle, M., and A. Marantz. 1993. Distrit)uted 
Mort)hology and l, he Pie(:(',s of hdte(:tion. In 
K. IIale and S.,1. Keyser (l.;ds.), 77,'. View 
from Building 20, 11 \] 176. Caml)ri(tge, Mas- 
sachusetts: The MIT 1)ress. 
ltalvorsen, I'.-K., and R. Kaplan. 1988. Pro- 
jec, tions and selnantic description in l,exk:al- 
Functiollal Gramlnar. In lh'occcdings of tit(: 
International Confrere.ace on Fifth Generation 
Computer Systems, 1116 1122. 
Kat)lan, R., K. Netter, J. Wedekind, and A. Zae- 
hen. 1989. Translati(m by structural (:orresl)on- 
dences. In EACL 4, 272 281. University of 
Manchester. 
Kapbm, R., and J. Wedekind. 1993. lkestric- 
lion and correst)ondence--based translation. In 
EACL 6. Unbersity of Utrecht, April. 
li(aplan, R., and .l. Maxwell. 1993. Grammar 
Writer's Workbeimh Ms., Xerox Corporation. 
King, T. I\[. 1995. Config'uri'ng Topic and Focus 
in Ibl, ssian. Stanford, Caliibrnia: CSLI I'ubli- 
(:ations. 
Nett,er, K. 1988. Non-local dependencies and in- 
finitival (:onstru(;tiolts ill German. In U. l{eyle, 
and C. l{ohrer(IMs.), Natural language parsin!; 
and linguistics theories. Dordrecht: Reidel. 
Pollard, C., and I. Sag. \] 994. Head-Driven Phrase 
St'ructuv(~ Grammar. Chicago, IL: The Univer- 
sity of Chi(:ago Press. 
Putlmn, G., and D. Wilson. 1977. Autonomous 
Syntax and the Analysis of Auxiliaries. Lan- 
guage, 53(4):741 788. 
Ross, J. t967. Const'laints on Variables in Syntax. 
PhD thesis, Mrl'. 
Sadler, L., 1. Crooks(on, D. Arnold, and A. Way. 
1990. LFG and translation. In Proccedin!\]s 
of the Th, ird Inter'national 6"onfcrcncc on IYte,- 
orctical and Methodological Issv, cs in Machine 
Translation, 11 13. Linguistic Research Cen- 
ter, Uniw;rsity of Texas at: Austin. 
Sadler, 1,., aim tl. Tholnt)son. 1991. Structural 
non-corresl)ondell(:e in translation. In EACL 5, 
293 298. Berli,. 
Vater, H. 1975. Wc'l'delt als Modalverb. In 
Calbert, and H. Vater (Eds.), Aspektc dcr 
Modalitiit. Tiibingen: Narr. 
187 
