27 
1965 International Conference 
on 
Computational Linguistics 
DATA PREPARATION FOR SYNTACTIC TRANSLATION 
L. W. Tosh 
The University of Texas 
P. O. Box 8611 
Austinj Texas 78712 
~ '?,\ 
I'.,," ~,+ "r-m,, < % % \ 
ABSTRACT 
TOSH 
The following paper discusses the preparation of 
syntactic data for use in a generalized language transla- 
tion systemj developed by the Linguistics Research Center 
at The University of Texas. Capabilities and limitations 
of translation by syntactic model are outlined and compared 
with the word-for-word model. 
TOSt! 1 
BACKGROUND 
In January of this year the Linguistics Research 
Center held its first demonstration of an operational system 
for experimental translation oF languages. We prepared n 
limited set of test data and used a pre-selected input text 
to demonstrate the operational status of computer programs 
in the system. I shall discuss briefly the model on which 
the translation system is based and the preparation of lin- 
1 guistic data used in the demonstration. 
LINGUISTICS RESEARCtl CENTER 
Two principal obiectives at the Linguistics 
Research Center have been the development of a generalized 
automatic translatiun system and the development of a lin- 
guistics computer system consisting of programs designed 
to facilitate the collection and maintenance of data for 
the translation system \[7\]. In addition to these objec- 
tives, we have undertaken related studies in information 
retrieval and automatic classification \[1, 2\]. The phil- 
osophy behind our research effort may be characterized as 
one of seeking general solutions to language description 
and translation as opposed to one of designing specialized 
TOSH 2 
algorithms. The general principles underlying our research 
have beBn discussed elsewhere) and I shall not dwell on them 
here \[4; 5; 6; 8, pp. 3-14; 9\]. 
Three organizational subdivisions of the Center 
are the Theoretical Linguistics Group, the Descriptive Lin- 
guistics Group and the Systems Group. Activities at the 
Center are distributed over these and other specialized 
are:~s in order to facilitate research. Results reported 
in this paper are presented from the point of view of acti- 
2 vities in the Descriptive Linguistics Group. 
The Descriptive Linguistics Group is currently 
engaged in maintaining research data in six languages: 
Chinese, English, German, Hebrew) Russian and Spanish. 
We are also maintaining data for independent) non-supported 
rescarch in Hindi and Old Saxon. We have just begun main- 
taining data for Japanese. Plans are being made to add 
French to the data in the Linguistics Research System in 
the near future. 
LINGUISTICS RESEARCII SYSTEM 
The Linguistics Research System is a hierarchical 
system of computer programs) which, in addition to programs 
in the experimental translation system, includes programs de- 
signed to support a stratified description of language data 
TOSH 3 
(see fold-out entitled LINGUISTICS RESEARCH SYSTE~). In 
the illustration the large boxes marked k~AINTAINANCE at 
the upper and lower part of the page represent the system 
of programs in which we collect and maintain language and 
descriptive linguistic data. The system of large boxes 
running across the middle of the page represents the 
translation system. Details of these programs will be 
found in \[8, pp. 83-103\]. I outline the functions of pro- 
grams in the translation system below. 
TRANSLATION ~!ODELS 
Various models have been proposed for automatic 
translation of languages. The models have been character- 
ized into at least three levels of increasing complexity 
and sophistication: 1. Word-for-word, 2. Rule-for-rule 
or syntactic, 3. Transformational-semantic. The inade- 
quacies of type 1. are known. ~lest of current investipa- 
tion is concentrated in some form or other on type 2., 
while type 3, models remain largely speculative. Trans- 
lation programs have been completed which will simulate models 
1. and 2. 
In model 1. we may perform word-for-word trans- 
lation by presenting an input corpus (see fold-out) to 
TOSH 4 
the LEXICAL ANALYSIS program. Analysis results in recog- 
nition of whatever forms have been defined in the lexical 
grammar. The results are transferred from the analysis 
program in ~ONOLINGUAL RECOGNITION to the LEXICAL ANALYSIS 
program in INTERLINGUAL RECOGNITION. Intermediate display 
programs are ordinarily by-passed in the translation mode. 
The data then pass to an INPUT TRANSFER tape before enter- 
ing the TRANSFER program. This program processed INPUT 
TRANSFER data against data from the INTERLINGUA tape to 
produce an OUTPUT TRANSFER tape. OUTPUT TRANSFER data 
pass into the LEXICAL SYNTIIESIS program in INTERLINGUAL 
PRODUCTION to be converted to an acceptable form for in- 
put to LEXICAL SYNTIIESIS in HONOLINGUAL PRODUCTION. The 
resulting data pass on to the OUTPUT CORPUS tape which 
serves as input to the CORPUS DISPLAY program. 
Output from this lowest level of translation 
would be word-for-word, morph-for-morph, etc. matching 
the order of input forms. There would be no control 
over output morphology or syntax. We have not considered 
it worthwhile to attempt to use model I. translation inde- 
pendently of model 2. 
Model 2. translation in the Linguistics Research 
System performs in a fashion operationally similar to model 
i. Instead of operating (horizontally on the fold-out) 
directly through the lexical level, however, we initiate 
TOSH 5 
the translation input in LEXICAL ANALYSIS and pass the 
resulting data (vertically) into SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS. 
Model 2. translation now continues horizontally on the 
syntactic level analogously to the manner described for 
tile lexical level. 
Output resulting from the syntactic transla- 
tion model observes the requirements for well-formedness 
in output language morphology and syntax. Examples from 
the January demonstration are given below. With large 
volumes of grammar data, this model is not expected to 
provide all the semantic collocational controls which we 
as linguists will want to maintain. Nor will it properly 
account for problems such as pronominal reference. These 
and other transformational problems will be dealt with in 
a still higher order of description and programming. The 
semantic order of programming has only recently been 
undertaken. 
The translation model used in the January demon- 
stration is essentially a type 2. model, although it con- 
tains some features proposed for type 5. models. Analysis 
is performed on the input language with a context-free 
phrase structure grammar. The structures which are thus 
identified are transformed into equivalent output language 
structures by the so-called transfer grammar. Translation 
output is then generated through a context-free phrase 
structure grammar o£ the output language \[15\]. 
TOStl 6 
Rules for use in a similar model are given by 
Ilse Langerhans \[3\]. The essential difference, however, 
between our model and that proposed by Langerhans is 
that in the latter the input language is analyzed into 
kernels, the kernels matched with equivalent output lan- 
guage kernels, and the output language kernels transformed 
into finished expressions. 
PREPARATION OF DATA 
For the demonstration, we selected a text in 
psychology to use as a test corpus in German, the input 
language (Appendix A). The corpus consisted of the first 
six paragraphs of an essay appearing in UNIVERSITAS \[I0\]. 
Members of our staff then prepared an English translation 
to be used as a test corpus in the output language (Appen- 
dix B). We use test corpora for verifying the morpho- 
syntactic description in each language before attempting 
to use the grammars in the translation system. To illus- 
trate the details of data preparation, I have chosen the 
second sentence from the third paragraph of text (Fig. I). 
This sentence was chosen for reasons of simplicity and 
economy of description. It is typical, however, of trans- 
formational problems in syntactic translation. We pro- 
TOSH 7 
;~ ¢i 
\ ~ .. ~ 
LD ~ 
\ / g ~ 
~t / ~ ~: . 
t~ ,,-I /° 
t ~-" ID 
z ~~ 
TOS~I 8 
vided a phrase structure description for the sentence, 
labelling those features of construction which would be 
necessary for morpho-syntactic (as opposed semantic) 
grammaticality in German. The description contains, 
therefore, more information than is necessary for recog- 
nition. But we are designing our grammars, in general, 
for bi-directional use. A similar description was pro- 
vided for the English translation (Fig. 2). 
After diagramming each sentence, we encoded 
the information contained ill the diagrams ill an equiva- 
lent phrase structure notation \[14\]. The data were then 
compiled in the computer system. As rules are compiled 
for each language, each rule is randomly assigned a per- 
manent identification number. After the respective 
grammars are compiled and displayed, we refer to them 
for the identification of each rule and record the appro- 
priate number by each occurrence of a rule in the diagram. 
The diagrams then appear as in Figures 3 and 4. 
VERIFICATION OF DATA 
To insure that a description for any given sen- 
tence is complete, we perform analysis on tlle sentence in 
the computer, using the grammar data accumulated up to 
that point. If automatic analysis is successful, we ex- 
TOSH 9 
U 
Z' 
o~.l 
~, .~ 
~=/~.~ .~ 
/ ~ ~ "~" A- _= 
/ ~~ / ~-'-~ 
',,,, 
~. ~ / Z ~.~. ~ ~. = 
~~° U u 
I.., 
.el l,.x. 
TOS|I 10 
Z 
> 0 
m/ t-. 
.== / 
I,-,,-,I 
~t,~ "' </ '-" 
N J °r"4 
~ Z 0 
TOSH 11 
/ u~ /_ ~ ~. u 
~ ~: /~ "-~ 
Z 
m ~ 
I~/~'-~ ~~- ~ ~, \ / ~.~__L~ 
\ I ,~/~ _______--~---------. 
~ z,~- ~ ~ .,~ 
• ~ ~ ,~~ 
Z /_ ~ m ,-.1 '~ Z r-. o 
I- I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,~ 
U 
Ill 
0 
I-, 
l.I. 
TOSII 12 
pect to see at least the analysis output corresponding 
to the information recorded in the diagram for the sen- 
tence. Often there are alternative anaIyses. If auto- 
matic analysis is incompIete, we reconstruct the rules 
needed and (re)compile them in the grammar. I shall 
not go into the details of analysis here, as they have 
been presented elsewhere \[8, 12, 13\]. 
TRANSLATIONAL TRANS FOR~;IATIONS 
After we verified the descriptions in each 
language, we went on to define the basis of interlin- 
gual transformation relationships. We selected a pair 
of sentences, one from each of the two languages. They 
are defined as equivalent in meaning by bi-lingual in- 
formants. Given the pair of sentences, we mapped corres- 
ponding sub-structures from one sentence on to the other. 
This information was recorded on the diagrams by circum- 
scribing the sub-structures (Fig. S). Normally these 
lines are added directly to the diagrams. For the sake 
of simplicity, I have omitted branching diagrams and 
class names from the illustrations. After we established 
the correspondences between each pair of sub-structures, 
we inspected each sub-structure to see of what it was 
TOStt 13 
composed. I have represented this information in Figures 
6 and 7 by the rule number(s) contained in each sub-structure. 
Suppose now we want to "transforms" i.e.~ trans- 
late the expression Bewusstsein into the expression con- 
sciousness. Bewusstsein (Figs. 3, 6) is represented by 
the rule 
42321: NIOW ÷ Bewusstsein 
Consciousness (Figs. 4, 7) is represented by the rule 
27951: NSF ÷ consciousness 
We define the equivalence of these two expressions by 
writing the bi-directional transformation Tx: 
\[42321\]g + T x + \[27951\] e 
This is equivalent to writing a reversible transformation 
between the structures of Figure R. 
Figure 8 
N1OW NSF 
Bewusstsein ÷~ consciousness 
TOSII 14 
Q__.________ 785 
..-' .-.. ................................. 27-:--- .... --2-2-." ..... - . 
/ '\, ....... :::: .......... -._. -.. 
/ ..i" " .... L3--""" ",. \ / 79 .,S;f \., / ..,.;:': - " 10234 '\ \,, ',, 
~56 /' \[ 9849 , \., /.//'" 626 . .. "' ""x 
/ ; i ~ "., . ., ." . ..... ""21"- ~ , ,, 
/ i / \\ \ ', . ,".;" .// \ . ",, / / 142138 !\\ ',\\ / ,. ,,,, ( 1037 _..) '\,, 
I t ~ \ \\ I/ i x,,.__._1-~ f---~- / / \! 
\[ , I 42321 ~ I I l/ '/964X',\ f/25835 k 42094 I~kk~s, ' ~ewusstsein !fist ;J~/~..~:)\niclit/J 
urns care it 
\[ 42094 \~ \l~t 
Figure 6 
45g 
/^6 i / ~.~._~ "\ . ./'~ ./ b~3 .~J- \x,, \ 
,/5 u //f'-~'~ \ //."f 466 ,/// 59615 ,)\"\ /- I i ~ ) \,, \ ,,'. '// .J>-.x\ 
/ // 27951 k'! 8696N}N'~ //13474 '~ / 13719 "~'X~ ~I/ 
Wha~t consciousness} ',is) ,J~x one) \cannot/tfurther) \[circumscrib)\[e)i.) 
Figure 7 
TOSlt 15 
Similarly, we may translate from an infinitive 
construction in the one language into a corresponding 
construction in the other. The infinitive of umschreib- 
is formed with -en by the rule 
628: INF/ACSTV ÷ V12A + en 
The corresponding English construction is formed 
by the rule 
359: VRBL ÷ VPR1A + e 
We record thus the transformation Ty 
\[6281 ÷ T ÷ \[359\] g y e 
to define the translation equivalence. This is equivalent 
to writing the transformation in Figure 9. 
Figure 9 
INF/ACSTV VRBL 
¢ % J • 
I • I • 
S % I 1 % 
VI2A I + en ÷~ VPRIA + e 
TOSII 16 
Tile foregoing examples are typical of the many rule-for- 
rule correspondences to be found in a pair of structurally 
similar languages. 
Of greater interest are those transformations 
of pairs of structures which are dissimilar in terms of 
constituent rules. In Figure 6 the sub-string kann (man) 
nicht (naeher umschreiben) is analyzed in part by the 
rule sequence 10234 + 10241 + 1035 + 626. The sub-string 
consists, furthermore, of a subject-verb inversion char- 
acteristic of German syntax. We may transform this con- 
struction of four rules into the corresponding English 
construction (Fig. 7) of three rules $33 + 466 + 28792 
by writing the transformation Tz: 
\[10234 + 10241 + 1035 + 626\] ~ T ÷ \[533 + 466 + 28792\] g z e 
This is equivalent to writing a transformation on the 
structures in Figure iO. 
J 
J 
| 
| 
kann + 
Figure I0 
/\ / 
"~ i \ / 
I / \ / 
t " \ 
PRN/S 1 ÷ night ÷ IN JV  RS/ACSTV 2 1 ÷ 
i/\ 
.1 \ \ 
i \ 
1 
I \ cannot + VRBL/PHRS 2 
TOSH 17 
The transformation brings us from tile subject-verb in- 
version of German into the normal subject-verb order for 
English. Superscripts are associated with all class names 
in phrase structure rules in order to maintain proper order 
of content substitution during transformation from one 
structure to another \[13, pp. 12f, 51-66\]. 
TRANSLATION OUTPUT 
After all translation data have been collected 
and compiled for a given test corpus, the next step is to 
verify the data in the computer system by attempting to 
carry out automatic translation. As in the case of auto- 
matic analysis, we expect translation output corresponding 
at least to the target language structures for which we 
have set up translation rules. That is, we expect in the 
case of successful translation an output which resembles 
within satisfactory limits the human translation given as 
the ideal goal. There may be, in addition, various alter- 
native paraphrases, but the content should be essentially 
the same. The more likely case in the beginning stages, 
naturally, is partial success mixed with failure. 
Our first output for German to English transla- 
tion is given in Appendix C. The unsatisfactory quality 
TOSll 18 
in this example is the result of a combination of program 
errors and inadequate linguistic data. Word-for-word out- 
put would produce results quite similar to this sample. 
Receiving such results, we referred back to the appropri- 
ate sentence diagrams and lists of translation rules to 
reconstruct the rules necessary for we11-formed output. 
A subsequent run with the needed additional translation 
3 rules is displayed in Appendix D. 
If we compare the computer translation (Appendix 
D) with tile human translation (Appendix B), they appear 
quite similar at first glance, as indeed we should hope 
they would be. A closer inspection, however, reveals 
numerous differences. Some of these result from weak- 
nesses in description as limited by the model, while some 
result from the alternatives implicit in the descriptive 
data -- alternatives which the model is designed to cope 
with. 
In the first or title paragraph, the German 
title is constructed in the framework of a prepositional 
phrase beginning with ueber. Since the human translation 
was prepared without a preposition, transformation rules 
were set up to delete the preposition accordingly in the 
computer version of the English output. This is probably 
not advisable, however, since in the syntactic model there 
TOStl 19 
is no satisfactory way to distinguish contextually a 
prepositional phrase functioning as a title from its 
other uses. The implication is, then, that we should re- 
formulate our transformation for this context to produce 
an English preposition like on. 
The human and machine translations are identi- 
cal in the first sentence o£ paragraph I denoted by the 
numbers 74 001 in the left margin (Appendices A, B, D). 
The German adverb allein, which is an element in the rela- 
tive clause modifying the subject-noun head, has been 
transformed into the English adverb only, which now is 
a member of the corresponding English subject-noun head 
construction and not an element of the following relative 
clause. For the German clause das Problem...so verzwei~t, 
we have transformed into the corresponding English clause 
the problem...so complex, inserting a copula verb i__ss. 
Finally, in the last clause of the German sentence there 
is a passive construction which has been transformed into 
an equivalent English active construction. There are 
transformations of similar complexity throughout the re- 
mainder of the corpus. 
There is an interesting difference between the 
last sentence of the human translation of paragraph I and 
the machine translation. In the human translation the 
sentence ends ...problem of a dependence of mental pro- 
cesses on the bed Z. In the machine translation the sen- 
TOStl 20 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
', ,'7"-, _) CL . 
1 ~'\ 
1 
I ~ o l I 
I i ~ I I I 
I ~ I I 
I I I I i 
! ~ I I 
t I ~ t i 
I I I I I I I 
l I , I I 
x'./ l / ; j , , 
/J I " ~ I i 
i, 
I 
l 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
Figure 5 
TOS\[I 21 
tence ends ...problem of a physical dependence of mental 
processes. Although all the necessary grammar rules and 
transformations were available to the translation system 
for producing an output identical with that of the human 
translation, it is interesting that the system picked 
instead an alternative paraphrase (and a potentially con- 
fusing one) which was more similar to the syntax of the 
original German input. The system's choice was made on 
the basis of certain probability parameters available to 
it and with which we are in continual experimentation. 
It is not surprising that the system selected such an 
alternative, for we expect such to be the case in the pre- 
sent model. What is interesting, however, is the fact 
that a choice was available even within the limited data 
set which we prepared for these few paragraphs. For this 
experiment the system had available to it dictionary data 
for the entire article of 52 paragraphs. With respect to 
syntactic data, however, it was quite limited since we 
supplied just the rules necessary to carry out analysis 
and/or synthesis of the six paragraphs involved in the 
experiment. Furthermore, we had limited ourselves in the 
transformation data to a choice of one syntactic output 
for each sentence -- the output identical with that of 
the human translation. Nonetheless, it is evident that 
in this small data set there are already sufficient 
TOSIt 22 
implicit relationships to permit unplanned for if not 
unexpected paraphrases. 
LIMITATIONS IN THE MODEL 
Paragraph 2 of Appendix D contains probably tile 
most frequent and characteristic examples of deviation 
from an ideal output. The paragraph contains a number of 
aberrant pronominal forms. Since German contains the forms 
e r, es, sic and ~11 their variant case forms and since all 
these :forms are ultinately correlatable with all forms of 
English he, she, it, it follows that we may generate any 
one of the English third singular pronouns from any one of 
the German third singular pronouns. In the model presented 
hcre, we have not, for instance, classified nouns on the 
basis of such features as gender, animateness, concreteness, 
etc. Thus, in the first sentence of paragraph 2, we have 
not classified either reader or brain as to referential 
gender. Consequently, at the moment when the translation 
system is prepared to generate a pronoun following the 
sequence ...at this moment when.., t the English grammar 
is so constructed and tied into the transformation-transfer 
data that the system may generate (just the proper case 
form of) all three third singular pronouns. Which one is 
generated depends on which rule has the highest probability 
value, in this case the rule producing the expression ij.t, 
since this is the most frequent of the pronouns in the text. 
It is not clear that the proper choice of English 
pronoun gender could be specified even if we included in 
the syntactic description such features as gender, animate- 
ness, etc. For some instances of pronoun-antecedent agree- 
ment will remain ambiguous, given two or more antecedents. 
The ambiguity occasionally cannot be resolved without resort 
to reference to the extra-linguistic environment. The first 
sentence of paragraph 2 is perhaps a case in point. Given 
the general context of psychology in which the test corpus 
was written, it is conceivable that either the pronoun he 
or it could refer back to the appropriate respective ante- 
cedents reader or brain. 
In those cases where pronoun-antecedent agreement 
can be stated within the linguistic environment, we should 
of course be prepared to build such features as gender, 
animateness, concreteness, countableness, and a host of 
other such features into our grammars--features which have 
been difficult to account for systematically before the 
advent of stratificational, tagmemic and transformational 
techniques. 
TOSt.! 24 
In the grammars we have undertaken so far for 
the several languages, we have tended to exclude such 
features from morpho-syntactic description. 
EXPANDING THE MODEL 
We shall include features such as lexical col- 
location (agent-action agreement) and transformations of 
semantic equivalence in a systematic description of a 
higher order which presupposes a morpho-syntactic descrip- 
tion for each language \[8, pp. 65-71\]. The following 
analogy might be drawn: just as strings of alphabetic and 
other characters are taken as a body of data to be parsed 
and classified by a phrase structure grammar, we may re- 
gard the string of rule numbers generated from a phrase 
structure analysis as a string of symbols to be parsed 
and classified in a still higher order grammar \[11; 13, 
pp. 67-83\], for which there is as yet no universally 
accepted nomenclature. The term transformational strongly 
suggests itself and is widely used, but the term semantic 
4 may seem more appropriate to others. 
TOSH 25 
PROJECTIONS 
During the coming year we shall proceed to 
expand syntactic description of all languages now under 
investigation. Sufficient transfer data will be com- 
piled between pairs of languages to test the general 
validity of the model and the general adequacy of the 
system of programs we are now using. Several questions 
suggest themselves with respect to limitations of the 
model, among them: I. how large will the syntactic 
description of a language be in terms of rules before 
the grammar converges on the languages, and 2. in what 
ways can we improve the quality of translation by using 
a more soih\[sticated model, say one in which there is 
a grammar of structural semantics? We shall be occupied 
primarily with these two questions in an e~fort to anti- 
cipate the need for modifying elements of the transla- 
tion programs and in an effort to test empirically with a 
comprehensive data base some of the more recent theories 
and notions of linguistics. 
FOOTNOTES 
I. 
TOSH F- 1 
Research at the Linguistics Research Center is supported 
by the National Science Foundation) the U. S. Army 
Electronics Laboratories) the U. S. Air Force and the 
Latin American Institute of The University of Texas. 
2. Recognition is due the entire LRC staff) present and 
past) for success in the results reported here. Among 
the linguists who contributed more immediately to the 
underlying data are: T. Baker, T. Git) M. Prince) 
K. Ryan) R. Stachowitz, A. Staves, C. Swinburn. In= 
tensive preparation of test data for the demonstra- 
tion covered the period from August) 1964 to January) 
1965. General research and development of programs 
have been under way since May) 19S9. 
3. On comparing the computer and human versions of the 
English translation with the German version, the 
reader is reminded that nowhere are any corpus data 
stored explicitly in the translation system of programs. 
Only raw corpus data in the source language are fed in 
as input to the analysis programs in the system. The 
analysis and synthesis programs use grammatical des- 
criptions in both languages with attendant transfor- 
mation/translation rules to produce output in the 
target language from the analysis-transfer-synthesis 
cycle. 
4. Perhaps a passing observation is in order. The term 
transformational) borrowed from mathematics) is a 
term generally applicable to any process of mapping 
equivalences of one structure onto another and so 
is applicable to all levels of linguistic description. 
FOOTNOTES (CONTINUED) 
TOSII F- 2 
It should uot~ therefore t be used to denote a particular 
level in a hierarchical structure. The term semantic~ 
on the other hand~ may perhaps come to be universally 
accepted as a hierarchical expression in some series like: 
pragmatic 
logical 
semantic 
syntactic 
morphological 
phono-/graphological 
TOSH R- I 
f~ .i / 
( - 
a. 
°° _( 
i-x 
m 
mo m ~ 
:~' 
~g' 
n t 
Q oo -i_ ~c ~ • 
,<~ , ,<~ 
z m i m 
z ~ 
__~ ._k. 
zm z.< 
~ ---g-- --~ 
~x 
r ~ 
-- --T- 
__~_. 
r~r- 
z ) 
-<r- 
~nm 
r~ 
~n 
r" > 
.< 
:zm 
~P 
--g'-- ~ 
z 
c" 
~nm I 
> 
me; 
, r', ,,-I ( 
m 
~'~ I 
m 
m 
o~c 
mill m 
m~ 
<o 
J\ 
\ 
t i 
/ o z 
e- 
,<1"~ 
m~ 
~ -_.,.__ 
r, 
/' ~o ~c 
/ ",, 
2- 
= 
o 
: r~ , 
N ~ 
-- / 
= 
mc~ 
i- ,-t c 
r 
o:\[c 
-.r 
m ~o 
~ t 
r- - 
n 
o 
n 
m I 
m 
zm I ....a 
z~ 
i 
~o ~z 
-,IO mr- 
u1~, ! 
,< 
oc D , 
> 
0 
APPENDIX' A TOSH A-:I 
GERMAN INPUT TEXT 
CORPUS DISPLAY 
74 300~001 
7'~ 30(3002 
74 300(003 
7'~ 300(0O4 
74 )001DO5 
74 3001006 
7~ )0 liD01 
74 30 £1002 
7,( 3011003 
74 )011004 
74 3011005 
7~ )o £t006 
7" )011007 
74 30 It008 
74 3021001 
74 )021002 
74 3021003 
74 )021004 
74 )021005 
7,{ 3021006 
7z )021007 
7~ )021008 
74 )021009 
7" )021010 
7,: :)021011 
74 )OPlO l ;'. 
7,< )0210).3 
7z )021014 
7~ 3021015 
7,( )021016 
7~3031001 
74 303002 
74 30~003 
74 30~004 
74 303~005 
74 30~006 
74 303\[00? 
743040O1 
74304002 
74 O04003 
74304004 
74304005 
74 304 006 
74304007 
74304008 
74304009 
74304010 
74004011 
74004012 
74304013 
7400.=001 
7400.=O02 
74 
UEBER DIE PHYSIOLOGISCHE GRUNDBEDINGUNG DES BEWUSSTSEINS 
(AUFSATZ VON PROF. DR. HANS SCHAEFER, UNIVERSITAET HEIDELBERG, 
IN/I/ /5/UNIVERSITAS/5/, OKTOBER 1959, 14. JAHRGANG, HEFT lOt 
SEITE 1079-I090} 
DIE KOERPERLICHEN BEDINGUNGEN, UNTER DENEN ALLEIN BEWUSSTSEIN 
MOEGLICH IST, SINO RECHT MANNIGFALTIG, DAS PROBLEM DER KOPPLUNG 
VON PSYCHISCHEM AN DIE STRUKTUR UNSERES GEHIRNS SO VERZWEIGT, DASS 
IN EINEM AUFSATZ NUR EIN TEILPRDBLEM HERAUSGEGRIFFEN WERDEN KANN. 
WAS HIER BEHANDELT WERDEN SOLE, STELLT DAS (WIE ICH GLAUBE| 
WESENTLICHSTE PROBLEM EINER KOERPERLICHEN BEDINGTHEIT 
SEELISCHER VORGAENGE DAR. 
I 
DER ZUSTAND, DEN DAS GEHIRN DES LESERS IN DIESEM AUGENBLICK 
AUFWEIST, WO ER SICH ENTSCHLOSSEN HAT, EIN SO KOMPLIZIERTES THEMA 
MIT DEM VERFASSER GEMEINSAM ZU BETRACHTEN, IST DER EINER WACHEN 
AUFMERKSAMKEIT. IN \[HM ... D.H. IN DEMJENIGEN TEIL SEINER PERSON, 
DEN ER SEIN /5/ICH/5/ NENNT UND DER SEINER SELBSTBEOBACHTUNG IN DIES 
EM MOMENT DFFENLIEGT, FINDET ER JETZT EINE REIHE YON UEBERLEGUNGEN 
VOR, DIE TEILS MIT DEM GLEICH SIND, WAS DER.VERFASSER ZUR ZEIT DER 
ABFASSUNG OIESES AUFSATZES AUCH UEBERLEGTE. TEILS WEICHEN SEINE 
GEDANKEN VON DENEN DES VERFASSERS EIN WENIG AB, WAS ALLEIN DADURCH 
VERSTAENDLICH IST, DASS DER VERFASSER DIESE GEDANKEN PRODUZIERTE, 
IM UEBRIGEN AUCH FUER RICHTIG HAELT, DER LESER DAGEGEN DER 
151NAChDENKENDE/5/, WElL EMPFANGENOE IST UND DABEI HOFFENTLICH 
NICHT GANZ DEN ZWANG LOSWIRD, BEIM NACHDENKEN DAS, WAS IHM GESAGT 
WIRD, AUF SEINE /5/RICHTIGKEIT/5/ ZU UEBERPRUEFEN. 
ALLES DAS ABER LAEUFT IM LESER ALS /5/BEWUSSTSEIN/51 AB, ALSO 
DORT~ WO /5/ER SELBSTIS/ ZU HAUSE IST. IWAS BEWUSSTSEIN IST, KANN 
MAN NICHT NAEHER UMSCHREIBEN.JES GIBT KEINE BESCHREIBUNGSMITTEL 
FUER ETWAS, DAS SELBER EINER JEDEN BESCHREIBUNG ALLER DINGE 
VORAUSGEHT. ALLES, WAS WIR BESCHREIBEN, SIND VORGAENGE, DIE IHRE 
SPUR VORHER IN UNSER BEWUSSTSEIN EINGEGRABEN HABEN. 
WENN WIR EINEN AUGENBLICK UNSERE AUFMERKSAMKEIT IM ZIMMER 
UMHERWANDERN LASSENp IN DEM WIR SITZEN/I/ VIELLEICHT HOEREN WIR 
JETZT EINE UHR TICKEN, EIN GLOCKENTON MAG VON AUSSEN AN UNSER OHR 
DRINGEN, ODER EIN KIND PLAPPERT VOR SICH HIN ... WOVON WIR VORHER 
NICHTS WAHRGENOMMEN HABEN. WENN WIR AUFMERKSAME LESER SIND, 
VERGESSEN WIR ALLES UM UNS HERUM, VIELLEICHT NICHT IMMER BEI EINEM 
WISSENSCHAFTLICHEN TEXT WIE DIESEM, BEI DEM SO VIEL KONZENTRATION 
ZU VIEL VERLANGT WAERE. WER ABER KENNT NICHT DEN LESER DES 
KRIMINALROMANS, DER IN SICH VERSUNKEN DIE WELT 
VERGISST SOGAR DAS DONNERN DER UNTERGRUNDBAHN, DIE ER BENUTZEN 
WILL UND ~E NUN DEM ERSCHRECKT AUFFAHRENDEN BEREI\[S 
DAVONGEFAHREN IST. 
DIESE KURZE GEMEINSAME UEBERLEGUNG IST EINE ART EXPERIMENT MIT 
UNS SELBST GEWESEN, UM DREI BEGRIFFE ZU KLAEREN/I/ BEWUSSTSEIN, 
CORPUS DISPLAY 
74005003 
74005004 
7400~005 
7400~006 
740051007 
7400~0OB 
740051009 
7~005{010 
7400~011 
740051012 
740051013 
7400~014 
740051015 
740051016 
74 00510 17 
74 006100£ 
74 0061002 
7~ 00~003 
7~00~004 
74006.005 740061006 
7~0061007 
7~0061008 7~oo61oo9 
ALSO DAS, WAS WIR IN UNS UNMITTELBAR VORFINOEN/2/ AUFMERKSAMKEIT 
ALS EIN WORT FUER EINE UNS ZUNAECHST UNERKLAERLICHE KRAFT, DIE 
UNSER BEWUSSTSEIN YON DEN MEISTEN GEGENSTAENOEN UNSERER UMWELT 
WEGZIEHT UND EINEM EINZIGEN VORGANG ZUWENDET/2/ ENOLICH OINGEp DIE 
ZWAR UNSERE SINNESORGANE TREFFEN (GERAEUSCHE Z.B.)t VON DIESEN AUCH 
MELDUNGEN IN DAS GEHIRN SCHICKEN, WIE WIR SICHER WISSEN, DOCH IN 
UNSEREM GEHIRN NICHT IN DAS BEWUSSTSEIN DRINGEN, ALSO UNBEWUSST 
VERBLEIBEN. SIE ENTGEHEN UNSERER AUFMERKSAMKEIT, HINFERLASSEN ABER 
DOCH \[HRE SPUREN, DENN NACHTRAEGLICH NACH DEM BEFRAGT, WAS WAEHREND 
DER LEKTUERE DES KRIMINALROMANS UM UNSEREN VERTIEFTEN LESER VOR 
SICH GING, WIRD ER SICH AN MANCHES ERINNERN, WENN AUCH UNDEUTLICH. 
IN EINER HYPNOSE LASSEN SICH SOLCHE ERINNERUNGSSPUREN UNTER 
UMSTAENDEN NOCH WEITER ERHELLEN UND INS LICHT DES BEWUSSTSEINS 
HEBEN. 
BEWUSSTSEIN IST ALSO ... VON INNEN GESEHEN ... ETWAS, DAS AN 
EINEN STROM VON ERREGUNGEN GEBUNDEN, AUS SINNESORGANEN UEBER NERVEN 
IN ZENTRALNERVOESE STRUKTUREN EILEND, HIE UND DA AUFBLITZT, VON 
EINEM TEILE DIESES STROMES BESITZ ERGREIFT UND JE NACH DER RICHTUNG 
DER AUFMERKSAMKEI\[ BALD HIER BALD DORT ETWAS /5/WAHRNIMMT/5/. 
/5/WAHRNEHMEN/5/ HAT MIT /5/NEHMEN/5/ ZU TUN UND DRUECKT EINEN 
AKTIVEN ANTEIL UNSERES ICH AN DER AUSWAHL AUS DER SUMME MDEGLICHER 
ERFAHRbNGEN AUSo 
CORPUS DI 
74001001 
7400|002 
7400\] C003 
74DOIC04 
74001005 
74301006 
74001 C007 
74302001 
76302002 
7~.302003 
7ft 302004 
74302005 
743020006 
7'( 302(307 
7'~ 302008 
74 )02009 
7'~ 302010 
74 302011 
7~ 302012 
74 )02013 
74 )02014 
74 302015 
74 303001 
74 )03002 
74 303003 
74 )03004 
74 )03005 
7~ )03r~06 
7~ 303D07 
74 )03~OB 
74 \]04001 
7~ )04002 
7~i )04003 
7~ )041004 
74 ' ' ,0z~005 
74 )0~306 
7z~ )040007 
74 )04;08 
74 )04309 
74 )04010 
74 )041311 
7~ )051301 
74 )051302 
74 \]053003 
74 )05 304 
74 )005 005 
76 10~306 
74 )0~:007 
APPENDIX B TOSH 
ENGLISH CORPUS DISPLAY 
SPLAY 
HUMAN TRANSLATION 
THE ONLY BODILY CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH CONSCIOUSNESS IS POSSIBLE 
ARE QUITE DIVERSE AND THE PROBLEM OF CONNECTING THE PSYCHIC WITH 
THE STRUCTURE OF OUR BRAIN IS SO COMPLEX THAT IN AN ESSAY ONE CAN 
ONLY SELECT A PARTIAL PROBLEM. THE SUBJECT TO BE CONSIDERED HERE 
REPRESENTS (IN MY OPINION) THE MOST ESSENTIAL PROBLEM OF A 
DEPENDENCE OF MENTAL PROCESSES ON THE BODY. 
THE CONDITION OF THE READERI6/S BRAIN AT THIS MOMENT WHEN HE HAS 
DECIDED TO CONSIDER WITH THE AUTHOR SUCH A COMPLICATED SUBJECT IS 
THAT OF WAKEFUL ATTENTIVENESS. IN ITp I.E. IN THAT PART OF HIS 
PERSON WHICH HE CALLS HIS ~5~EGO~5/ AND WHICH AT THIS MOMENT IS 
OPEN TO HIS SELF-OBSERVATICN, HE NOW DISCOVERS A SERIES OF 
REFLECTIONS, WHICH ARE PARTLY IDENTICAL WITH THE AUTHOR/61S 
REFLECTIONS AT THE TIME THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN. PARTLY~ HIS 
THOUGHTS DIFFER A LITTLE FROM THE AUTHOR/6/St WHICH IS 
UNDERSTANDABLE MERELY THRCUGH THE FACT THAT THE AUTHOR PRODUCED 
THESE THOUGHTS, AND FURTHERMORE CONSIDERS THEM CORRECT, WHILE THE 
READER IS THE RECEIVING PARTY AND THEREFORE THE /5/MEDITATOR,/5/ 
AND~ HOPEFULLY, DOES NOT IN THE PROCESS LOSE THE COMPULSION TO 
EXAMINE WHAT HE IS BEING TOLD AS TO ITS CORRECTNESS. 
ALL THIS/ HOWEVER, PROCEEDS IN THE READER AS /5/CONSCIOUSNESS,/5/ 
.I.E. IN THAT AREA WHERE /S/HE HIMSELFI51 IS AT HOME.~ 
CONSCIOUSNESS IS, ONE CANNOT FURTHER CIRCUMSCRIBE'ITHERE IS NO 
MEANS CF DESCRIPTION FOR SOMETHING WHICH ITSELF PRECEDES ANY 
DESCRIPTION OF ALL THINGS. EVERYTHING WE DESCRIBE CONSISTS OF 
PROCESSES WHICH HAVE FIRST ENGRAVED THEIR TRACES IN OUR 
CONSCIOUSNESS. 
IF WE LET OUR ATTENTION ROAM ABOUT FOR A MOMENT IN THE ROOM IN 
WHICH WE ARE SITTING/I/ MAYBE WE NOW HEAR THE TICKING OF A CLOCK, 
THE PEAL OF A BELL MAY REACH OUR EARS FROM OUTSIDE, OR A CHILD 
BABBLES TO HIMSELF ... NOTHING OF WHICH WE PERCEIVED EARLIER. IF WE 
ARE ATTENTIVE READERS, WE WILL FORGET EVERYTHING AROUND US/ MAYBE 
NOT ALWAYS WITH A SCIENTIFIC TEXT LIKE THIS ONE, WHERE SUCH 
CONCENTRATION WOULD BE TOO MUCH TO EXPECT. BUT WHO DOES NOT KNOW 
THE READER OF A DETECTIVE STORY WHO, LOST IN HIMSELF, FORGETS THE 
WORLD ... EVEN THE THUNDER OF THE SUBWAY WHICH HE WANTED TO TAKE 
AND WHICH NOW THE STARTLED READER, JUMPING UP, HAS ALREADY MISSED. 
THIS SHORT JOINT REFLECTION HAS BEEN A KIND OF EXPERIMENT WITH 
OURSELVES IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THREE CONCEPTS/L/ CONSCIOUSNESS, 
I.E. ThAT WHICH WE FIND DIRECTLY IN OURSELVES/2/ ATTENTIVENESS AS 
A TERM FOR A FORCE WHICH IS AT FIRST INEXPLICABLE, WHICH DRAWS 
AWAY OUR CONSCIOUSNESS FROM MOST OBJECTS OF OUR ENVIRONMENT AND 
DIRECTS IT TOWARD A SINGLE PROCESS/2/ FINALLY, THINGS WHICH MEET 
OUR SENSE ORGANS (E.G. NOISES) AND, AS wE DEFINITELY KNOW/ SEND 
A- ,~2 
CORPUS DISPLAY 
740050008 
74005C009 
740005010 
760005011 
7400050L2 
740005013 
7400005014 
740050015 
7~00050016 
REPORTS FROM THEM TO OUR BRAIN, BUT DO NOT PENETRATE INTO 
CONSCIOUSNESS WITHIN OUR BRAIN, AND THUS REMAIN UNCONSCIOUS. 
THEY ESCAPE OUR ATTENTION BUT LEAVE THEIR TRACES, FOR IF ASKED 
SUBSECUENTLY ABOUT THAT WHICH TOOK PLACE AROUND OUR ABSORBED 
READER WHILE HE WAS READING THE DETECTIVE STORY, HE WILL REMEMBER 
SOME THINGSj IF ONLY DIMLY SO. IN CERTAIN CASES SUCH MEMORY TRACES 
MAY BE ILLUMINATED EVEN FURTHER UNDER HYPNOSIS AND MAY BE RAISED 
INTO ThE LIGHT OF CONSCIOUSNESS. 
74000600l 
74000060002 
76006C003 
7400060004 
740006005 
7400060006 
74C0600007 
740006008 
76006009 
CONSCIOUSNESS ... SEEN FROM WITHIN ... IS THUS SOMETHING TIED TO A 
STREAM OF STIMULI, WHICH RUSHES FROM OUR SENSES BY WAY OF OUR 
NERVES INTO. CENTRAL NERVOUS STRUCTURES, LIGHTS UP HERE AND THERE, 
TAKES POSSESSION OF A PART OF THIS STREAM AND, DEPENDING ON THE 
PARTICULAR DIRECTION OF THE ATTENTIVENESS, PERCEIVES SOMETHING HERE 
AND THERE. /SITE PERCEIVE/S/ HAS TO DO WITH I51TO TAKE,I51 AND 
EXPRESSES AN ACTIVE INTEREST OF OUR EGO IN SELECTING FROM THE SUM 
OF POSSIBLE EXPERIENCES. 
APPENDIX C TOSH A- 3 
FINAL DISPLAY F'J~:KST 1-~'~ /~YT- O~TP~ /3 3~/b/ 6 %-- 
7400q001 ~-7~UEBER T~.L~ PHYSIOLOGISCHE GRUNDBEDINGUNG DES CONSCIOUSNESSS (~ 
7400~002 ~ESSAY VON PROF. DR. HANS SCHAEFER~UNIVERSITAET HEIDELBERG, INIII I 
7400q003 \[ISIUNIVERSITASIS/,CKTCBER 1959, 14. JAHRGANG~ HEFT IO,SEITE \[ 
7400~006 1079-1090) ........... 1 
1 J .... 7~00~001 THE BOD~(EN:BEO-\[NGUNGEN, UNT\[R DENENJHERELY CONSCIOUSNESS 
76001'002 POSSIBLE~E\[T~ SIN.O.R_.~.U~JOIVERSE, THE PROBLEM TE~.p~ 
7~00\]003 PSYCHICEI~NLTHE STRUCTUR WE BRAINS SO COMPLEX\[1T~-DAS~JIN AN 
7600\]006 ESSAY ~ A PARTIAL PROBLEM SELECT~"~'~'~CANt~"~"H-ERE 
7600\]O05 CONSIDER._~WERDEN SO~L! ~TELL~ THE.~r-ICH_ CLAUSE| \]ESSENTIAL~j~ 
76001006 PROBLEM~ B~ E~~ MENTAI.~ PROCESS~. 
76002 
7400~ 
7400~ 
7kCOE 
76002 
7400~ 
76002 
74002 
76002 
76002 
76002 
7600~ 
76002 
76002 
76003 
76003 
76003 
76003 
76003 
76003 
76003 
74004 
76004 
76004 
7400~ 
760O4 
7~00~ 
76004 
76006 
76004 
76004 
76004 
74005 
76005 
7600~ 
76005 
7400~ 
76005 
76005 
001 I THE~ZUSTANDo OENJTHE BRAIN THE READERS IN THESE MOMENT 
002 ~UFWEI'S~, tWO'HE_ DECIDED~HAT, EIN SO/ CQHPLICATED~ SUBJECII.A_.M~.I/ 
'003 THE AUTHOR\[GEMEINSAM ZU BETRACHTEN, .IST DER EIN~WAKEFULI~.I~J__ 
OO4 ATTENTION. IN" IT ...JD.H."IN DEMJENIGEN TEILtIIt~.~JPERSON, LDE~HE 
005 IT /5/ EGO/5/ CALLer UND DER|I~F'OBSERVATIDN IN TH~SE 
006 N ONENTIdFFENL|EGT, FINDETIHE NOW IEINE\] SERIES WON UEBERLEGUNGEN_ 
007 V'~_~.~..~PARTLY~..IT DEM GLEI._CH SINDLWA~THE AUTHOR~.,_ZEI..LT\]THE 
008 HRITT THESE E~SAYESL~REFLECTION~_.~J. P ARTL Y l WEI CHEN~ I \]lEJ ~ 
009 THOUGH~VON .DENEffi THE AUTHORS A LITTLEIABt WA$\]MERELY(DADURC~ 
010 UNDERSTANDABL LIST, DAS~THE AUTHOR THESE THOU.~PROOUC1L~ 
011 FURTHERMORE F-O-R-'-~'I~R~E~~, THE READER LOAGEGE_N~THE ~E. 
013 ~A'I~'Z\]THE COMPULSIGN~LOSHIRD, BEIM NACHDE~~L_~ITGL~E. _ 
016 -TOLDT WIRD, .A._U_~L I1~_\]/5/ CORRECTNESS/5/~U UEBERPRUEF.~ 
001 ALLES DAS ABER LAEUFT IN THE READER ALS 151 CONSCIOUSNESS/S/ AS, 
002 ALSO DORTt WO /51 HE HIMSELF/S/ AT HOME IST.WAS CONSCIOUSNESS 
003 IST, CAN ONE NICHT FURTHER CIRCUMSCRIBEN.ES GIST NO 
006 BESCHREIBUNGSMITTEL FOR SOMETHING, DAS SELBER EINER JEDEN 
005 DESCRIPTION ALLER THINGE PRECEDES.ALLESt WAS WE DESCRIBEN, SIND 
006 PROCESSE, DIE THEIRE TRAC FIRST IN WE CONSCIOUSNESS 
007 EINGEGRABEN HABEN. ' 
001 WENN WE FOR A MOMENT WE ATTENTION IM ROOM ABOUT ROA~N. LET, 
002 IN OEM WE SITTEN/I/ MAYBE HEAREN WE NOW A CLOCK TICKENt EIN 
003 GLOCKENTON MAY FROM OUTSIDE AN OUR EARS DRINGENt ODER A CHILD 
006 BABBLT TO HIMSELF .o. WOVON WE FIRST NOTHING WAHRGENOMMEN 
005 HABEN.WENN WE ATTENTIVEE READER SINO, FORGETEN WE ALLES UM UNS 
006 HEHUMt MAYBE NOT ALWAYS WITH EINEM SCIENTIFICEN TEXT HIE 
007 THESE, WITH DEM SUCH CONCENTRATION ZU VIEL VERLANGT HAERE.HER 
008 ABER KNOWT NICHT THE READER THE DETECTIVE STORYS, DER IN SICH 
009 VERSUNKEN THE WORLD FORGETT ... EVEN THE THUNDER THE 
010 SUBWAY, DIE HE BENUTZEN HILL UND THE NOW THE STARTLT JUMPING 
011 UPEN ALREADY DAVONGEFAHREN IST. 
OOL THESE KURZE GEMEINSAME UEBERLEGUNG IST EINE ART EXPERIMENT MIT 
002 UNS SELBST GEWESEN, UM DREI BEGRIFFE ZU KLAEREN/I/ 
003 CONSCIOUSNESS, ALSO DAS, WAS WE IN UNS UNMITTELBAR VORFINDENI21 
004 ATTENTION ALS EIN WORI FOR EINE UNS ZUNAECHST UNERKLAERLICHE 
005 KRAFTI DIE WE CONSCIOUSNESS VON THE MEISTEN GEGENSTAENDEN 
006 UNSERER UMWELT WEGZIEHT UND EINEM EINZIGEN VORGANG ZUWENDET/2/ 
DO7 ENDLICH THINGEI" DIE ZWAR WE SINNESORGANE TREFFEN IGERAEUSCHE 
74 
74 
74 
74 
74 
7~ 
74 
74 
74 
O05)O08 
0O51009 
OOSlOlO 
OOSDII 
0051012 
0051013 
005D14 
iO05DZ5 
005~16 
Z.B.), VON DIESEN AUCH MELDUNGEN IN THE BRAIN SCHICKENt WIE WE 
SICHER WISSENt DOCH IN UNSEREM BRAIN NICHT IN THE 
CONSCIOUSNESS DRINGEN, ALSO UNBEWUSST VERBLEIBEN.SIE ENTGEHEN 
UNSERER ATTENTION, HINTERLASSEN ABER DOCH THEIRE TRACENt DENN 
NACHTRAEGLICH NACH DEM BEFRAGT, WAS WAEHREND THE LEKTUERE THE" 
DETECTIVE STDRYS UM UNSEREN VERTIEFTEN READER VOR SICH GING, WIRD 
HE ETCH AN MANCHES ERINNERN, WENN AUCH UNDEUTLICH. IN EINER 
HYPNOSELASSEN SICH SOLCHE ERINNERUNGSSPUREN UNTER UMSTAENDEN NOCH 
WEITER ERHELLEN UND INS LICHT THE CONSCIOUSNESSS HEBEN. 
'74 
74 
74 
74 
74 
74 
,74 
74 
74 
74 
74 
74 
74 
74 
74. 
74. 
74 
74. 
74 
74. 
FINAL DISPLAY 
7Qooqool 7,~ooqoo2 
7~00~003 
7~001\]00 I l'~ootloo2 
74001003 
7~001004 
74~001005 
74001006 
002001 
002002 
002003 
002004. 
002005 
002006 
002007 
002008 
002009 
002910 
002911 
002912 
002313 
003301 
003302 
303303 
003304. 
003305 
903306 
003307 
74.004.301 
74. 304.~ )02 
74.304.)03 
74004304. 
74.904305 
7~ 3041306 
7 ~ 3041307 
7~ 00~308 
7~ 0044309 
7 L 304.\]310 
7z 3041311 
~ 30513Ol 
71 305{\]02 
7~ 3051303 
7 '+ 00.~)04 
7" 30~ )05 
7 L 30. c ;06 
71 30=+ )07 
7' 30 = . )08 
7~ 3DE )09 
APPENDIX D 
MACHINE TRANSLATION OUTPUT 
TOSH A- 4 
74 THE PHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF CONSCIOUSNESS {ESSAY BY PROF. 
DR. HANS SCHAEFER, UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG, INIII UNIVERSITAS, 
OCTOBER 1959, VOLUME 14, NUMBER i0, PAGES 1079 - IOgO.) 
THE ONLY BODILY CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH CONSCIOUSNESS IS 
POSSIBLE ARE QUITE DIVERSE AND THE PROBLEM OF CONNECTING THE 
PSYCHIC WITH THE STRUCTURE OF OUR BRAIN IS $0 COMPLEX THAT IN AN 
ESSAY ONE CAN ONLY SELECT A PARTIAL PROBLEM. THE SUBJECT TO BE 
CONSIDERED HERE REPRESENTS {IN MY OPINION) THE MOST ESSENTIAL 
PROBLEM OF A PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE OF MENTAL PROCESSES. 
I THE CONDITION OF THE READER/6/S BRAIN AT THIS MOMENT WHEN IT 
HAS DECIDED TO CONSIDER WITH THE AUTHOR SUCH A COMPLICATED 
SUBJECT IS THAT OF WAKEFUL ATTENTIVENESS. IN IT, I.E. IN THAT 
PART OF ITS PERSON WHICH IT CALLS ITS /5/EG0/5/ AND WHICH AT THIS 
MOMENT IS OPEN TO ITS SELF-OBSERVATION, IT NOW DISCOVERS A SERIES 
OF REFLECTIONS, WHICH ARE PARTLY IDENTICAL WITH THE AUTHORI61S 
REFLECTIONS AT THE TIME WHEN THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN. PARTLY, ITS 
THOUGHTS DIFFER A LITTLE FROM THE AUTHOR/6/S, WHICH IS 
UNDERSTANDABLE MERELY THROUGH THE FACT THAT THE AUTHOR PRODUCED 
THESE THOUGHTS, AND FURTHERMORE CONSIDERS THEM CORRECT, WHILE THE 
READER IS THE RECEIVING PARTY AND THEREFORE THE /5/MEDITATOR,/5/ 
AND~ HOPEFULLY, DOES NOT IN THE PROCESS LOSE THE COMPULSION TO 
EXAMINE WHAT HE IS BEING TOLD AS TO ITS CORRECTNESS. 
ALL THIS, HOWEVER, PROCEEDS IN THE READER AS 
~5~CONSCIOUSNESS,~5/ I.E. IN THAT AREA WHERE /5/HE HIMSELF/5/ IS 
AT HOME. IWHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS, ONE CANNOT FURTHER 
CIRCUMSCRIBE. I THERE IS NO MEANS OF DESCRIPTION FOR SOMETHING 
WHICH ITSELF PRECEOES ANY DESCRIPTION OF ALL THINGS. EVERYTHING 
WE DESCRIBE CONSISTS OF PROCESSES WHICH HAVE FIRST ENGRAVED ITS 
TRACES IN OUR CONSCIOUSNESS. 
IF WE LET OUR ATTENTION ROAM ABOUT FOR A MOMENT IN THE ROOM IN 
WHICH WE ARE SITTING/I/ MAYBE WE NOW HEAR THE TICKING OF A CLOCK, 
THE PEAL OF A BELL MAY REACH OUR EARS FROM OUTSIDE, OR A CHILD 
BABBLES TO HIMSELF ... NOTHING OF WHICH WE PERCEIVED EARLIER. IF 
WE ARE ATTENTIVE READERS, WE WILL FORGET EVERYTHING AROUND US, 
MAYBE NOT ALWAYS WITH A SCIENTIFIC TEXT LIKE THIS ONE, WHERE SUCH 
CONCENTRATION WOULD BE TOO MUCH TO EXPECT. BUT WHO DOES NOT KNOW 
THE READER OF A DETECTIVE STORY WHO, LOST IN HIMSELF, FORGETS THE 
WORLD ... EVEN THE THUNDER OF THE SUBWAY WHICH IT WANTED TO TAKE 
AND WHICH NOW THE STARTLED READER, JUMPING UP, HAS ALREADY 
MISSED. 
THIS SHORT JOINT REFLECTION HAS BEEN A KIND OF EXPERIMENT WITH 
US IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THREE CONCEPTS/b/ CONSCIOUSNESS, I.E. THAT 
WHICH WE FIND DIRECTLY IN US/2/ ATTENTIVENESS AS A TERM FOR A 
FORCE WHICH IS AT FIRST INEXPLICABLE WHICH DRAWS AWAY OUR 
CON£CIOUSNESS FROM MOST OBJECTS OF OUR ENVIRONMENT AND DIRECTS IT 
TOWARD A SINGLE PROCESS/2/ FINALLY, THINGS WHICH MEET OUR SENSE 
ORGANS (E.G. NOISES) AND, AS WE DEFINITELY KNOW, SEND MESSAGES 
FROM THEM TO OUR BRAIN, BUT DO NOT PENETRATE INTO CONSCIOUSNESS 
IN OUR BRAIN, THUS REMAIN UNCONSCIOUS. THEY ESCAPE OUR ATTENTION 
7,P 
T~ 7~ 
7< 
7,c 
7" 
74 
7( 
7~ 
74 
?4 
r,( 
7~ 
)OS~OlO 
30~011 
30~012 
305~013 
305~014 
30~015 
3061001 
3061002 30~o03 
3081004 
3061005 
)06~06 
30(~/007 
3O610OB 
BUT LEAVE ITS TRACES, FOR IF ASKED SUBSEQUENTLY ABOUT THAT WHICH 
TOOK PLACE AROUND OUR ABSORBED READER WHILE HE WAS READING THE 
DETECTIVE STORY~ IT WILL REMEMBER SOME THINGS, IF ONLY DIMLY SO. 
IN CERTAIN CASES SUCH MEMORY TRACES MAY BE ILLUMINATED EVEN 
FURTHER UNDER HYPNOSIS AND MAY BE RAISED INTO THE LIGHT nF 
CONBCIOUSNESS. 
CONSCIOUSNESS ... SEEN FROM WITHIN ... IS THUS SOMETHING TIED 
TO A STREAM OF STIMULI, WHICH RUSHES FROM OUR SENSES BY WAY OF 
OUR NERVES IN CENTRAL NERVOUS STRUCTURES, LIGHTS UP HERE AND 
THERE, TAKES POSSESSION 0F A PART OF THIS STREAM AND, DEPENDING 
ON THE PARTICULAR CIRECTION OF THE ATTENTIVENESS, PERCEIVES 
SOMETHING HERE AND THERE. /5/TO PERCEIVE/5/ HAS TO 00 WITH /5/TO 
TAKE,/5/ AND EXPRESSES AN ACTIVE INTEREST OF OUR EGO IN SELECTING 
FROM THE SUM OF POSSIBLE EXPERIENCES. 
TOSH A- 5 
APPENDIX E 
Rules Used in Figure 1 (German) 
SNTNC ÷ CLS + . 
CLS ÷ CLS/S-O-R + 
CLS/S-O-R 
PRDCT/D2/3 
NO/NTR/NDA 
+ PRDCT/DI/ACSTV 
was ÷ PRDCT/D2/3 
÷ NO/NTR/NDA + ist 
NIOW 
NIOW * Bewusstsein 
PRDCT/DI/ACSTV ÷ PRDCT/D1/INF + INF/PHRS/ACSTV 
PRDCT/DI/INF ÷ MDL/3 ÷ PRN/3 
MDL/3 ÷ kann 
PRN/3 ÷ man 
INF/PHRS/ACSTV 
INF/PHRS/ACSTV 
ADV ~ A1A + er 
A1A ÷ naeh 
INF/ACSTV ÷ VI2A + en 
VI2A ÷ umschreib 
÷ nicht + INF/PHRS/ACSTV 
÷ ADV + INF/ACSTV 
TOSH A- 6 
APPENDIX E {Continued) 
Rules Used in Figure 2 (English) 
SNTNC ÷ CLS + . 
CLS ÷ CLS/SBSTNT ÷ , + CLS 
CLS/SBSTNT ÷ what + BE/SNGLR/PRSNT 
BE/SNGLR/PRSNT ÷ NMNL/A/' + is 
NMNL/A/' ÷ NSF 
NSF ÷ consciousness 
CLS ÷ PRN/SS ÷ VRBL/MDL/PHRS 
PRN/SS ÷ one 
VRBL/HDL/PHRS ÷ MDL + VRBL/FHRS 
PRN/SS ÷ one 
VRBL/MDL/PHRS ~ MDL + VRBL/PHRS 
MDL ÷ cannot 
VRBL/PHRS ÷ ADVB/A + VRBL 
ADVB/A + further 
VRBL ÷ VPRIA + e 
VPRIA ÷ circumscrib 

REFERENCES 

\[1\] A. G. Dale, N. Dale, E. D. Pendergraft, "A Pro- 
gramming System for Automatic Classification with 
Applications in Linguistic and Information Retrieval 
Research," presented to the International Study Con- 
ference on Classification Research) Elsinore, 1964 
(mimeo) 

\[2\] R. Jernigan and A. G. Dale, "Set Theoretic Models 
for Classification and Retrieval," LRC 64 WTM-5 
(Austin, 1964) 

\[31 I. Langerhans, "Transformational Translation: English to German," Transformations and Discourse 
Analysis Projects 50 (Philadelphia, 1963) 

\[4\] W. P. Lehmann, "Computational Linguistics: Proce- 
dures and Problems," LRC 65 WA-I (Austin, 1965) 

\[s\] W. P. Lehmann, "Towards Machine Translation," LRC 
64-WA2 (Austin, 1964) 

\[6\] W. P. Lehmann and E. D. Pendergraft, "Structural 
Models for Linguistic Automation," VISTAS IN 
INFORMATION HANDLING, P. W. Howerton, ed. (Washington, 
1963), pp. 78-91. 

\[7\] Linguistics Research Center, "Seventh Quarterly 
Progress Report," LRC 65 AMC-23 (Austin, 1965) 

\[8\] Linguistics Research Center, "Symposium on the 
Current Status of Research," LRC 63-SRI (Austin, 1963) 

\[9\] E. D. Pendergraft, "A Generalized Computer System for Language Translation," LRC 64-WAI (Austin, 1964) 

\[lO\] H. Schaefer, "Ueber die physiologische Grundbedingung 
des Bewusstseins," UNIVERSITAS, Oktober 1959, I0.i079-I090. 

\[11\] W. Tosh, "Content Recognition and the Production of Synonymous Expressions," PROCEEDINGS OF THE NINTH 
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF LINGUISTS, (The Hague, 1964), 
pp. 723-729. 

W. Tosh! "Development of Automatic Grammars," to 
appear In LINGUISTICS. 

W. Tosh, SYNTACTIC TRANSLATION, (The Hague, 1955) 

W. Tosh, "System Requests Programming Reference 
Manual," LRC 55 TP-I (Austin, 1955) 
