GENERATING SI~A~rlC STRUCTURF~ IN EUR(Ylq~A-D 
ERI6~| ST~INER 
Ihl - EUROTRA - D 
MARTIN-L~I~ER-STRASSE 14 
D - 6600 Saarbrficken 
WEST GERMANY 
i. Introduction 
2. Basic Concepts 
3. Definitions of semantic relations and types of 
process 
4. A procedure for the assignment of semantic 
relations 
5. Conclusion 
6. Bibliography 
i. The following paper Js based on work done in the 
multi-lingual MT-project EUROTRA, an MT-pro~ect of 
the European Community. 
Analysis and generation of clauses within the 
EUROTRA-framework proceeds through the levels of 
(at least) EUROTRA constituent structure (ECS), 
EUROTRA relational structure (ERS) and interface 
structure (IS) (cf. Arnold/des Tombe/Jaspaert.1985 
and the EUROTRA-REFERENCE MANUAL, version I, 
revision 0). 
At IS, labelling of nodes consists of labellings for 
time, modality, semantic features, semantic relations 
and others. In this paper, we shalI be concerned 
exclusively with semantic relations (SRs), to which 
we shall also refer as "participant roles" (PR). A 
list of EUROTRA SRs as given in ELS-3 is reproduced 
beiow: 
SR ----"--- -- AGENT 
-- EXPERIENCER 
-- PAIIENT 
PLACE ---I--- SPACE L 
TIME POSSESSION 
--ORIGIN -~ STUFFTIRESPACE 
POSGESSION 
-- GOAL ~'~'- SPACE 
TIRE 
BLUFF 
PGSSEBSIGN 
-- PATH ~ SPACE 
I--" TIRE AI~ 
CONDITION 
CONCESSIVE 
CONSEQUENCE 
CAUSE 
CONCERN 
QUALITY ~TOTUN 
ACCORD 
ACCOMPANIMENT 
INSTRUMENT 
MEASURE 
According to current EUROTRA legislation, these gRs 
are assigned to dictionary entries of verbs (and 
other word classes, which will be disregarded in this 
paper) by coders, and through these entries to 
clauses in a pattern matching process. 
This approach, while certainly valid in principle, 
leads to the problem of inter-coder-consistency, at 
least as long as the means for identifying SRs are 
paraphrase tests for SRs. In EUROTRA-D, we have for 
some time now been experimenting with a set of SRs, 
or PRs, which are identified with tile help of 
syntactic criteria. This approach will be outlined in 
the following. Its roots, are to be found in the 
literature on semantic cases in general (cf. 
Fillmore.1968 and 1977, Starosts 1977, Somers.198B) 
and more particularly, in ideas from Systemic 
Linguists (cf. Fawcett.1980 and forthcoming, 
HaIliday.1967-68 and \]985, Sl:einer.1983 and 1985, 
Winograd. 1983). 
2. Definition of basic concepts 
To start with, we need a small set of basic concepts, 
which will be define(\[ in the following. There is a 
basic distinction between Participant Roles and 
Circumstantial Roles on the semantic \]eve\], which the 
ELS-3 specifications do not contain. There is the 
further distinction between inherent and non-inherent 
roles, which is also not explicitly made in ELS-3 and 
may be necessary at some point. 
Participant Role: A participant role is a semantic 
constituent of a clause which is syntactically 
reaIized as a complement rather than as a modifier. 
Circumstantial Role: A circumstantial role is a 
semantic constituent which is, on clause level, 
realized as a modifier rather than as a complement 
~oq~ Participant Role: A semantic constituent 
which is, on clause level, realized as obligatory 
complement 
O~ional Participant Role: A semantic constituent 
which is, on clause level, realized as an optional 
complement 
Inherent Role: Inherent roles are obligatory 
participant roles and those participant roles which, 
Jf they are not realized in a clause, lead to look 
up in the preceding text or situation for a referent, 
Cf,: (20) David wax watching. 
304 
Not) Inherent Role: Non :inherenL roles are those 
participant roles wh\]eh, \[\[ Lhey #Ire not realized \]n 
the clause+ do not lead to look up, Cf.: (21) \])evJd 
J s eatJ rip, 
3. Defi t\]i t:ions of selllanL i c relat:i ons and types of: 
\[)roc©ss 
The first essentHa\] step -is to define cer\[a:in key PRs 
a,~; \[~lr as possJl)\]e throtlgh syntactic criteria+ SOltle~ 
of these (lefinitiolts are g:iveu ill I:he lollow:ing: 
SR/PI{ : Phelaonlenol) 
SyntacLie )°ca)izatJon: - dependent clause \[I~ the 
\[LIIICIiioil Of :;ylll2;l(\]:lLiC "(IJrect object", iql:roduced by 
"that" or ,rzi:\[,,; 
dependenL ing.+consLcuc\[ioJl in Lhe syiitacLic 
ftltlCl iOll (If "direct olLjecL", 
SR/PR: l,ocat \[oi) 
Sytltact:i( realizat:ion" ~ col)\]plenlent el l)Jn(e, origin 
or dicecti(>n (real ized by Adverb:is\] Grottl) , 
PreposiL:ie\]ml (',roup or embedded clause) 
SR/PI{: \[de~/::iFier 
Synlael:\]c t-cal i zati on : - NC i u t unct:io+i of sub.jee/ 
ceCIl I) \] (Hi)ell L 
• ,~\]),I--gfoup with the adject ive iu Llle super)aLive 
embedded clause in \[unction O\[ 5qlb.ject COlllpJelllellL 
'\['hese ace .jus\[ a /('W eharaeterJst:ic exanll)\[es. Tim 
ow_>ra\[I nttnll)er o l Plb; i,,; arotllt(\] \]!;. AI \] Lhese PRs 
hgtv(2~ al);tlTL \[1"o11\] synLaeLJe ct:iLeria \[)Of Lheit 
\[det\]LifJ(;tLion~ i/ok:ionat defilNk:ions al\]d parahra!;e 
Lesls. ~\]'\[Iese ~ however, arc, oil I y used i 11 the CdS('5 , 
wh(!re Syl\]Lacii( (::riLeria do ~loL lead to all 
llIlitlllb \[ ~IH)LIS ;\]\[-lSi /lllIllOl\]t , 
An identified sub-,~;et +)I the PRs is used to +deJ\]i:i\[y 
"I)'\[)OS and i)(oee,ss"+ These, in tlll"ll, serve ~15+ (?ill ry 
COll(lJ t i ()lh~ \[It t O veYy I :i 111J Led f;kll) -,<;C \[:~ \[:FOIli Lhe 
ove\[a\]J set t)\[ PRs, ;qo IJlaL khe (:hoi~:e of PRs For Lhe 
eodel: :is always \] in;Lied to a smaLl ntm\]l)er of bekwee~l 
2 arid around 6 cases from the overall seL. '\['he types 
Of I)\]oces~.q ;ICe g:iveli :ill \[:lie \[ol lewis};: 
........... il~+P-9~ .9~_ Idrg_<P_~ ........................ 
.... Re\] at:i otis) 
i i \] ,oea \[ \[ anal Asset: iaL:i ve 
ClassifJ eatery 
\]hlent::i fy:i ng 
.~ Mental 
Process 
-- (\]olnmunication 
Act:ion 
Processor-ori el) ted 
Pl'tenon\]enon-or ient ed 
One role 
Two roles 
4. A \]\]Foce(ltlYe lot the \[ISSJ~i\]IIlel\]L of sel\]lalltJc 
re) a Lions 
The fo\] lowing procedure :i.s used for the ass~gnlnettt 
of: aemanLTic re)aLiens by diet:ionary coders. 
FL(\]WCIIAI(T : IlO~ to assign Semantic RelaLlon~ 
#eci~ao. \[ Verb Proce,¢~ Tr#. b,,clsio,, 2 S~ ,,sMg.m~nt 
( ZOCA'flE *~ \[Z.OGAT\[YE ' ~ OC ....... " P, I ....... \] 
-- ~'LN L L"Ldt, rlt i fl el. 
~;.~; ;,;+i;~,+ \] ~ff!+ff:!!:?+!,j 
12 ~ - .... +;-,+:?;:7 - 
\[ '~\] 1 RI I~IJAN'r ...... + 
NO Idll A'f ION M+ 
+ 
t40 ..... ......... 
\[ ............ , .............. .1 ....... y ~}'llFffOHl'flo,¢ 
IqLENOtlEI/OR 
-- --'"'"" _21. 
t ......... /c~,/,,E,... .... //~ 
...................... ?' < 
AIii'l Oil : 
^FFgCl EU ONLY 
^6Et/T OPILY 
10 
I!S gJ 
< 
4 aL 
-> ~. ACEIdt 
"2 'I'F}{I IIU'~ t fi" -_, 
305 
5. Conclusion 
The statements in this paper are necessarily very 
sketchy and brief. More detailed information will be 
given in the oral presentation. 
The assignment of semantic relations, as presented 
here, has been worked out for German in some detail. 
The available literature for English, especially in 
the work of Fawcett and Halliday, shows that the 
treatment of English in the same way does not present 
a major problem. It seems to be reasonable to assume 
that the method outlined constitutes a worthwhile 
way to explore for a multi-lingual MT-project such as 
EUROTRA. 
Acknowledgements: I am very grateful to my colleagues 
in EUROTRA-D for many critical comments on my work. 
Most indebted, though, I am to Robin P. Fawcett for 
many hours of discussion and explorations. Needless 
to say, that the responsibility for any weaknesses 
in form and content rest with the author alone. 
9. Ruus/Spang-Hansen. 1982. Argument relations and 
predicate types for EUROTRA. (ET-IO-DK) 
\]0. Somers. H.L. 1983. An investigation into the 
application of the linguistic theories of 
valency and case to the automated processing 
of natural language. UMIST PhD-thesis 
II. Starosta, St. The one/sent solution. Trier: LAUT 
12. Steiner, E, Die Entwicklung des Britischen 
Kontextualismus. 
Heidelberg : Groos 
13. Steiner, E. 1985. Working with transitivity: 
system networks in semantico-grammatical 
descriptions, in: Benson/Greaves. eds. 
1985. Systemic perspectives on discourse 
Vol. i 
Norwood, N.J. : Ablex 
14. Winograd, T. 1983. Syntax as a cognitive process. 
Vol. i. 
New York : Willey 

References

Arnold/des Tombe/Jaspaert. 1985. ELS-3. EUROTRA 
Linguistic Specifications° Version 3. 

Blatt/Luckhard/Truar. 1984. Evaluation of LS-\] 
legislation concerning semantic relations 
(ETL-4-D) 

Fawcett, R.P. 1980. Cognitive linguistics and 
social interaction. 
Heidelberg: Julius Groos 

Fawcett, R.P. forthcoming. The semantic of clause 
and verb for relational processes in 
English. in: Fawcett/Halliday. eds. forth- 
coming. New developments in Systemic 
Linguistics. 
London : Frances Pinter 

Fillmore, C.F. 1977. The case for case. in: Bach/ 
Harms. eds. 1968. Universals in linguistic 
theory. New York: Hol~, Rinehart & Winston. 
1 - 88 

Fillmore, C.F. 1977. The case for case reopened. 
in: Cole/Saddock. eds. 1977. Syntax and 
Semantics, Vol. 8. New York: 
Academic Press. 59 - 81 

Haliday. M.A.K. 1967-68. Notes on transitivity 
and theme in English. in: Journal of 
Linguistics, 3.1. 1967, 37-81; 3.2. 1967, 
199-244; 4.2. 1968, 179-215 

Halliday. M.A:K. 1985. An introduction to 
functional grammar. 
London : Edward Arnold 
