FINDING TRANSLATION EQUIVALENTS: AN APPLICATION OF 
GRAMMATICAL METAPHOR 
John A. Bateman* 
USC/Information Sciences Institute 
4676 Admiralty Way 
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 U.S.A. 
(e-mail: bateman@isi, edu) 
April 4, 1990 
Abstract 
In this paper I describe how a significant class of cases 
that would involve (possibly complex) structural trans- 
fer in nmchine translation can be handled avoiding trans- 
fer. This is achieved by applying a semantic organization 
developed for monolingual text generation that is suffi- 
ciently abstract to remain invariant, within theoretically 
specifiable limits, across different languages. The further 
application of a mechanism motivated from within mono- 
lingual text generation, 'grammatical metaphor', then 
allows candidate appropriate translations to be isolated. 
The incorporation of these essentially monolingual mech- 
anisms within the machine translation process promises 
to significantly improve translational capabilities; exam- 
ples of this are presented for English and German. 
1 Introduction 
Historically there has rather little interaction be- 
tween work in text generation and machine trans- 
lation (MT) -- even though language generation 
needs to be an integral component of any cornplete 
MT system. Current text generation systems are, 
however, achieving results which can be beneficially 
applied in the MT context. In this paper, I de- 
scribe one such area of possible interaction between 
mechanisms developed for monolingual text gener- 
ation and the requirements of MT. In particular, 
the increasing concern that text generation theories 
show for higher levels of semantics and its realization 
in linguistic form makes it possible to move away 
from lower-level, 'structural' transfer between lan- 
guages. In Iket, some of the semantic specifications 
now being uncovered within text generation arc suf- 
ficiently abstract as to capture significant informa- 
tional invariances across languages. Sophisticated 
monolingual generation components are able to gen- 
erate appropriate linguistic structures from such ab- 
stract informational specifications. This avoids, in 
many cases, problems of (possibly complex) struc- 
tural transfer. There is no reason a priori for the 
*Much of the work reported here was carried out with the 
financial support of the Institut fi',. Angcwandte hfformations- 
forschung at the University of the Saarland, S~mrbri'mken', ad- 
ditional support was provided by AFOS\[{ contract, F49620-87- 
C-0005, and in part by DAI{PA contract MDAg03-87-C-641. 
The opilfions in this report arc solely those of the author. 
Thanks are due to Erich Steiner, Jgrg Schi'ltz, and C (~cilc Pro'is 
for significant contributions. 
linguistic structures generated by monolingual gen- 
erators for distinct languages for a given abstract se- 
mantic specification to be structurally similar: there- 
fore, translations that involve very diverse structures 
are readily obtainable if they are semantically moti- 
vated. Monolingual generation components of the 
type described are also independently motivated by 
language processing tasks that do not involve MT 
and so are ill any case required. Providing for their 
usage within the MT context also is therefore doubly 
beneficial. 
The particular mechanism developed within text 
generation that I will apply to MT problems here 
is that of grammatical raelaphor (Ilalliday, 1985); 
grammatical metaphor was originally developed 
within the tradition of Systemic-Functional Linguis- 
tics and is now beginning to be applied within 
the PENMAN text generation system (Mann and 
Matthiessen, 1985; The Penman Project, 1989). 
Systemic-functional linguistics posits sets of map- 
pings between semantic information to be expressed 
and grammatical features. One class of mappings is 
termed 'congruent', in that it offers an unmarked re- 
alization of a semantic concept type -- e.g., that 
a processual semantic entity is realized as a ver- 
bal constituent in the grammar -- while a fur- 
ther class of mappings is 'noneongrnent', in that it. 
enables marked correspondences between semantics 
and grammar --e.g., in nominalizations where a 
processual ,;emantic entity is realized as a nominal 
constituent in the grammar. Below I show how the 
set of linguistic structures related by grammatical 
metaphor form a useful equivalence class for MT: i.e., 
when seeking an appropriate translation tbr some 
sentence, one will often be found in the set of tar- 
get language sentences formed by generating from 
the corresponding abstract semantic specification in- 
voldng grammatical metaphor for variations in the 
structures generated. 
To show how this works in more detail, I first de- 
scribe the level of abstract semantic information that 
is currently used within the PENMAN system -- this 
we term the upper model- and the user interface to 
the text generation system that it. supports -- which 
is called SPL. Second, 1 provide more concr¢~te exam- 
pies of two distinct kinds of grammatical metaphor 
that we can now implement compntationally. And 
finally, I go on to show their applica~:.ion to MT using 
examples from English and German. 
i 13 
/ 
// 
2 The Upper Model and SPL 
The PENMAN tipper model organizes the 'proposi- 
tional type' meanings that need to be expressed in 
text; it provides a general semantic taxonomy of 
classes of experiences and objects. This classifica- 
tion can also be seen as an inheritance hierarchy that 
organizes concepts according to how they may be ex- 
pressed. For example, the inheritance of certain roles 
defines the types of participants that processes may 
have and the types of qualities that may be ascribed 
to particular objects, while class-subclass relations 
capture generalizations about possible grammatical 
and lexical realizations of concepts. Significantly, 
this orientation towards supporting grammatical re- 
alization renders the upper model independent of 
particular domains -- the semantic taxonomy offers 
an organization that is required for any domain if it is 
to support natural language generation. Rather fine 
distinctions are drawn by the current upper model, 
which contains approximately 200 concepts; details 
are provided in Bateman, Kasper, Moore, and Whit- 
ney (1990). 
The upper model supports specifications of sen- 
tence 'meaning' that may serve as input to a text 
generation system (Kasper, 1989a), or as output 
from an analysis component (Kasper, 1989b). Such 
specifications, which are expressed in the PENMAN 
Sentence: Plan Language (SPL), abstract beyond 
many syntactic variations; they capture basic mean- 
ings -- defined in terms of the upper model -- that 
may be given a variety of linguistic realizations de- 
pending on other, specifiable, criteria. One conse- 
quence of the abstractness of this representation is 
that many sentences taken from distinct languages 
that would require complex structural transfer for 
translation simply share a common SPL representa- 
tion, thus requiring no transfer at all. However, it is 
important to note that this is motivated by a com- 
monality in linguistic function when a sufficiently ab- 
stract standpoint is taken rather than on any claims 
of universality; further details on the theoretical sta- 
tus of the shared representations are presented in 
Bateman (1989). We will see examples of the avoid- 
ance of structural transfer in Section 5. 
A simple example of an SPL specification using 
the upper model is shown below. This shows the 
SPL specification for the sentence: (1) Mary cut her 
finger. 
(cut / directed-action 
:actor (mary / person) 
:actee (finger / body-part 
:inalienable-possession-inverse 
mary) ) 
The labels cut, mary, and finger are instan- 
tial variables which may provide lexical infor- 
mation; each of these has to be assigned to 
a type (directed-action, person, body-part) 
drawn from the generalized meanings defined in 
the upper model. Relationships between entities 
are specified by means of roles (:actor, :actee, 
:inalienable-possession-inverse), which are 
also defined in the upper model. We could, there- 
fore, gloss the meaning of this expression as a, 
dircclcd-action of an actor which affects one of the 
inalienable-possessions of that actor. 1 The position- 
ing of the general types and relationships within the 
upper model provides much of the information that 
a grammar needs for constraining possible surface 
realizations. 2 
3 Grammatical Metaphors 
A powerful property of the relationship between the 
upper model and the grammar is the existence of 
grammatical metaphor. Grammatical metaphor oc- 
curs when meanings are realized through 'nontypical' 
selections of grammatical features; such realizations 
can be described systematically and bring their own 
distinctive contributions to the meaning expressed 
(for a general typology, see Ravelli, 1985). Two types 
of grammatical metaphor which we are beginning to 
be able to control computationally are rankshifling 
and complexity metaphors. Figure 1 shows the first 
grammatical decisions that must be made when be- 
ginning generation of a grammatical unit according 
to a systemic-functional grammar such as that used 
within PENMAN. For each meaning to be expressed, 
grammatical decisions must first be made as to the 
rank of the grammatical unit that will be used -- 
i.e., clauses, groups (nominal, verbal, adverbial and 
prepositional), words, and morphemes -- and the 
complexity of that grammatical unit -- i.e., whether 
the unit is a single unit or some combination of simi- 
lar units (e.g., conjunction). Traditionally, the map- 
ping between meanings to be expressed and these 
grammatical choices has been rather inflexible and 
limited to congruenl realizations; i.e., by and large, a 
process-type meaning (activity, state, etc.) would be 
realized by a selection of a simple clause, an object- 
type meaning by a selection of nominal, etc. Gram- 
tactical metaphor makes explicit the fact that this 
relationship between meaning and grammatical form 
is considerably more flexible and many noncongruent 
realizations are possible. 
Consider, for example, the SPL specification for 
example sentence (2) The discharge of electricity re- 
suited in a breakdown of the system. 
((cO / cause-effect :domain discharge 
:range breakdown) 
(discharge / directed-action 
:actee (electricity / substance)) 
(breakdown / nondirected-action 
:actor (system / object))) 
When the grammatical alternatives of the grammar 
are considered, rather than automatically selecting 
1 Definitions of most of these upper model terms are given 
in Bateman, Kasper, Moore and Whitney (1990). \]: have ex- 
tended the actual classification given there b~, t'ncluding in- 
verse relations where necessary and by increasing the level of 
detail of description for the purposes of discussion. In addi- 
tion, as with all the SPL examples given in this paper, I have 
made the simplification of removing specifications of all non- 
upper model related information since these are not relevant 
for the present discussion. 
2 The additional information necessary to produce a unique 
utterance is factored in SFL into three functional components: 
the logical, textual, and interpersonal ~metafunctions'. The 
information in the SPL is drawn from a fourth component: 
the experiential metafunction. Only by combining meanings 
from all four components are sufficient constraints provided 
for a unique utterance (Matthiessen, 1987:258). In Sections 
3-5, we see examples of variations in the constraints of the 
logical metafimction, and in the Conclusion I return briefly 
to the textual metafunction. Interpersonal constraints have 
been assumed constant throughout. 
14 2 
~ C LA U~;F-..., N NGMINAL.~ 
~.~ GROU!~~ V~RBAL'~ ~'-'~ PREPOSITIONAI~. 
Figure 1 The rank and complexity systems of the 
grammar 
some 'topmost' node for immediate assignment to 
clause rank, the mechanism of rankshifting gram-- 
matical metaphor interposes a decision procedure 
which selects an input term most appropriate for 
realization as a clause. Similar decisions are made 
concerning each rank in the grammar and the com- 
plexity at each rank. This gives rise to the following 
possibilities for expression (focusing for the moment 
just on the expression of the cause-effect relationship 
and approximately preserving the textual organiza- 
tion): 
V-C1 Realization of cause-effect at clause complex rank: 
\]3ec~use electricity was discharged, the system 
broke down. 
V-C2 It.ealization of cause-effect at clause rank: 
Electricity being diacharged resulted in the system 
breaking down. 
V-C3 Realization of cause-effect at nominal group rank: 
Electricity being discharged was the cause of the 
system breaking down. 
V-C4 Realization of cause-etfect at circumstantial ad- 
junct group rank: 
\]3ecause of electricity being discharged the sy.~tem 
broke down. 
A further range of variation of this kind subsumes 
the problems of nominatization. This is equally rele- 
vant to our current example. For example, the SPL 
specification of tile discharge situation alone could, 
simply by altering the rank at which it is to be real- 
ize(l, support the following variations: 
rank realization 
clause electricity was discharged (V-N1) 
nominal group electricity being discharged (V-N2) 
discharge of electricity (V-N3) 
electricity's discharge (V-N4) 
We can take this further: the relationship between 
the proce,~s and the actee of electricity can be real- 
ized within the modification systems of the nominal 
group at an even finer level; this gives (cf. ttalliday, 
!985:160): 
(epithet) electrical discharge (V-N5) 
(classifier} electricity discharge (V-N6) 
These are all options provided by the current PEN- 
MAN grammar. Example sentence (2) is then a com- 
bination of variation (V-C2) at clause rank and (V- 
N3) at nominal rank. 
These are all options provided by the current PEN- 
MAN grarrmlar. Example sentence (2) is then a com- 
bination of variation (V-C2) at clause rank and fur- 
ther similar variations at nominal rank. 
4 The Application to MT 
We can also characterize certain kinds of variation 
observable across languages in translation equiva- 
lents in exactly the terms provided by rankshifting 
and complexity grammatical metaphors. For exam- 
ple, a German translation equivalent to example sen- 
tence (1) would be: (3) Mary schnitt sich in den 
Finger. (1) and (3) present problems for transfer 
because the number of participants and surface sen- 
fence structures differ. This requires that the pro- 
cesses involved be assigned to different classes and 
structural transfer rules are then necessary to relate 
the translatkmal possibilities. However, the state of 
affairs in (1) and (3) can be described in terms of 
the same upper model categories regardless of the 
particular language conside~vd, and this permits the 
generation of (3) from the same SPL specification as (1). 
Each monolingual grammar and lexicon will al- 
ready directly control the congruent assignment of 
terms in the SPL to ranks of the grammar, although 
this assignment will differ across languages just as 
it <lifters within languages when noncongruent as- 
signments are made by the rankshifting grammatical 
metaphor mechanism. Thus, for (3), the first con- 
cept consumed during generation -- wilich thereby 
becomes tim 'head' of the highest level structure, i.e.: 
the process of the clause --- is the directed-action cut- 
ling (schneiden); the second concept is the actor re- 
lationship between the process and the person Mary 
--- this is realized by a simple nominative Subject (in 
the absence of other textual constraints that might 
effect voice, diathesis, etc.); the third concept con- 
sumed is the relationship of inalienable-possesswn 
between Mary and finger--- this governs the selec- 
tion of beneficiary and its realization as a reflexive 
pronoun; the fourth is the actee relationship holding 
between tile body-part finger and cutting -- this is 
realized as the prepositional head of a prepositional 
group; and, finally, tile fifth concept consumed is the 
concept finger itself --- which gives the dependent 
nominal within the prepositional group. This con- 
trasts to the case for (1), where assignment of SPL 
terms to ranks follows the order: cuzting:clause, 
:actor mary:nominal, :actee finger:nominal, 
: inalienable-possession-inverse 
teary: nominal- modifier. 
The grammar of English 'knows' that the :actee 
/ :inalienable-possession combination can be 
realized as a nominal group (her finger), while the 
German grammar needs to 'know' that the combi- 
nation requires both a nominal group (sich) and a 
location specification (in den Finger). This infof 
marion is entirely motivated by individual language- 
internal considerations; both grammars and lexicons 
are entirely monolingual and independent of each 
other and of their use for translation. 
An SPL expression can therefore receive a variety 
of linguistic realizations, even across dis;tinct lan- 
guages. This extension to muttilingnality does not 
3 15 
add to the complexity of the realization mechanism, 
since the grammatical metaphor mechanism which 
supports it is already required for monolingual gener- 
ation; once a monolingual grammar for any language 
is in place, these realizational possibilities for MT 
follow also. Grammatical metaphor thus provides 
a mechanism by which a syntactically neutral SPL 
specification licenses a set of metaphorically related 
realizations in any language for which an appropri- 
ate grammar has been constructed. 3 A contextually 
suitable translation is then often found in the set of 
sentences related by grammatical metaphor that a 
target language supports. The kind of translational 
mapping this provides is shown in Figure 2. 
5 Further examples of the 
utility of the mechanism for 
MT 
5.1 Verb and prepositional phrase 
combinations 
A likely German translational equivalent for example 
sentence (2) above is: 4 (4) Wegen der elektrischeu 
Enlladung brach das System zusammcn. Again, the 
structures of the two sentences are quite different 
-- a simple process in (2) seems to have been de- 
composed into a prepositional phrase in (4) -- and 
this would require complex structural transfer. How- 
ever, the SPL provided for sentence (2) already en- 
tails both realizations: the clause structure of (4) is 
identical to variation type (V-C4) of the metaphor 
setfi All that needs to be altered is the lexical infor- 
mation pointed at by the instantial variables. 
5.2 Nominalizations 
The principles of grammatical metaphor also ap- 
ply across languages within nominal phrases. For 
example, in the translation pair of sentences (2) 
and (4), we can also see a difference in the struc- 
ture of the corresponding nominal phrases: discharge 
of electricity and elektrische Entladung. In terms 
of the possible realization variants for this nominal 
phrase: the English has selected (V-N3), the Ger- 
man (V-N5). The same holds for the other process 
in the pair concerning the system breakdown. Here 
again, therefore, the metaphor set contains appropri- 
ate translations whose structures are rather different. 
3 PENMAN provides an appropriate grammar for English, 
and a similarly appropriate grammar for German is currently under construction wathJn the KOMET text generation project 
(Steiner et al., 1989). Bateman and Li (1988) reports on 
earlier experiments with similar grammars for Japanese and Clfinese. 
4 Note that I am not claiming that these sentences provide 
the only translations of each other. The argument rests upon 
these being possible desired translation equivalents in some particular circumstances. 
3 Although a similar range of possibilities (V-C1 - V-C4) 
are theoretically available for the realization of the SPL in 
Germma, not all possible variations are equally acceptable in 
all contexts. For example, the realization of the cause-effect relation at clause rank calls for a process to realize that re- 
lation: a plausible selection on the basis of similarity with 
the English sentence might appear to be the verb 'resultieren' 
-- however, this is very marked. The realization at circum- 
stantial adjunct group rank (in German with, e.g., a wegen- 
adjunct) is often preferable. 
5.3 Realizations of modality 
Consider the following translation pair (Schlitz, 
1989), which is again problematic in a transfer-based 
fl'amework that relies on representations less ab- 
stract than that of the upper model and SPL because 
the structures are very different: 
(5) John is likely to implement the algorithm 
A ) John implementiert wahrseheinlich den 
lgorithmus 
(5) and (6) both share a common SPL representa- 
tion: 
(I implement~ / directed, action 
) :actor John \[ 
.. ctoe  Igor t m-- T 
/ probable)) 
As before, several differential realizations of this 
SPL can be generated by allowing the grammatical 
metaphor mechanisms to order the consumption of 
terms as heads at differing ranks in the grammar. 
For example, the orderings \[D A B C\], \[A D B C\] and 
\[A B C D\] support clause structures with the follow- 
ing dependency organizations respectively, showing 
realizations of the statement of probability at clause 
complex rank, verbal group rank, and circumstantial 
adjunct rank: 
(i) \[1 It is likely\] 
\[z that \[3 John\] implements \[, 
tile algorithm\]\] 
(ii) \[, \[, John\] \[2 \[3 is likely to\] 
implement\] \[s the algorithm\]\] 
(iii) \[, \[2 John\] will \[4 probably\] implement 
\[s the algorithm\]\] 
\[x \[2 John\] implementiert \[4 wahrscheinlich\] 
\[3 den algorithmus\]\] 
What would previously have required rather com- 
plex transfer mechanisms, therefore, is here an auto- 
matic consequence of tile realizational mechanisms. 
5.4 Across the text/grammar 
boundary 
As a final example of the generality of the mecha- 
nisms described here (for further examples, see Bate- 
man, 1989), it is also possible to consider dependency 
relations defined above the clause complex as possible 
targets. The 'highest' rank assignment for the cause- 
effect relationship suggested so far has been that of 
clause complex; this is the highest rank available in 
the grammar. However, in current work in the PEN- 
MAN group on Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST: 
Mann and Thompson, 1987), there is the possibility 
of extending this view to consider the dependency 
relationships defined across sentences in texts. If the 
following translation pair were desirable, for exam- 
ple, then we see precisely this kind of variation mul- 
tilingually: 
(7) After you had explained your views, I 
could see them much better. 
(8) Du erkl~irtest deine Position, Danach 
verstand ich sie viel besser. 
16 4 
MggAMIORIC~LLY- 
RELATED 
8~T 
att.~ o*~lnx ,S t -.... 
S, / 
SPL 
(p0 / pmc~t~ 
: role, 
: rol~ a 
: ) 
MRTAM IORIC,%LI.Y. 
Ill~LATIr l) 
TI ¢lat~ eoml~lu / 
L~i~ La~c~eo~rn~u~r 
Lz L: 
Figure 2: Mapping between sets related by grammatical metaphor 
Focusing on the temporal/causal relationship ex- 
pressed between the two situations described, both 
sentences can receive the combined SPL and RST 
specification: 
((rO / rst-sequence :domain erklaeren 
: range verstehen) 
(erklaeren / verbal-process :sayer you 
: message views) 
(verstehen / mental-process :senser f. 
: phenomenon views 
: propel~y-ascription 
(better / evaluative~qualiZy))) 
Sentence (8) preserves the realization of the RST 
relation at the text level and so produces two in- 
dependent sentences. The next available strategy 
for realization is within the grammar, at clause rank 
with complexing. This realization is adopted in the 
English variant (7). Again, therefore, the metaphor- 
set provides a powerful link between translationally 
equivalent texts, even beyond the boundaries of the 
grammar. Work on this will continue as our devel- 
opment of RST and text organization continues. 
o o 6 Conclusmn. Future direc- 
tions 
Following from earlier experiments in the integration 
of Machine Translation (MT) and text generation 
(Bateman, Kasper, Schlitz, and Steiner, 1989), we 
have found that the combination of two components 
of the Systemic-Functional Linguistic (SFL) model 
of language (Halliday, 1985; Matthiessen, 1987), such 
as are being developed for computational use within 
the PENMAN text generation system, significantly re- 
duces tlhe need for structural transfer in machine 
translation (MT) without requiring deep modelling 
of specific domains. These two components may be 
described thus: 
® a linguistically motivated organization of gen- 
eral semantic distinctions that are not highly 
language-specific and that hold across both dif- 
fering domains and differing languages -- this 
level of organization is realized computation- 
ally within the PENMAN system as the upper 
model; 
® a particular class of mapping relations between 
this abstract semantic organization and lin- 
guistic form- these mappings are motivated 
by the notion of 'grammatical metaphor'. 
The examples of the previous section made the 
point that the level of grammatical metaphorical re- 
alization is not preserved during translation, but the 
set of possibilities defined by granmmtical metaphor 
provides strong candidates for high quality transla- 
tion equivalents, ttowever, since SPL forms decom- 
mit from so much of the surface syntax, it is nec- 
essary to control the range of linguistic realizations 
that are compatible with the constraints SPL spec- 
ifications represent. The types of control that are 
necessary already constitute major areas of active re- 
search within the PENMAN teXt generation project, 
where the principal type of constraint under devel- 
opment is textual. It is reasonable to assume that 
textual organization, including the particular pat- 
terns of thematic development adopted by a text, 
is one type of meaning which needs to be preserved 
in translation. Metaphorically related clauses often 
have rather different textual organizations and so 
particular choices of clause may be motivated by the 
need to achieve particular thematic developments. 
A rather more global kind of textual constraint is 
that created by the 'style' of a text as a whole. Thus, 
for example, the translation process should not select 
as translation equivalents sentences whose stylistic 
import were radically divergent. This, however, can 
only be established on the basis of analyses of what 
constitutes an appropriate text style for a particular 
communicative situation. This is being addressed in 
text generation in terms of the SFL notion of register 
(Bateman and Paris, 1989), and its application to 
MT is pursued in Paris (forthcoming). 
The relevance of textual constraints is also not lim- 
ited to the simple types of grammatical metaphor il- 
lustrated in this paper; for example, there are also 
'metaphors of transitivity' which chang(: the process- 
type involved, e.g.: 
(9) electricity was discharged : directed- action 
(10) there was a discharge of electricity: re- lationM 
5 17 
Variations such as these provide significantly dif- 
ferent thematization options. In certain cases, there- 
fore, in order to achieve a particular thematic de- 
velopment for a text in a given language, this kind 
of metaphor may be the only means available for 
achieving a syntactically thematizeable constituent. 
This type of grammaticM metaphor can also be 
motivated by the need to preserve Aklionsarl (cf. 
Vendler, 1!)67). In the following translation pair, for 
example, we need to change the transitivity type of 
the predicate in order to preserve the accomplish- 
ment Aktionsart. 6 
(11) Wit erarbeiteten uns die Theorie 
(12) We worked ourselves into the theory 
Finally, the lexical entries of certain languages 
may also restrict the types of alternatives that are 
available. If one language simply does not have a 
lexical item for realizing a meaning at a given rank, 
then another rank will be pursued. 
Many of the mechanisms that need to be sup- 
ported for these capabilities to be achieved are 
equally relevant in the generation of texts from sin- 
gle languages. We expect, therefore, that the results 
we are obtaining in a monolingual setting --- par- 
ticularly those concerned with the creation of texts, 
rather than sentences -- will generalize well to ap- 
plication in multilingual environments such as MT. 

References 

\[1\] Bateman, John A. (1989) 'Upper Modelling for Ma- 
chine Translation: a level of abstraction for preserv- 
ing meaning'. EUROTaA-D Working Paper. Institut 
fiir Angewandte Informationsforschung an der Uni- 
versit/~t des Saarlandes, Saarbriicken. 

\[21 Bateman, John A., Kasper, Robert T., Moore, Jo- hanna D., and Whitney, Richard (1990) 'A general 
organization of knowledge for natural language pro- 
cessing -- the PENMAN Upper Model'. ISI Research 
Report, USC/Information Sciences Institute, Ma- 
rina del Rey, California. 

\[3\] Bateman, John A., Kasper, Robert T., Schlitz, 
JSrg F.L., Steiner, Erich tI. (1989) 'A new view on 
the process of translation'. Proceedings of the 4th. 
European Conference of the Association for Com- 
putational Linguistics, Manchester, England. Also 
available in the ISI Reprint Series, report RS-89- 
234, USC/Information Sciences Institute, Marina 
del Rey, California. 

\[4\] Bateman, John A. and Li, Hang (1988) 'The appli- 
cation of systemic-functionM grammar to Japanese 
and Chinese for use in text generation'. Proceed- 
ings of the 1988 International Conference on Com- 
puter Processing of Chinese and Oriental Lan- 
guages, Toronto, Canada, pp443-447. Also available 
in the ISI Reprint Series, USC/Information Sciences 
Institute, Marina del Rey, California. 

\[5\] Bateman, John A. and Paris, C&ile L. (1.989) 
'Phrasing a text in terms a user can understand'. 
In Proceedings of the International Joint Confer- 
ence on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-89, Detroit, 
Michigan. 

\[6\] Haltiday, M.A.K. (1985) Introduction to Functional 
Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. 
6Thls is a very important capability to provide for the whole area of translation of gemnan and Slavic "Pr~fixverben" 
(Steiner, p.c.), 

Kasper, Robert T. (1989a) A Flexible Interface for 
Linking Applications to Penman's Sentence Gen- 
erator. In Proceedings of the DARPA Speech and 
Natural Language Workshop, Philadelphia, Febru- ary 1989. 

Kasper, Robert T. (1989b) 'Unification and Classi- 
fication: an experiment in information-based pars- 
ing'. In International Workshop on Parsing Tech- 
nologies, 28-31 August, 1989, Carnegie-Mellon Uni- 
versity, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, ppl-7. 

Mann, William C., and Matthiessen, Christian 
M.I.M. (1985) 'A demonstration of the Nigel text 
generation computer program'. In Benson, J.D. and 
Greaves, W.S. (eds.) Systemic Perspectives on Dis- 
course: Volume 1; Selected Theoretical Papers from 
the 9th International Systemic Workshop. New Jer- 
sey, Ablex. pp50-83. 

Mann, William C. and Thompson, Sandra (1987) 
'Rhetorical Structure Theory: a theory of text or- 
ganization'. In Livia Polanyi (ed.) The Structure of 
Discourse, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing 
Corporation. 

Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. (1987) 'Notes on the 
Organization of the environment of a text genera- 
tion grammar'. In Kempen, G. (ed.)(1987) Natural 
Language Generation: Recent Advances in Artificial 
Intelligence, Psychology, and Linguistics. Martinus 
Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, pp253-278. 

Paris, C6cile. L. (forthcoming) 'User modelling, reg- 
ister, and machine translation'. To appear as a 
EUROTRA-D Working Paper, Institut fiir Ange- 
wandte Informationsforschung, Saarbriicken. 

The Penman Project (1989) 'The PENMAN docu- 
mentation: Primer, User Guide, Reference Manual, 
and Nigel Manual'. USC/ Information Sciences In- 
stitute. 

Ravelli, Louise J. (1985) 'Metaphor, Mode and 
Complexity: an exploration of co-varying pa.tterns'. 
University of Sydney, Department of Linguistics. 
B.A. Honours thesis. 

Schi~tz, Jbrg F.L. (1989) 'Towards a framework for 
knowledge-based translation'. Proceedings of 13th 
German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, 1989, 
Springer Verlag. Also available as IAI/Eurotra-D 
Working Paper No. 10, Saarbr~ckeu. 

Steiner, Erich, Bateman, John, Maier, Elisabeth, 
Teich, Elke and Wanner, Leo (1989) 'Of hills to 
climb and ships to sink -- generating German 
within a functional approach to text generation'. 
Arbeitspapiere der GMD, Gesellschaft fiir Mathe- 
matik und Datenverarbeitung, Integrated Pubhca- 
tion and Information Systems Insitute, Darmstadt. 

\[17\] Vendler, Z. (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, 
N.Y.: Cornell University Press. 
