DERIVATION OF UNDERLYING VALENCY FRAMES 
FROM A LEARNER'S DICTIONARY 
ALEXANDR ROSEN, EVA HAJICOVA and JAN HAJIC 
Universita Karlova 
Praha, Czechoslovakia 
ABSTRACT syntactic information. The lexicon and 
grammars, enriched by feedback from 
The authors collect lexical data for the parsed texts, can later be used 
a module of English syntactic analysis within t}~e machine translation system 
in the context of a bilingual research proper. 
project. The computer usable version 
of OA/JD (Hornby, 1974) is used as the At present, the pril~ry source of 
primary source. The main focus is on lexical data for the English analysis 
the structure and derivation of is a m~chine readable dictionary, 
valency frames for verbal entries in preprocessed to contain only relevant 
the target lexicon. Illustration of information in a transparent format. 
the complex relation between OALD's This paper foeusses on how valency 
verb subc~tegorization codes and the frames for verbal entries are 
target complementation paradigms is extra~ted from subcategorization codes 
provided, and an approach to the in the ,~chine readable dictionary. 
derivation procedure design suggested. 
2. ~ CI{OICES 
1. INTROD\[b'~ION 
Even though the correspondences 
The present paper describes a part between parallel text units can be 
of a larger project, which should re- established at an arbitrary level 
sult in the extraction of lexical and starting from word forms up to an 
structural correspondences between elaborate logical representation, the 
grammatical units in large parallel practical solution seems to lie 
English and CVzech texts. The cortes- somewhere in between. The approach we 
pondenees will then be used to build have chosen is based on the 
a transfer module for an English- representation of linguistic analysis 
-to-Czech (and possibly Czech-to- in terms of underlyin~ (tectogram- 
-English) machine translation system, metical) structures, which are 
Final as well as partial results determined by the given laaqgu~ge, but 
should also be useful as source data void of various irregularities of the 
for text-oriented lir~uistic research, surface strings, including the 
both hi- and monolingual I . ~unbiguity of n~rp~mic and surface 
syntactic units. 2 A "deeper" analysis 
This task entails the need for would increase the. risk of errors and 
tools to analyse unrestricted Czech introduce more theoretical bias while 
and English texts. In the first stage a very shallow level would require 
of the project the goal is to produce larger amounts of data to arrive at 
Czech and English lexicons of adequate simple facts when parallel text units 
coverage and implemented analysis are compared. 
grammars, which will later be 
augmented with tools for preliminary The (underlying) syntactic 
disambiguation. The parser will build description is dependency-based (with 
annotated dependency structures, coordination and apposition as 
usable for tagging word forms, clauses relations of a different type) and the 
and sentences with morphological and project described here makes it 
ACRES DE COLING-92. NANTES, 23-28 AOOT 1992 5 5 3 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
possible (i) to test the basic 
assumptions of the theory on a large 
data collection, and (ii) to formulate 
an implementable relation between the 
surface string and the underlying 
representation. 
A constrained-based (unification) 
formalism was selected due to its de- 
clarativeness, conciseness and formal 
rigour, but its other interesting pro- 
perties were a\]so appreciated: i.a., 
the important role of the lexicon and 
the need I~ treat surface facts within 
the same rigoro~ framework a.q deeper 
concep~. 3 
3. THE SOLACE 
As a shortcut towards a lexicon of 
reasonable coverage we decided to 
build upon an available machine 
readable dictionary, which we intend 
to augment later by hand and from 
other sources. Our primary source of 
English lexical data is now CUVOALD, 
or the Expanded Computer Usable 
Version of the Oxford Advanced 
Learner's Dictionary of Cul.rent 
English, 3rd edition (OALD, Hornby, 
1974), w}Kch is available from Oxford 
Text Archive (see Mitten, 1986) 4 . 
CUVOALDIists all headwords, headword 
variants and derivatives with simple 
codes denoting word classes and 
inflection patterns, supplemented by 
verb pattern codes for verbs. Sense 
distinctions from OALD are not 
retained. 
Where~q the derivation of lexical 
information as needed by the analysis 
from CUVOALD word class codes is 
relatively straightforward, the OALD 
verb pattern codes, which are crucial 
for our purpose, present a real 
challenge. The dictionary classifies 
verbs according to the number and form 
of complements in%~ 51 "verb 
patterns", marked by numbers 1-25, 
supplemented in some cases by letters 
(4A,4B,4C,4D,4F). The number of verbs 
in a single pattern is quite variable: 
starting from a single item in \[VP4F\] 
for he followed by an infinitive up to 
4855 standard transitive verbs in 
\[VP6A\]. A pattern groups together 
verbs which exhibit the same behaviour 
in a standard context and are subject 
to the same set of transfor~tions 
under specified conditions. So e.g. 
the class of intransitive verbs 
\[ VP2A\] can take introductory there and 
postpone the subject if it is 
indefinite and "heavy" : There comes 
a time when we feel we must make 
a protest. A single pattern is also 
used for verbs which allow the same 
mot phesyntactic variations of 
a complement. ( \[VPI\] : She's dark~in 
good heal th/here/a pretty girl. ) 
A different verb pattern is, however, 
used if only a subset of the relevant 
class perndLs the variation. (\[VP6C\]: 
She en~oys swimmir~g / *to swim. vs. 
\[VP6D\] : She likes swim~ting / to swim.) 
Some vat iatio~kq may be treated as 
a different verb pattern. (This is the 
case of the above example: She likes 
swimming. \[VP6D| and Site likes to 
swim. \[VPTA\] ) 
Akkerman (1989) lists several 
shortcomings of the OALD verb 
patterns. As Sampson (1990) noted, 
some of them are arguable. For our 
purpose, the most proble,~tic seems to 
be the treatment of compound verbs 
( with the resulting loss of 
infor.~tion in CUVOALD) and too 
surface-level definition of some verb 
patterns. These classes are quite 
a heterogenous collection: by \[VPI4\] 
are marked verbs in all of the 
following uses, the only requirement 
being that the verb is followed by 
a noun and a prepositional phrase: 
They accused him of stealing the book. 
I explained my difficulty to him. 
Compare the copy with the original. 
Another "misbehaved" pattern is VP4A 
where, depending on the verb, the 
infinitive can be complement or 
adjunct: 
The ~winm~er failed to reach the shore. 
lie came to see that he was mistaken. 
She stood up to see better. 
Apart from these "systemic" blemishes 
we expect a number of other 
inconsistencies and errors to appear 
during t}~ process of derivation and 
use of the target lexicon. 
ACl~.S DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 AOUT 1992 5 S 4 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28. 1992 
4. "lltE TAIK~T 
The target lexicon conta:imq the 
fol\] owitN information about 'the 
valency of a verb ( or its 
complementation), grouped in an entry 
as a comp\]ementation t~radigm: 
SUBCATFC~)RIZATION LIST (SC) gives syn- 
tactic and merphologica\] categories 
for every del~endent, i .e. ei ther 
a particil~nt ( comp\] emenh, n~y be 
ob\]igatory or optional) or an ohZiga- 
tory free modificaLion ( obligatory 
adjunct). An item in the list is Jn 
fact an tmderspecified representation 
of the correspondirlg dependent. The 
ordering of items in the list corres- 
1~nds t~ the unmarked word order in 
a declarative sentence. 
SYRrI'ACTIC FIULME (SF) , a feature 
structtme with syntactic functiorks as 
attributes; values of these attributes 
are co-indexed with the corresponding 
ite.~ of the subcateKorization list. 
UNDERLYING STRUCUVRE (IJS), a feature 
structure with tectogranm~tical func- 
tions ~s attributes; valucs of these 
attributes are identical w:ith Imder- 
Zyiri~ structures within the correspon- 
d:ing items of sul~aLeKorization list 
and syntactic frame. The value of the 
attribute C~DV (governor) is identical 
with the value of the lexeme attribut>e 
of the verb's feature structure. 
The armlysis will establish index 
\] inks between saturated fra.m s\] ors 
and their fillers in the analysis 
tree. This will provide e~y access i~ 
the analysis resu\] ~ at the three 
\] eve\] s of description, hig}~ ighting 
the structure of the sentent, Ja\[ (:ore, 
The 1hi\]owing simple example gives 
comp\] enmntation paradigm for an 
intransitive verb. N\[ nora| is shortI~nd 
for a feature structure representing 
noun in the noEu.t~tive c~k~e with satu- 
rated subcategorization requirements ; 
the numbers co-index feature struc- 
tures which are s~red as values of 
some attributes, the ,a.a I 1 index 
selectq only a part of the structure, 
namely the nominal equivalent of the 
underlyin~ structure; the attrJ bute 
GOV g~ yes the lexica\] value of the 
verb while ACP stands for 
actor/bearer, t|m function represen~ 
ring subject of an active verb at the 
underlying level. Angle bracket~ 
enclose lists, square brackets (con~ 
.juctio~ of) feature structures, curly 
brackets disjunctions. Commas separate 
members of conjuction, vertical bars 
members of disjunction. 
SC < \[ll Nlnomlz > , 
sF \[ sunJ \[11 \] , 
US \[ (~)V sleep , ACi' 12\] \] 
The sa,~ could \[~ expressed in a 
PATR-Iike style (Shieber (1986) ) : 
< SC first > = N\[nom\] 
< SC rest > = end 
< S\[; SUBJ > = < SC first > 
< US C/J)V > = sleep 
< US AC'F > = < ~7 first US > 
Next, we Rive two possible comple- 
mentation paradigms for a transitive 
verb. ( PAT stands for patient, 
VI prespart, SC<N3 > \] 4 is abbreviation 
for present participle form of a verb 
whose single va/ency slot for subject 
in the SC list is co-indexed with the 
~ct~r/bearer of the n~trJx verb): 
SC < I1\] N\[nomla , 121 N\[acc\]4 > , 
SF \[ s\[~u 111 , OBJ \[21 I , 
US \[ C<)V enjoy , ACt 131 , PAT \[4\] \] 
SC < \[I\] N\[nom\]a , 
\[2\] V\[prespart,SC<N3>\]4 > , 
SF \[ S\[~J \[i\] , ()IkJ \[2\] \] , 
US \[ GOV enjoy , AUI' \[3\] , PAT \[4\] \] 
&q the value of the attribute PAT 
of er~joy i.s shared with the value of 
the attribute US of the object, the 
correct va\]ue for the dependent 
verb's ACt attribute is supp\] led via 
co-indexing of the subject of enjoy 
wJ th the subject of the non- finite 
clause within the SC list of er~joy: 
US \[ GOV enjoy , ACt' \[31 , 
PAT \[ GOV swim , AC£ \[3\] \] \] 
The complementation paradigm, 
rat}mr tI~n being stated within 
full-fledged feature structures, is 
expressed in terms of templates, 
preferrab\] y allowing defaults and 
multiple inheritance, Accordingly, the 
above two paradig~ wil\] be expressed 
as follows : 
ACRES DE COLING-92. NAN*rEs, 23-28 Ao\[rr 1992 S 5 5 PROC. OF COLING-92, NAbrrEs, AUo. 23-28, 1992 
transi tive 
transitive , 2ing , equi 
Two verbal entries can he related 
by a lexical rule with the effect that 
one of these two entries need not be 
explicitly present (the ot}~er should 
then be ~rked by the rule's name). 
This will solve phenomena such as 
there preposir~, dative alternation, 
and passivization. 
The collection of three "levels" of 
description within a single comple- 
mentation paradigm provides a means to 
express rather subtle differences. Let 
us take as an example four superfi- 
cially identical constructions: 
(a) I w~nted him to see the monster. 
(b) I expected him to see the monster. 
(c) I elected him to see the monster. 
(d) I told him to see the monster. 
Following Quirk et al. (1985, 
p.1216), the verb is monotransitive in 
(a), complex-transitive in (b) and 
(c), and ditransitive in (d). The 
example (b) is closer to the mono- 
transitive type while (c) is closer to 
the ditransitive type. 
If we have the subcategorization list 
SC < \[1\] N\[nom\]4 , \[2\] N\[acc\]5 , 
\[3\] V\[inf, SC<Ns>\]6 > 
to express the superficial identity of 
all the four cases, we can assume the 
above verbs to have the following 
syntactic frames: 
(a) SF \[SUBJ\[I\], OBJ\[3\]\] 
(b) SF \[SUBJ\[I\], OBJI2\], OBJCOMPL\[3\]\] 
(c) SF \[SUBJ\[1\], OBJ\[2\], OBJCOMPL\[3\]\] 
(d) SF \[SUBJ\[I\], OBJ\[3\], OBJ212\]\] 
The difference between the types (a) 
and (b) vs. (c) and (d) is that 
between the Raising and Equi types. 
Therefore, (b) will have only two 
participants at the level of under- 
lying structure while (c) will have 
three: 
(a) US \[ACr 14\], PAT \[6\]\] 
(b) US \[ACT \[4\], PAT \[6\]\] 
(c) US \[ACT \[4\], PAT \[5\], EFF \[6\]\] 
(d) US \[ACT \[4\], PAT \[6\], ADDR \[5\]\] 
The respective templates will be: 
(a) transitive, 3inf , raising 
(b) complex-transitive, 3inf , raisin~ 
(c) complex-transitive, 3inf , equi 
(d} di trensi tive, 3inf , equi 
A problem remains bow to derive 
such information from OAL/T s verb 
patterns. 
5. THE DE}{IVATION 
CUVOALD was not pri.~rily intended 
for use with a syntactic parser, so a 
few modifications were necessary. 
First, the pronunciation field was 
deleted and homograph entries with 
different pronunciations r~erged. ( In 
CUVOALD, each word, or word form, has 
only one entry, unless it has two 
different pronunciations. ) Second, 
entries headed by regular forms within 
irregular paradigms as headwords were 
also deleted. And finally, reference 
to base forms was provided in entries 
of all the remaining nonbase (irregu- 
lar) forms. Base forms of irregular 
paradigms were marked by a code speci- 
fying the paradigm type. After that, 
we tried to find a way how to derive 
the complementation paradigms. 
Ideally, templates o f the sort 
described in Section 4 should Corres- 
pond to OALD verb patterns while lexi- 
cal rules would account for structures 
listed in Hornby (1975) as variants of 
the same verb pattern. Although this 
idea works in t}~e case of the most 
frequent patterns ( \[VP2A\] , \[VP6A\] ) , 
there are many patterns where the 
relation between pattern and paradigm 
can be l:n, n:l, or even n:n (n > I) 
(see Section 3). 
The case of n patterns : i paradigm 
reduces the number of paradigms and as 
such is a welcome situation. The case 
of 1:n can mean (i) ambiguity for all 
verbs listed under the pattern (and 
c~n possibly be accounted for by lexi- 
cal rules) , (ii) the possibility to 
subdivide the verbs of this class into 
n subclasses, or (iii) a combination 
of the two. For (il, the derivation of 
complementation paradi~l from a verb 
pattern will yield a disjunction. For 
(ii) , verbs with different complemen- 
ration paradigms should be distin- 
ACRES DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 AO't3"r 1992 5 5 6 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
guished. Boguraev and Briscoe (1.989) 
used valency codes in Ii)0CE (Lon~gnan 
Dictior~ary of Contemporary English) to 
autematical\]y extract the (explicitly 
unmarked) distinction between Equi and 
Raising verbs. Similar approach can be 
tNed to ,~ke this and other distinc- 
tions in OALD by taking into account 
co-occurences of verb pat terra. (Am 
situation is simpler ira that we, ~s 
yet, make no attempt to treat distinct. 
word senses, and more difficult in 
tidal the blurred se~e distinctions 
can have negative effect on any deriv- 
ation procedure. It renmir~ to be seen 
whether such a n~thod w:i\]\] lead t~ re- 
sul~ of sufficient reliability. How- 
ever, at the same time we have fx) sup- 
ply n~re inforn~tion t~ some classes 
of verbs, for which any pessibilJty of 
autonmt~c treatment is ex\[uded. The 
current efforts include the specifica- 
tion of lexica\] values of particles 
and prepositions for compound verbs 
and assigning verbs n~rked by verb 
pattern codes such m~ VP14 to relevant 
subclasses. 
The correspondences between the 
OALD patterns and complementation 
paradigms are stated in the simple 
cases by rules relating one or more 
patterns to one or more paradigms 
- templates. Where possible, 
frequently co-occurring verb patterns 
are collapsed into a single paradigm 
with local disjuction, e.g. \[VP61)\] and 
\[VPTA\] for like (swimming/ to swim) 
give the following template: 
\[ transitive, { 2ing / 2inf }, equi \], 
which expands into: 
SC < \[I\] N\[nomb , 
\[ 21 V\[{prespartl inf} ,SC<N3>\]4 > , 
SF \[ suBJ \[11 , OBJ lZl \] , 
US \[ GOV like , ACI' \[3\] , PAT \[4\] \] 
Now t~re are two possible strat- 
egies representing two extremes. The 
first strategy disregards the actual 
distribution of verb patterns in the 
dictionary and atten~ts to combine 
results of rule application into 
a compact and meaningful complementa- 
Lion paradigm. The second strategy 
starts from a list of all combinations 
of verb patterns within the dictionary 
and assigns a rule to every combina- 
tion. Let us look }mw the first 
approach works. 
The process of derivation of a com- 
plementation paradigm for a verb entry 
consists of the following steps: 
1. Application of rules rewriting 
a verb pattern code (or more verb pat- 
tern codes if the resulting paradigms 
can be related by a lexical rule) by 
a template or a sequence of templates 
collected by logical operators "and" 
and "or", the result may be marked by 
one or mere lexical rule names. Rules 
rewriting n~re l~tter~ are preferred 
to those rewriting fewer i~tterns. 
A rule may be, supplemented by a condi- 
tion stipulating the presence or 
absence of' other paradigi~ within the 
same entry. A rule whose condition is 
satisfied is preferred to a rule 
wJ thout condition. Verbs with patter~ 
which do not, corresl~nd to a single 
complementation i~radigm while co- 
occurring verb patterns do not indic- 
ate a preference ibr one paradigm or 
the other have to be treated ,~nu~lly. 
2. Simplification of 
templates by making 
as local as possible. 
the sequence of 
all disjunctions 
3. Consistency check performed by ex- 
pansion of the sequence of templates 
into feature structures. 
E.g.: l~lieve 3A 6A 9 10 25 
step 1: 
rules applied: 
3A -> transitive, prepositional 
6A -> transitive, 2n 
9 -) trans'itive, 2cJs, 2that 
i0 -> transitive, 2cls, 2wh- 
25 -> complex tran~itive, 3Jnf, 
rai sing 
/ ^ { 12A: 12B: 12C', 13A: 13B } a) 
after application of the rules: 
{ transi tive, 2prep ', b ) 
tra~gitive, 2n ', 
trar~itive, 2cis, 2tlmt ', 
transitive, 2cls, 2wh- I 
complex transitive, 3inf, raising } 
after step 2: 
{ transitive, { 2prep '~ 
2n', 
2cls, { 2that', ~h-} } I 
complex transitive, 3inf, raising } 
AcrEs DE COLING-92, NAtUrES, 23-28 aotn" 1992 5 5 7 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUO. 23-28, 1992 
after step 3: 
US \[ ACT\[3\], PAT\[4\] l, 
SF \[ SUBJ!I\], OBJ\[2\] \], 
SC < \[11 N\[nom\]3, 
\[2\] { N\[ { prep', acc} \] ', 
V\[ cls,{ that: wh} \] }4 > 
US \[ ACT\[4\], PAT\[6\] \], 
SF \[ SUBJ\[I\], OBJ\[2I, OBJCOMPL\[3\] \], 
SC < \[I\] N\[nom\]4 , \[2\] N\[acc\]5 , 
\[ 3\] V\[ inf, SC<N5> )6 > 
a) This is a condition stipulating 
that neither of the pat terrL~ should be 
present; the character ^ stands for 
negation. 
b) This is the template of a preposi- 
tional verb. The lexical value of the 
preposition should be supplied. 
This looks like a principled solu- 
tion, but step i can be a source of 
unforeseen complexities with the 
result that too ,~ny entries will have 
to he handled manually. The second 
strategy is much safer: if there are 
not too many different combinations of 
verb patterns it might not be too 
difficult to state rewriting rules for 
all of them, thus e\]iminati,~ steps 
2 and 3 from the above procedure. 
However, to make a decision, some sta- 
tistical analysis is necessary. 
CUVOALD lists 5695 verbs with 633 
different combinatioi~ of verb 
patterns. ~ 4853 verbs (85.2%) are 
marked by one of the 56 most frequent 
combinations (each occurring seven and 
more times). The first ten most 
frequent combinations are given below: 
verb patterns frequency 
6A 1971 
2A,6A 575 
2A 338 
6A,14 331 
2A,2C 165 
2A,3A 137 
6A,15B 101 
2A,2C,6A I00 
2A,2C,6A,15B 81 
3A 64 
At the other end, t~re are 442 
combinations occurring only once, 191 
two and more times, 119 three and more 
times and 77 five and mere times. 
Another survey was aimed at finding 
most frequent combinations as proper 
subsets of the full combinations 
treated above. E.g. the combination of 
three patterns 2A,3A,6A occurs alone 
in 54 entries, but as a proper subset 
of a larger combination already in 
566 entries. 
From the above data it seems that 
a compromise between the treatment of 
individual verb patterns and of entire 
combinations would be most efficient. 
119 combinatio~ can already be 
treated by individual rules quite 
comfortably while the rest can be com- 
posed from results of rules applied 
independently, where more alert super- 
vision is required. It also seems 
feasible to use the rules for combina- 
tions to treat parts of the remaining 
lists of verb patterns, ar~ perhaps 
add a few more, se#ected according to 
the second statistics. 
6. P~SPM\[rr\]A~ 
Lexicon and gram,~r together form 
the basis for the extraction of lexi- 
cal and structural correspondences. 
Other tools are necessary, however, 
and we are currently designing speci- 
fications for such tools. 
Besides the non-trivial task of 
text cleanup, for which no special 
tools will be used, two major needs 
remain: text unit align,~nt and data 
extraction methods. 
Automatic text unit alignment (on 
word, phrase, and sentence level ) is 
also non-trivia/. On the sentence 
level, we will employ a method for 
al igpmlent based on sentence length 
( Gale 1991 ), for which we have 
developed a f\]exible front-end for 
recognizing sentence houndaries. We 
are considering an extension of 
Church's algorithm taking into account 
lexicon-based elementary word corres- 
pendences (as in Kay (1988) and Cati- 
zone et al. (1991) ) for better 
accuracy, but this extension has not 
been implemented yet. 
Methods for data extraction are 
still under development. However, it 
is clear what such data should look 
like. As our output representation is 
AcrEs DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 AOt)r 1992 5 5 8 PROC, OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUo. 2.3-28, 1992 
far from the inter\]Jr~u~ ideal, the 
data will basically be transfer data 
in a form fitti~ the structural 
transfer model, following the ideas of 
Kaplan et, a.L. ( 1989). The actual 
implementation, however, will follow 
the l~.ttern of the transfer module in 
the experiment~l machine trans\]at\]on 
system EL\[\] (Russel et a\] . (1991) ) . 
NOT~ 
This project, ca\]\]ed MAT'RACI,; (from 
MAchine TRAnslation between Czech and 
Eng\[ J sh, J s one o f the projecL~ 
carried out within the IBM Academic 
Initiative Jn Czechoslovakia. 
it is not the aim of this paper to 
discuss and substantiate the reper- 
toire of valency relatio~ and their 
classJ fication. The interested reader 
can find a detailed analysis of these 
issues and a comparison with other 
theories of deep (underlying) struc- 
ture Jn Sgall, HajJSov{~ and Panevov~ 
(1986, esp. Ch.2). 
3 As we are involved in the develop- 
ment of a practical constraint-based 
system, we are aware of the necessity 
to include some centre\] or dynamic in- 
formation in addition to the static 
description sup;x)rted by traditional 
constraint-based for,~lisms. We expect 
to deal with this issue seriously in 
later stages of the project, when par- 
tia\] results wi\]\] be available. 
4 CUVOALD comes in two versions: one 
lists base forms pl~ a\]\] forms of 
J rregu\] ar words whJ \]e the other 
contains all inflected forms expli- 
citly. As we intend t~ }rove a merpho- 
logical comi~nent, we are u~ing the 
ba.~e forms version. 
5 These and following numbers include 
base forn~ only, as well as 876 verbs 
which were not marked by any p~ttern 
and for which defaults were used: 6A 
for transitive verbs, 2A for 
intransitive verbs. 

References

Akkerman, E. (1989) "An independent 
analysis of the LDOCE grammar coding 
system", J n B. Hoguraev and T. Bris- 
coe (eds.) Computational Lexicography 
for Natural Langua\[4e Processing, 
Longn~n, London and New York 

Boguraev, B. and T. Briscoe (1989) 
"Utilising the LIX)CE gram,~r codes", 
i bi dem 

(~tizonc, R., }£m~se\]\], G. and S. War- 
wick ( 199\] ) "Deriving Translation 
Data from Biliz~ual Texts", in Zernik 
(ed.) Lexical Acquisition: Using 
on-Jine Resources to Build a Lexicon, 
Lawrence Erlb~um. 

Gale, W. A. and K. W. Church (in 
prep. ) A Program for Aligning Sen- 
tences in BilinA'~1 Corpora, submit- 
ted to CL (1991). 

l{ornby, A.S. (1974) Oxford Advanced 
Learner's Dictionary of Current Eng- 
lish, 3rd edition, Oxford University 
Press, London. 

Hornby, A.S. (1975) Guide to Patterns 
and Usage in F~\]fflish, 2nd Edition, 
Oxford University Press, l~)ndon. 

Kaplan, 1~. M., K. Netter, J. Wedekind 
and A. Zaenen (1989) "Translation by 
Structural Correspondences", in Pro- 
ceedings of the 4th EACL, ACL, Man~ 
chester, UK. 

Kay, M. and M. R6scheisen (1988) 
Text-'l~ans'lation AliKrm~ent, unpu- 
blished manuscript, Xerox Pale Alto 
Research Center. 

Mitton, R. (1986) "A partial dictiona- 
ry of English in Computer-\[~sable 
Form" , J n L1 terary and Linguistic 
Computing 1:214-215. 

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J. 
Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Gram- 
nmr of the Ec~lish Language, Longm~n, 
\]mndon and New York. 

Russell, G., A. Ballim, D. Estival and 
S. Warwick-Armstrong (1991) "A Lan- 
guage for the Statement of Binary Re- 
lations over Feature Structures", in 
l~oceedir~s of the 5th EACL, ACt, 
BerlJ n, Germany. 

Fm~,p~on, G. (1990) a review of B. Bo- 
guraev and Ted Briscoe (edas.) Compt~ 
rational Lexicography for Natural 
Language Processing, in Cx~mputational 
Linguistics 2 : 113-116 

Sgall, P., E. Haji~ovh and J. Panevov& 
(1986) The Meaning of the Sentence in 
its Semantic and Pray'tactic Aspects 
(Edited by J. Mey), Reidel, Dordrecht 
/ Academia, Praha. 

Shieber, S.M. (1986) An introduction 
to Unification-Based Approaches to 
Grit. CSLI Irecture Notes No. 4, 
Stanford: Center for the study of 
Language and Information. 
