Exploiting Linguistic Iconism for Article 
Machine Translation 
Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt 
University of the Saarlnad, FRG 
e-mail: cor@dude.uni-sb.de 
Selection in 
1 Introduction 
This paper is meant to give a cognltive-linguistic ex- 
planation of the process of reference. This means 
that we ate concerned with meaning arising from the 
speaker's conceptualization of reality. Different ways 
of referring to the s~me real situation are reflected 
differently on the expression side of language. We 
will exemplify this with the use of articles. We deal 
with two contrasting processes wh/.ch are reflected in 
NP syntax: on the one hand, this is the selection of a 
spedfic part of a MAss, which normally has an indefo 
inite extension. This process results in identification 
emd hence in ~oken reference (cf. Deelerck 1986:163; 
Croft 1985; Langacker 1987a). On the other hand we 
are concerned with type reference to COUNT enti- 
ties (cf. ibd.), more specifically with how we can talk 
about the whole kind of an entity which in reality is 
represented by individual instances. 
Our ultimate aim is to exploit the cognitive principles 
by which reference is determined and to hnport them 
into Machine T~anslation (MT). Traditional MT sys- 
tems so far have not been concerned with a seman- 
tic interpretation mid translation of articles. The 
translationai relevance of interpreting NP readings 
has been stressed in different places (cf. Meya 1990; 
Grabski 1990; gelinsky-Wibbelt 1988, 1901): Bound- 
ing by individuatioh of a MASS results in definiteness 
in Germanic languages (Das Wasser in der Tasse 
ist sehmutzig. 'The water in the cup is dirty.'). In 
English type reference to masses is usually expressed 
by the bare construction as in Wa~er is indispens- 
able, which in German can be expressed both by 
the definite NP and by the bare construction as in 
(Das) Wasser ist nnverzichtbar (see e.g. ter Meulen 
1988:390). In Spanish a D~.FINITZ NP is usually used 
for type reference (El espa~ol me gnsta rods que el 
raso. '1 like Spanish better than Russian.'). 
Type reference to a COUNT entity by the subject NP 
may surface in two contrasting structures in French: 
Uu specta~enr veut voir quelque chose. 'A spectator 
wants to see something.' Le speeta~eur es~ uu ~tre 
humaiu. 'The spectator is a human being.' 
In this paper we will explain the conceptual condi- 
tions for type and token reference, which in turn es- 
tablish the conditions for generating the correct sur- 
face structures in the respective target language. We 
interpret genericity vs. identification by default rules 
(cf. McDermott & Doyle 1980; Reiter 1980), which 
should mirror cognitive processing (cf. e.g. Morreau 
1988, Schubert & Pelletier 1988). There seems to 
exist a preference order among the contextual con- 
ditions on the restriction or preservation of the un- 
bounded extension of a MASs. This order is based 
on the degree of prototypicality of the respective ref- 
erence function: the typicality of the NP's reference 
function is rendered by the strength which the modo 
ifiers have with respect to bounding or unbouudlng 
the entity's normal extension denoted by the noun. 
The component of default rules has been implemented 
in the CAT2 system and results in successful article 
translation. We relate our conceptual conditions to 
the CAT2 rules given in the annex. 
DeMing with different ways of reference, the concep- 
tualization of entities will be in the foreground. En- 
tities are denoted by nouns. We assume that words 
have a basic prototypical sense, which is represented 
in the lexicon. Senses of decreasing prototypicniity 
ate related to this prototypical sense by systematic 
metonymy rules. 
2 Reference and prototype semantics 
It is our ulna to explain how universal and language- 
specific iconic principles result in different ways of 
referring to the same tea\] situation by using differ- 
ing syntactic structures. Speakers of different lan~ 
guage communities, constrained by their different cul- 
tures, arrive at different measures of conventionality, 
salience, relevance and typicality for specific parts of 
their environment and thus categorize and refer to 
these in different ways. Our theoretical framework 
will be prototype semantics (cf. Rosch 1978), be- 
cause this theory explains how categorization is in 
line with human judgement. Categorization is the 
recognition or judgement of some instance as being 
the same as n previously occurring one~ where the 
differences which may well exist in reality are then 
irrelevant for the human conceptualizer. We want to 
adapt these hmnan strategies of categorisation to a 
computational interpretation of reference. 
2.1 Cognitive constraints on 
conceptualization 
Nouns denote something by virtue of their basic, 
lexicai meaning. Reference is only achieved when 
a noun is used in a grammatical construction. The 
interpretation of a word's meaning in different ways 
relies on the speaker's capacity to construe alternate 
cognitive representations of the same real situation 
and to express this by different grammatical con- 
structions. This is the result of selecting certain 
substructures from several cognitive dimensions (cf. 
Langacker 1987c:189ff.): 
ACrEs DE COL1NG-92, NANnieS, 23-28 AOUt" 1992 7 9 2 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
• Along the most significant dimension a speaker 
divides a scene into profile and base. The base 
is the necessary background knowledge out of 
which the profile is singled out as the prominent 
part. For instance the English words lamb, ewe, 
mutton and sheep profile different aspects of the 
common base which consists in the knowledge 
that we have about a certain animal, namely the 
aspects of AGE, GENDER I NUTRITION, COLLEC~ 
TION respectively. The English nouns all trans- 
late into the German noun Schaf, which gener- 
alizes over all aspects profiled in English. This 
shows that both the selection of alternate sub- 
structures and of different degrees of granularity 
result in different mental profilings and hence dif- 
ferent expressions. 
* Along the figure/ground dimension the mental 
foregrounding and backgrounding of the parts 
which constitute a scene is achieved. For lln- 
guistic purposes the foregrounded part consti- 
tutes the trajector (of. Langacker 1987c), which 
corresponds to the grammatical subject or verb, 
and the background constitutes the landmark, 
which corresponds to the grammatical object. 
• Speakers may mentally image reality from differ- 
ent perspectives. To take Bolinger's example 
(1975:181): 
(1) The airlines charge too much. 
(2) Airlines eharye too much. 
In the first case the speaker's perspective coin- 
tides with the time of speech and the scope of 
his predication includes all airlines currently ex- 
isting. In the second case the speaker is farther 
away from the real situation, so that the scope 
of his predication includes all airlines of past, 
present and future (cf. rule (16) in the annex). 
The conditions for this difference in perspective 
are not provided within this sentence. 
* Finally, prototypicality is a dimension along 
which the speaker construes his cognitive rep- 
resentation of reality. The core of a semantic 
category relating to a word is represented by 
the "optimal" prototypical instance to which in- 
stances of decreasing typicality are related (cf. 
Rosch 1978). A speaker can use an expression in 
a more or less typical meaning. We have to relate 
entities to their typicality space, as reference to 
entities by the predication of a typical property 
may differ in surface strucnre from reference by 
predicating a contingent property (Us speefa- 
fear vent voir qnelqne chose. 'A spectator wants 
to see something.' Le speetatenr est nn et~e hu- 
main. 'The spectator is a living being'.) 
2.2 Conceptualizing external and internal 
bounding of entities 
The following characteristics determine whether an 
entity is conceptualized as COUNT or MAss, and 
whether a MASS is conceptualized as HOMOGENEOUS 
or as HETEROGENEOUS (of. Wiersbicka 1985:335): 
• unboundedness vs. boundedness 
* arbitrary vs. non-arbitrary divisibility 
• pragmatically relevant vs. non-relevant count- 
ability 
Langacker (1987a:63) defines COUNT nouns to de- 
note a hounded region. This implies that COUNT 
nouns are individuated on the lexical level. It in 
for this reason that we can coneeptualise several in- 
stances of a COUNT entity and express this fact by 
the plural form (cups, rooms, figures). A MAss noun 
denotes an unbounded region in physical or mental 
space (butter, water). A MAss is cumulative, that 
is, different amounts of the same MAss are arbi- 
trarily unifiable without changing the MAss meaning 
(cf. Quine 1960:91; Bunt 1985; Link 1983). The un- 
bounded extension of a MAss implies that we cannot 
conceptualize one or several bounded partitions of a 
MASS per se, s MASS may not be indlviduated with- 
out additional linguistic means. 
HOMOGENEOUS entities, such as those denoted by 
butter are arbitrarily divisible without losing their 
constitution and function. The form and function 
of HETEROGENEOUS MASS entities, such as those de- 
noted by furniture, are violated if they are divided. 
Langacker's definitions apply to lexical units; they do 
not exclude n bomtding or unbounding at the level of 
the NP. 
If we determine the countability of MAss entities in 
semantic terms, three classes emerge dependent on 
their inner constitution (el. Wiersbicka1985:321): 
1. For MAss entities conceptualized exclusively 
as HOMOGENEOUS there exists no possibility 
of counting them without additional linguistic 
means. They have no 'built-in modes of distin- 
guishing their reference' (Quine 1960:91). These 
MAss nouns can, however, adopt the criteria of 
distinctness, identity and particularity under a 
specific pragmatic purpose; then a classifier ex- 
presses some conventionalized form or function 
(cL Lehrer 1986, Allan 1977) as in a piece of 
butter, a glass of water. 
2. For COLLECTIVE MASS entities comprising dif- 
ferent individuals, such as furniture, there exists 
no relevant perspective from which they may be 
counted. 
3. Some MAssEs are normally conceptualized as 
HOMOGENEOUS t but under a pragmatically un- 
usual perspective may also be conceptualized 
as a HETEROGENEOUS COLLECTIVE entity com- 
prising identical individuals, such as graiu, hair;, 
for instance one may count hair in order to have a 
measure for the density of a person's hair. In this 
situation the individual members are referred to 
by the plural form (eL Zeliasky-Wibbelt 1992). 
3 Multiple ways of reference 
Type reference to a COUNT entity by default is 
achieved by attributing a typical property to it: 
(3) Airlines fly airplanes. 
If, in contrast to this, we attribute a contingent prop- 
erty to airlines, token reference to some bounded part 
occurs attd a definite NP expresses the restriction in 
English: 
(4) The airlines fly airplanes again. 
AcrEs DE COL1NG-92, NAm~:S. 23-28 AO~' 1992 7 9 3 P~oc. OF COL1NG-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28. 1992 
Type reference to a count entity may be expressed by 
a singular definite NP in most European languages: 
(5) The computer i~ an indispensable ~ool nowada~/s. 
In this case the totality is referred to by metonymy: 
one instance is taken to represent the whole kind of 
computers (cf. Bolinger 1975:182). This generaliza- 
tion is achieved by the predication of an EVaLUaTION: 
indispensable is an EWtLUX'rIVE adjective, and if the 
speaker utters an evaluation this results in a habitual 
meaning which implies TEMPORAL UNBOUNDEDNESS 
in the absence of conflicting conditions (cf. rule (14) 
in the annex). 
The prototypical type reference occurs to entities des- 
iguated by NPs in subject position, i.e. to entities 
which are mentally foregrounded as the trajector and 
located with respect to some property space desig- 
nated by the landmark NP in object positiou. The 
latter is usually restricted by the verbal scope of pred- 
ication, especially if the verb expresses some tempo- 
rally extended action as in (4). This does not hold 
for verbs expressing an ATTITUDE or a SEMIOTIC or 
COGNITIVE action or state as in (22). These verbs 
imply habituality, i.e. TEMPOItaL UNBOUNDEDNESS 
which the process has in relation to the speech event, 
if not restricted by conflicting conditions: 
(22) The~/ regard computers as important. 
4 Contextual bounding a MASS 
concept 
Whereas in German individuated as well as non- 
individuated entities may be designated by definite 
NPs, in English only individuated entities may be so 
designated; non-individuated entities are designated 
by the bare construction: 
(6) Das Wasscr in der Tasse isi schmutzig. 
---4 
The water in the cup is dirty. 
(7) (Das) Wasscr ist unverzichtbar f~r die Men- 
schheit. ___.+ 
Water is indispensable for humanit~.l. 
In (6) the definite article expresses that out of the ba- 
sicaily unbounded MAss water the PP-modifier picks 
out the quantity which is in the cup as being dirty (cf. 
Platteau 1980:114; cf. rule (7) in the annex). In (7) 
the adjective expresses an evaluation about the sub- 
ject NP, from which u habitual sentence meaning is 
inferred and the subject NP thereby refers to a total- 
ity, hence the bare construction in English (cf. rule 
(14) in the annex). 
In order to individuate a specific part of a MASS, 
this specific part has to be identified by restrictive 
modification, as the water in the cup in (6) (cf. C. 
Lyons 1980; Hawkins 1980), whereas the unbounded 
extension of the Mass is preserved, if the Mass en- 
tity has no modifier, as in (7), or if the modifier is not 
successful in scope narrowing, which holds for non- 
restrictive modifiers which are themselves conceptu- 
alised as unbounded, as in (15) below. We assume 
that a hearer - following a conversational principle 
(cf. Declerck 1986:87) - tends to interpret German 
definite NPs dominating Mass nouns an GENERIC 
by default, unless semantically restrictive modifiers 
yield a contrasting interpretation (cf. rule (15) in the 
annex). In this section we will give the conditions 
for interpreting German definite NPs and translating 
them into English. 
4.1 Relative clause modification 
Relative clauses modifying Mass nouns have greatest 
strength with respect to modifying the reference func- 
tion. A relative clause inherits the temporal bounded- 
hess from its verbal predicate. According to Vendler's 
classification (cf. Vendler 1967, Dowry 1979) TEM- 
PORALLY BOUNDED verbs a~e those which express 
an ACHIEVEMENT or an ACCOMPLISHMENT of some 
state of affairs (cf. also Langacker 1987a). In (8) 
the relative clause - by virtue of its predicate liefcrn, 
which denotes a~ ACHIEVEMENT -- narrows down the 
unboundedness which Information expresses in its ba- 
sic meaning to that amount which holds for a specific 
period of time (cf. rule (2) in the annex): 
(8) Die Information, die 9eliefert wird ... 
The information which is given ... 
(9) Die 1ndasfrie, die entwickelt wird, braucht fi- 
nauzielle Untcrst~tzun9. 
Industry.t, which is being developed, needs finan- 
cial support. 
In (9) the Aktionsart of the modifying relative clause 
is ACTIVITY, which is unbounded, and hence does 
not restrict the unbounded extension which indus- 
try denotes in its basic meaning (el. rule (4) in the 
annex). 
In anaiogy to the Ak~iousart of the verb, the aspect 
of the relative clause can affect the unboundeduess 
of MAss entities. In (9) above, the DURaTIVE 
pect of the relative clause, which implies that the 
beginning and end of the action is unbounded in 
relation to the reference time (of. Comrie 1976), is 
an additional condition for the preservation of the 
unbounded extension of the Mass. In contrast to 
this, the RIgTROSPECTIVE aspect of a relative clause, 
by the completion which the action has with respect 
to the reference time, results in delimitation of some 
part of a Mass (cf. rule (3) in the annex): 
(10) Die lndustrie, die entwickelt worden ist, brauch~ 
weiterhin .tlnanzielle Unterst~ttznng. 
----4 
The indastr~y, which has been developed, needs 
further financial support. 
Note again that these conditions only apply in the ab- 
sence of conflicting conditions which may be provided 
by a broader context. 
4.2 Adjective phrase modification 
Among the conditions provided by adjective modifi- 
cation the comparison expressed by the superlative 
has greatest strength in bounding a Mass entity. It 
fixes the conception of the MJtss entity from all its 
possible realisations exactly to the degree of the prop- 
erty specified by the adjective, as in sentence (11) (cf. 
Bierwisch 1989). The result is identification, which is 
ACTES DE COLING-92, Nnr, rrEs, 23-28 nO(Zr 1992 7 9 4 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
expressed by a definite NP in English (of. rule (1) in 
the annex): 
(11) Die interessantesLe Indusirie enfwiekelt sich. 
The most interesting industry is developing. 
NoN-GItADABLE adjectives (e.g. adequate, suffi- 
cient, genuine) have a similar effect when modifying 
MASS nouns. They are also called 'absolute' because 
they either do or do not apply to an entity as there 
exists only one reMisation of them; they are concep ~ 
tuMised as sharply bounded and hence in German 
definite NPs result in a restriction of the unbounded 
extension of a MAss as the adjective system- bezoeen 
('system-related') (cf. rule (8) in th ...... ). Note 
that we are concerned here with the translation of 
German definite NPs into English: 
(12) Die systcm-bezogene Information fehlt. 
The systcm-rcla~ed informalion is lacking. 
This is the unmarked, typical modification of MAss 
nouns by NON-GRADABLE adjectives. There are, 
however, NoN-GRADABLE adjectives which stand 
out as non-typical when modifying a MAss noun. By 
choosing a LOGATIONAI, or t~ROVE, NANGE adjective 
as rnodifyer, as in (13) and (14), the speaker merely 
makes an additional commentary to the inherently 
unbounded entity by locating it in a conventionalized 
property space and thus creates a new unbounded 
MAss (cf. rule (6) in tl ....... ). 
(13) Die curop~ische Indas~rie cntwickel~ sich. 
Eu~vpean industry is dew;loping. 
(14) Die Koguiiive Linguisfik IJst das Problem. 
Cognitive Linguistics solves the problem. 
GRADAnLE adjectives preserve the unboundedness of 
a Mass entity in the unmarked case, because GRAD- 
AnLE properties, without being contextually fixed by 
a conventional stzatdard of conlparison, are vague 
with respect to their degree of realization on a contex- 
tually graded scale (eL Dowry 1979:88; Kamp 1975). 
Genericity and hence indefiniteness results in Engfish 
(el. rnle (9) in the annex): 
(15) Die inleressante Forschung wird nieht gcfdvderl. --t 
httercsting resea~h is not being supported. 
Again, this is tile default case of modification by 
GnADABLE adjectives. An exception are MODAL ad- 
jectives which are DI~ONTIC. They restrict the MAss 
to exactly that partition about which the speaker ex- 
presses an obligation (cf. rule (8) in the annex): 
(16) Die notwendige Forschung wird uich~ gefJrdert. 
The necessary research is not being supported. 
COMPARISON adjectives such as similar behave in the 
same way by identifying the specific part of the un- 
bounded MAss which is compased, ms we can only 
compare what we can identify (cf. rule (8) in the 
annex): 
(17) Die veryleichbare lnformatiou \[chit. 
The comparable information is lacking. 
5 Tylle reference to COUNT entities 
If the speaker refers to the type of a COUNT entity, the 
indefinite astide expresses that the entity's descrip- 
tion satisfies its prototypical or "ideal" concept (cf. 
Croft 1985:7-5), or it expresses a certain regularity 
(cf. Kri~a 1988:287). This results from attributing a 
typical property to the whole kind of the entity (cf. 
Declerck 1986:168f.): 
(18) Ein Zuschauer will ctwas schen. 
Uu spectateur veut voir quelque chose. 
'A spectator wants to see something.' 
ttere the predicated property defines a stereotype 
of the species of guschauer in the sense of Putnam 
(1975), hence this sentence is GENErtIC by default, 
i.e. it is true even if the predicated typical property 
does not hold 'inclusively' (cf. Declerck 1986:157L) 
of all members of tile species of Zasehauer. If no 
typical property is attributed to the entity, but the 
entity is classified by a basic domain supereategory, 
comparable to Heyer's essential property (cf. Heyer 
1988:180ff.), a law-like GENERIC reading results, 
which holds 'inclusively' - without exception - for 
the whole kind (also referred to as 'nomic' sentences 
or 'gnomic' by Carlson 1982). Three different NPs 
may then be used in German, but only definite NPs 
in French (eL also Winkelmann 1980:97), as shown by 
the following examples, where guschauer is classified 
by NXTUrtXL and NOMINAL (SOCIAl:,) kinds: 
(19) Zuschauer sind Menscheu. 
~,e(s) ,pcc~at~,(s} e,~ OonO uu (des) ~tre(,) h~ 
main(s). 
'Spectators are human beings.' 
(20) Der gasehauer is~ ein soziales Wcsea. 
Le(s) *p~e*a*eu~(s) es* (so,.) u,, (des) ~t~(s) so- 
cial (sociau~). 
'The spectator is a social being.' 
(21) Ein Zuschauer isl ciu Meusch. 
Lc(s) spectaieur(s) est (son~) un (des) ~trc(s) hu- 
m~i,,(O. 
'A spectator is a human being.' 
6 Marked type reference by NPs in 
object position 
The prototypical type reference occurs with entities 
in subject position. Generally the scope of the verbal 
predication restricts the unbounded extension of an 
entity to which an object NP refers to that quantity 
for which the verbal predication holds as in (22) (cf. 
rule (10) in the annex): 
(22) They sell water. 
An exception to this rule are verbal predicates which 
express it MENTAL ACTIVITY or a MENTAL STAT~. 
ACRES DE COLING-92. NANTES. 23-28 ^o{rl' 1992 7 9 5 Pgot:. ot: COLING-92, Nnrcri.:s, AUG. 23-28. 1992 
They do not restrict the unbounded extension re- 
letted to by the object NP (cf. rule (11) in the annex), 
hence the bare construction is used in English and a 
definite NP in Span~h: 
(23) The~/ regard computers as important. -.----t 
Considcran importantcs los ordenadores. 
(24) I like Spanish more than Russian. 
El espa~ol me gasta rods qne el ruso. 
Here GENERIC reference is achieved by the verbal 
scope of predication, whose EVALUATIVE meaning ap- 
plies to the total extension of the entity refered to by 
the object NP, 
In the following sentence the ttajector is an individ- 
ual token which is located with respect to a laud- 
mark which is basically conceptualized as a MASs. 
The contingent process of writing a text is located 
with respect to n specific use of a language; the noun 
Spanish does not refer to the language as such~ but 
part of it is used at the particular occasion of writing 
a text. Hence the bare construction in Spanish. 
(25) This tczt i~ written in Spanish. ----t 
Este tezto estd escrito en eslm~ol. 
7 Conclusion 
We have shown how conceptual bounding and un- 
bounding of entities result in different ways of ref- 
erence. The translational relevance of the process 
of bounding and unbounding arises from the fact 
that different languages are sensitive to the process 
by surface distinctions in different ways. Our non- 
monotonic approach to the problem guarantees ex- 
tensibillty of the rule fragment, that is, we can add 
rules with conflicting conditions provided by a larger 
context in the future, when the interpretation is made 
from n broader perspective, for instance by including 
discourse phenomena and by using a knowledge base. 
8 Annex of Default Rules 
This annex contains out fragment of default rules, 
which interpret German NPs in a compositional way, 
i.e. by unifying the semantic and syntactic features 
of different lexical and non-lexical nodes of the sen- 
tence. The result of this interpretation process is an 
interlingually constant NP reading out of which the 
syntactic NP structure is generated. The rule order 
represents the degree of markedness; the less marked, 
more typical interpretation only applies after the ex- 
ceptional marked conditions have failed. 
In order to facilitate reading we have translated the 
CAT2 rules into trees and simplified the feature struc- 
tures to mere labels (The only relations are those 
enclosed in curly brex.kets: ";" indicates disjunction, 
"," conjunction). For n mote detailed explanation of 
CAT2 cf. Sharp 1991. CAT2 consists in stepwise 
translation between two linguistically motivated lev- 
eis, both in source language analysis and in target 
language synthesis. These levels represent eonfigu- 
rational structure and semantic functional structure. 
The semantic level should contain all information 
needed for transfer, analysis and synthesis. Our rule 
fragment is implemented on this level. The structure 
of the ~ules is based on the DP analysis (cf. Abney 
1987, Raider 1988, Olson 1988). 
Rule 1 DP 
............. i ............. 
I I predicate arguaent 1 
DETERMINER ~P 
£RTICLE IDENTIFYING 
DEFINITE ........ \] ....... 
I I 
predicate modifier 
S L" 
MASS SUPERLATIVE 
Rule 2 DP 
............. i ............. 
\[ I 
predicate Lr 8u~en~ 
DETERMINER NP 
ARTICLE IDENTIFYING 
DEFINTE ........ I ....... t 
\[ 
predicate modifier 
N S 
MASS RELATIVE 
TEHPORtLLY 
BOURDED 
Rule 3 DP 
............. I ............. 
\[ I 
predicate ar~ent 
DETERMINER lip 
ARTICLE IDENTIFYING 
DEFINITE ........ \[ ....... 
f l 
predicate nodif ier 
N S 
MASS RELATIVE 
RETROSPECTIVE 
Rule 4 DP 
I I 
predicate argtmont 
DETERMINER NP 
ARTICLE GENERIC 
DEFINTE ........ I ....... 
I f 
predicate modifier 
N CLkUSE 
MASS TEMPORALLY 
UNSOUNDED 
Rule 6 DP 
t I 
predicate arsulent 
DETER/~I NEE NP 
ARTICLE GENERIC 
DEFINITE ........ J ....... 
I I 
predicate modifier 
N LP 
MASS {LOCATIONAL ; 
PROVENANCE} 
AcrEs DE COLING-92. NAN1ES. 23-28 Aot~r 1992 7 9 6 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES. AUG. 23-28. 1992 
Rule 7 DP 
I i 
predicate argmaent 
DETERMINER NP 
ARTICLE IDENTIFYING 
DEFINITE ........ \] ....... 
I I 
predicate modifier 
N PP 
MASS ~NON-LOCATIONAL. 
NON-PROVENANCE} 
Rule 8 DP 
............. I ............. 
I I 
predicate argument 
DETERMINR NP 
ARTICLE IDENTIFYING 
DEFINITE ........ \[ ....... 
I I 
predicate modifier 
R AP 
MASS ~SONGRADABLE; 
MODAL; 
COMPARISON} 
Rule 9 DP 
............. I ............. 
I I 
predicate arsmaent 
DETERMINER NP 
ARTICLE GENERIC 
DEFINITE ........ l ....... 
I I 
predicate modifier 
R AP 
MASS GRADABLE 
Rule I0 S 
................. J ......... 
I I 
predicate arsuieut2 
V DP 
~NON-MEMTAr. ..... I ........... 
80N-EMOTIONAL, \[ I 
NON-SEMIOTIC} predicate argtment 
DETERMINER NP 
NON-DEICTIC RON-GENEHIC 
Rule 11 S 
................. \[ ..... 
l I 
predicate arsuzent2 
V DP 
~MENTAL; ........ I ..... 
EMOTIORAL; I I 
SEMIOTIC} 8or argument 
DETERMINER NP 
SON_DEICTIO GENERIC 
Rule 13 S 
I I I 
predicate arSlmentl argtment2 
V DP AP 
COPULATIVE ..... I ........ (NONGRADABI,E; 
I I MODAL; 
RoY argument COMPARISON} 
DETEImINER I/P 
NON-DEICTIC IDENTIFYING 
I 
R 
MASS 
Rule 14 S 
................. \[ ............... 
I I I 
predoicate argt~entl it~gtment2 
V DP AP 
COPULATIVE ..... \[ ........ EVALUATIVE 
I I 
8or argument 
DETERMINER NP 
NON-OEICTIC GENERIC 
I 
N 
MASS 
Rule 15 S 
.............. I ........... 
I i I 
predicate arsument I * 
V DP 
............. i ......... 
I I 
predicate argtment 
DETERMINER NP 
ARTICLE GENERIC 
DEFINITE I 
R 
MASS 
Rule 16 S 
.............. \] ........... 
I I I 
predicate argtment 1 * 
V DP 
TEMPORALLY I 
UNBOUNDED I 
............. i ........ 
I I 
predicate arRttment 
DET NP 
ZERO GENERIC 
i 
gov 
S 
PLURAL 
References 
\[1\] Abney, S. P. 1987 The English Noun Phrase in 
its Seutcntial Aspect, Ph. D. Dissertation. Cam- 
bzidge/Mass.MIT. 
\[2\] Allan, K. 1977 Classifiers. Language 53.285-311. 
\[3\] Van der Auweza, J.(ed.) 1980 The Semantics of 
DeterminerJ. London. Croom Helm. 
\[4\] Bierwisch, M. 1989 The Semantics of Gradation. 
In: Bierwisch, M. & E. Lang (eds.) Dimensional 
Adjectives. Grammatical Structure and Concep- 
tual Interpretation. Spzinger-Vezlag. Berlin. 
\[5\] Bollngez, D. 1975 A Postscript to Postnn on the 
Article. The Modern Language Journal 59 (4). 
181-185. 
\[6\] Bunt, H. 1985 Mass Terms and Model-Theoretic 
Semantics. Cambridge University Press. Cam- 
bridge. 
\[7\] Caxlson, G. 1982 
Generic Terms and Generic Sentences. Journal 
of Philosophical Logic 11.145-181. 
\[8\] Cnmrie, B. 1976 Aspect Cambridge. Cambridge 
University Press. 
ACrEs DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 hol~r 1992 7 9 7 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANtes, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
\[9\] Croft, W. 1985 Determiners and Specification. 
In: J. Hobbs, J., T. Blenko, W. Croft, G. Hager, 
It. A. Kautz, P. Kube, & Y. Shoam. Common- 
sense Summer: Final Report. CSLI Report 85- 
35. 
\[10\] Croft, W. 1991 Syntactic Categories and Gram- 
marital Relations: The Cognitive Organiza- 
tion of Information. Chicago University Press, 
Chicago. 
\[11\] Declerck, R. 1986 The Manifold Interpretations 
of Generic Sentences.Lingua 68.149-188. 
\[12\] Dowty, D. R. 1979 Word Meaning and Montague 
Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Times in 
Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ. 
Dordrecht, Reidel. 
\[13\] Grabski, M. 1990 Transfer Statements as Con- 
di~ional Constraints. EUROTRA-D WORKING 
PAPERS 18. 
\[14\] Haider, H. 1988 Die Struktur der deutschen NP. 
Zeitschrift f'~r Spraehwissenschafl 7 (17.32-59. 
\[15\] Hawkins, J.A. 1980 On Surface Definite Articles. 
In: J. van der Auwera (ed.) 
\[16\] Heyer, G. 1988 A Frame-Based Approach to 
Generic Descriptions. In: Krifka, M. (ed.). 1988. 
\[17\] Krifka, M. 1988 Genericity in Natural Lan- 
guage. Proceedings of the 1988 T~ibingeu Confer- 
ence. Seminaz ffir natfirlich-sprachliche Systeme. 
T~bingen. 
\[18\] Langacker, R. 1987a Nouns and Verbs.Language 
63 (I).53-94. 
\[19\] Langacker, R. 1987c Foundations of Cognitive 
Grammar. Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol. 1. 
Stanford University Press. Stanford. 
\[20\] Lehrer, A. 1991 Polysemy, Conventionality and 
the Structure of the Lexicon. Cognitive Linguis- 
tics 1-2.207-246. 
\[21\] Link, G. 1983 The Logical Analysis of Plu- 
rals and Mass Nouns: a Lattice-theoretical Ap- 
proach. In: Baeuerle, R., C. Schwaxze, A. yon 
Stechow (eds.). Meaning, Use, and Interpreta- 
tion of Language. Walter de Gruyter, Berfin. 
\[22\] Lyons, C. G. 1980 The Meaning of the English 
Definite Article. In: J. van der Auwera (ed.). 
\[23\] McDermott, D. & J. Doyle 1980 Nonmoaotonic 
Logic I.Artifieial Intelligence 13.41-72. 
\[24\] Meya, M. 1990 Tenets for an InterUngual Repre- 
sentation of Definite NPs.In: Proceedings of the 
l $th International Conference on Computational 
Linguistics, Helsinki, Vol.2 
\[25\] Morreau, M. 1988 Default Formalisms for Gener- 
ics. In: Krifka, M. (ed.). 1988. 
\[26\] Olson, S. 1988 Die deutsche Nominalphrase 
als 'Determinalphrase ~. In: Olson, S. & G. 
Fanselow (eds.). Akten der Parametersektion 
der 11. Jahrestagung der DGfS, Osnabrfick. 
T~bingen. Niemeyer. 
\[27\] Putnam, H. 1975 The Meaning of 'Meaning'. 
In: Gunderson, K. (ed.) Language, Mind, and 
Knowledge.. University of Minnesota Press. Min- 
neapolis. 
\[28\] Platteau, F. 1980 Definite and Indefinite Gener- 
ics. In: Van der Auwera (ed.) 
\[29\] Qnine, W. 1960 Word and Object. MIT Press. 
Cambridge. 
\[30\] Reiter, R. 1980 A Logic for Default Reasoning. 
Artificial Intelligence 13. 81-132. 
\[31\] Roach, E. 1978 Principles of Categorilation. In: 
Rosch,E. & B.B. Lloyd (eds.) Cognition and Cat- 
egorization, ttillsdale. Erlbaum. 
\[32\] Schubert, L.K. & F.J. Penetier 1988 An Out- 
look on Generic Statements. In: Kritka, M. (ed.). 
1988. 
\[33\] Sharp, R. 1991 CAT2 - An Experimental EU- 
ROTRA Alternative. Machine Tanslation, EU- 
ROTRA Special Issue 1. 
\[34\] Ter Meulen, A. 1988 Semantic Constraints on 
Type~shlfting Anaphora. In: Kriflm, M. (ed.). 
1988. 
\[35\] Vendler, Z. 1967 Linguistics in Philosophy. Cot- 
nell University Press. London. 
\[36\] Wiersbicka, A. 1975 Oats and Wheat: The Fal- 
lacy of Arbitrariness. In'. J. Halman(ed.). Iconic- 
ity in Syntax. 311-342. Amsterdam, John Ben- 
jamins. 1975 
\[37\] Winkelmann, O. 1980 Some Reflections on the 
French Article System. In: Van der Auwera Ced.). 
\[38\] Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1988 Universal Quantifica- 
tion in Machine Translation. In: Proceedings of 
the 12th International Conference on Compuia- 
tional Linguistics, Budapest. 791-795. 
\[39\] Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1989 Machine Translation 
Based on Cognitive Linguistics: What Lexical 
Semantics Contributes to the Semantic Unity of 
the Sentence. EUROTRA-D Working Paper 16. 
\[40\] Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1991 Token Reference 
vs. Type Reference: Implications for Machine 
Translation. Machine Translation, EUROTRA 
Special Issue 1. 
\[41\] Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1992 forthcoming Refer- 
ence as a Universal Cognitive Process: a Con- 
trastive Study of Article Use. In: Getter, R. 
(ed.)A century of Reference. Now available as: 
EUROTRA-D WORKING PAPERS 21. 
Acr~ DE COLING-92. NANTEs, 23-28 AOt\]T 1992 7 9 8 PROC. OF COLING-92, NArCrES. AUG. 23-28, 1992 
