<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-1032">
  <Title>Syntactic Analyses for Parallel Grammars: Auxiliaries and Genitive NPs</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Within the cooperative parallel grmmnar project PARGRAM (IMS-Stuttgart, Xerox-Pale Alto, Xerox-Grenoble), the analysis and representation of stru(:tures in the grammars must bc viewed from a more gh)bal perspective than l;hat of tile individual languages (German, English, French).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> One major goal of PAll.GRAM is the development of broad coverage grammars which are also modular and easy to nm.intain. Another major goal is the construction of parallel analyses for sentences of the same type in German, English, and French. If this can be achieved, the prol)h'm faced by machine translation (MT) could tm greatly reduced. Due to the recent developnmnt of a faster and more powerful version of the LFG (Lexical-Functional-Grammar) based Grammar Writer's Workbench (Kaplan and Maxwell 1993) at Xerox, tile implementation of a linguistically adequate, broad coverage grammar aI)pears via.tile. Given the flexible t)rojection-based architecture of LFG (l)alrymple el; al. 1995) and the MT approach presented in Kaplan et al. (1989), 1 a rolmst MT system is already in place.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> In this paper, we (:oncentrate on two issues within the broader perspective of I&gt;AI{GII.AM: the treatment of auxiliaries and the transi)arent representation of multilfle genitive NPs in German.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> 'these phenoinena I'eI)resent two are.as for which generally accepted proposals exist, but, whose ilnplelnentation in the context of par'aiM grammar development throws up quest;ions as to their wider, crosslinguistic, feasibility. With restleet to auxiliaries, the standard raising at)preach that is usually adopted yields undesirable structural complexity and results in idiosyncratic, language particular analyses of the role of auxiliaries. With regard to genitive NiPs, the standard analysis tbr German yields strtlctures which are too alnbiguous for a succesflfl at)plication of madfine translation. The fbllowing sections present a solution in that morphological wellformedness conditions are.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> stated at a separate eonlponent, the 'morTfl~ology projection. Furthermore, a representation of arguinent structure is implenmnted that is related to, 1)ut not idcnl;ical to the ret)resentation of grainmatical flmel,ions. Language particular idiosyncratic requirements are thus separated out from the language universal information l(:quired for further semantic interpretal;ion, or machine translation. null</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>