<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C69-3101">
  <Title>CHANGE VERKNDERN REVOLVE DREHEN INCREASE ERHOHEN DECREASE VERMINDERN MOVE OBERTRAGEN etc. SICH ANDERN SICH DREHEN SICH ERHOHEN SICH VERMINDERN SICH BEWEGEN Typ 2: transitive-vintransitive MOUNT MONTIEREN STEIGEN RETURN ZUROCKBRINGEN ZUROCKKEHREN CONTINUE FORTSETZEN FORTFAHREN</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2.0 The Problem
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Consider the following sentence pairs:  lie) The company has increased the production. (Ib) The production has increased rapidly. (2a) Register 3 returned the value unchanged. (2b) The access arm returned to its original position. It is clear that the (a) and (b) sentences have to be translated in a different way: (la&amp;quot;) Dig Gesgllschaft hat dig Prod~ktion grhoeht Q (Ib&amp;quot;) Dig Produktion hat sich schnell erhoe-~t-. (2a&amp;quot;) Register 3 brachte den Weft unveraendgrt zurueck. (2b&amp;quot;) Der Zugriffarm--~rte zu sginer urspruenglichen  Position zuruec~-.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> It is not difficult to see that the linguistically relevant criterion for the proper German translation is the presence or absence of a direct object-NP. For the German translation of (Ib)the implicit object must be made explicit by the insertion of the German reflexive pronoun SICH. In the second example we have to select two differe~r&lt;t verbs to render both (2a) and (2b) correctly into German 2~ .</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.1 A first approximation
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> As a~irat a~proximation the following scheme can be</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> ~Jote that (RI') and (R2') must follow each other immediately, otherwise the environment in (R2') must be made explicit.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> Note also that verbs like INCREASE need not be mentioned at all: they can be marked in the lexicon as invariably + transitive\] , to which the missing formal object should be inserted on the German side by an other rule:</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> As the final step, the correct German equivalent has to be determined by the English verb and the feature \[+ transitiv~ or \[ - transitive~ ; to secure the proper translation we have to provide appropriate lexicon entries for the rules:</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> In order to be able to cope with reflexives of variable verb stems like:</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> it is necessary to mark reflexives in (R3') by an additional feature : Iv el trans it iv reflexive 71 /reX Conditions: X contains no NP; X may be O.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.2 Clause boundaries
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> This basic schemehas to be made somewhat more precise.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> Consider: (5) AS data processing needs have increased, the basle card 1.an@uase remained the same. Without referring to the clause boundary after the word INCREASED, the following NP (= subject of the next clause) would be interpreted as an object belonging to the verb INCREASED.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Thus the environment in (RI') (and accordingly also in (R2') and (R3&amp;quot;)) has to be further specified: in addition to requirement, that the NP immediately follows the verb, we must also demand that the NP may not be separated from the verb by a sentence boundary. This means that the NP must belong to the same clause as the verb.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> This can be done on the basis of the sentence analysis, which is motivated independently from the cu~r~rent problem, and the results of which remain accessible ~ . Thus the final set of rules would read as follows:</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> 7 Symbol g~ means that we restrict the applicability of our rules t~ one and the same clause.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> 2.3 Passive-voice verbal constructions Further more we should also be able to treat sentences like the following: (4) It has been returned to the initial position.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> (4&amp;quot;)Es ist zu der ursg~ruengli~hen Position zurueckggbracht wordgn ~ .</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> 6 (5) If the disk has Seen mounted, start the machine.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> (5&amp;quot;) Wenn die Platte montiert worden ist, starte die Maschine.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10">  In order to get the required feature \[ + transitive\] in spite of the physical lack of a direct object NP in the terminal string~ we have to' recognize passive-voice constructions as such.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> The passive recognition should preeeed (RI) and should discover the object of the main verb, otherwise (R2) treats sentences like (4) and (5) as intransitives, after which we have to eliminate the consequences of this misinterpretation. Presuming unique morphological marking of passive-voice the following recognition rule would be sufficient for the present purpose:</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="13"> For the further discussion note that the passi~v~ recognition uneseapably involves hierarchical structures 6~ .</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.1 Motion verbs
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> There are some subsidiary problems arising after the exchange of the transitive form of a multifunctional verb against its intransitive correspondence.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> Consider:  (6) The temperature ha~ dropped rapidly. (6') Die Temperatur hat ~allen 8ePSa~sen schnell. (6&amp;quot;) Die Tamparatar hat gcfallen ~chnell.  Inspire of the correct translation of the main verb, sentence (6&amp;quot;) is still false, because fallen - fiel - ~efallen counts as a motion verb, and as such it takes the ~ary verb sein in perfect tense. Therefore provision must be made to provide the proper auxiliaries for the motion verbs in perfext tense. The actual exchange of the auxiliary might be postponed to a later step, if the appropriate marking is provided by the lexicon.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> transitive~l !t,t ,,,otio j Since the auxiliary selection has to be done for all motion verbs in perfect tense, i.e. also for the non-homographic type like has arrived i.st angekommen has gone ist gegangen etc., it is practical to place the auxiliary ~election behind</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.2 Order of composite verbs
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Let us consider the order of primary elements of composite verbs like:</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
STOP STEHEN BLEIBEN
DROP FALLEN LASSEN
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In order to be able to manipulate each unit separately it is expedient to set up two words on the German side:</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
STOP ~'STEHEN
BLEIBEN%
DROP /FALLEN
&amp;quot;LASSEN ~
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> At this point however we have to ask which of the two possibilities is the preferable order:</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="0" end_page="10" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
STEHEN or BLEIBEN ?
BLEIBEN STEHEN
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> When generating the final German word order, all composite verbs have to be inverted.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> This inversion routine consists of a set of rules (7) . The rule for subordinate clauses operates aecording to the following basic scheme:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Conditions: S is a subordinate clause (i.e. it is dominated by an other symbol); X may be an empty string; V n is the last part of the verb. An inversion is necessary in any case independently of the present issue, also for sentences like (1) - (4), for which we have tacitly assumed the existence of a verb inversion routine \[ 7 7 .</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> We should like to translate correctly sentences like:  (7') It aause~ the machine to stop.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> zu~stehen7 Es vzranlasst die Masahine ~bleiben~ At the first sight it appears that sentence (Ta') Es veranlasst die Maschine zu stehen blgiben. sounds better than: (7b') Es veranlas~t die Maschine zu blgiben stghen. But if we make the verb inversion rule (R6) also for (7) applicable the verb will be automatically inverted. Thus (7b') is preferable to (7a'), since (R6) yields the correct translation out of (7b'), but not out of (7a'). All what we have to do is to treat the infinitive zu bleiben as a unit:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> (R6) applies first vacuously, i.e. it effects only the marking, but not the physical sequence of the constituents, since V * .rest is an empty string. The variable zu bleiben is the remalnaer of the verb constituent after the separation of the last independent morphological unit. At the second application, there is a V t produeed by step 1, (R6) places the no, last and only - m~er of the verb constituent after Vrest ~ .</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8">  These considerations show also the crucial importance of the ordering of rules and subroutines. We can solve the sequencing of the newly inserted compound verbs with minimal effort, if we have the verb inversion routines run after the disambiguation of the transitive/intransitive verbs.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="10" end_page="10" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.0 Theoretical implications
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Finally I should like to point out a theoretical implication of the present problem which might have bearings on linguistic analysis in general.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> In a formal linguistic analysis it is unavoidable to set out from the information directly available in the terminal string. This primary information is organised necessarily in a linear fashion.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> As the analysis proceeds the possibility emerges to organize the linguistic information in a non-linear, hierarchical way. The results of the analysis steps can be used to find and mark the boundaries of the clauses, to recognize the individual constituents within the larger units, i.e. to build up a tentative constituent structure.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> As the disambiguation of verb with multiple meaning shows, we have to rely on hierarchically organized information in order to make the proper choice between transitive and intransitive usages even in this rather simple ease. To solve the polysemy of the verbs in questions, we have to be able to find out that an NP is dominated directly by a VP and that this VP dominates directly a verb, which is in turn marked in an specific way.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Our transformation terminology, and the fact, that the systems lends itself readily for such a reinterpretation suggest our conclusion: We claim that the MT-system described above uses transformational rules.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> This claim is supported  1. by the hierarchical organization of grammatical information, which is the computational representation of phrase markers (trees).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> 2. - and this is the main point - by our reinterpretation  of the computational algorithms as mapping of phrase markers into phrase markers \[2\] \[3\] II This implication seems interesting for the following reason. The MT-system of IBM Germany has grown out of the intention to create a translating tool for practical purposes. The system was developed in a basically empirical manner; problems were attacked at points, where we hoped to find the easiest way to the solution. A general frame of action has been invented, rules have been worked out and ordered coding considerations have been made, but it is only in retrospect that the theoretical evaluation of the system has become possible.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> On the whole the system, heterogeneous as it is, resembles the fulcrum type of MT-scheme, operating on a different language pair as Garvin's system \[1\] . We have tried to show, however, that even the empirical approach felt the need for multidimensional structuring, and certain rules set up on empirical considerations - e.g. those treating verb with multiple meaning - turn out to be mappings of phrase markers into phrase markers in the transformational sense.- ......</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="10" end_page="13" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
IZ
Summary_
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In the past years the Department of Basic Research IBM Germany developed an experimental Machine Translation System to translate technical texts on data processing and electronics from English into German. This MT-system displays some resemblances with the Fulcrum-type of systems, but at least some of its subroutines contain also transformational devices.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The treatment of verbs with multiple meaning of the type CHANGE - VER~NDERN - SICH ~NDERN is one of these cases. The correct recognition of the passive voice and direct objects presuppose hierarchically organised and permanently accessible syntactic markers.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> While presenting this rather special case it has been attempted to show some further aspects as well as the general functioning of the system.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The MT-SYstem represents a team work: the author of the present paper thanks especially Mrs. Brigitte Schirmer and Mr. Reinhart Herzog for reading and criticizing the first version of the manuscript.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4">  Our German translation may deviate occasionally, e.g. with regard to prepositions, from the common usage, since we draw the examples from our actual output.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> _Th.e._following verbs display the same regularity:</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>