<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="E91-1047">
  <Title>LIMITS OF A SENTENCE BASED PROCEDURAL APPROACH FOR ASPECT CHOICE IN GERMAN-RUSSIAN MT</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
A SET OF FORMAL CRITERIA
USED BY VIRTEX
FOR DETERMINING ASPECT AND TENSE
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The MT system VIRTEX is made to translate simple German main clauses into Russian including the decision of appropriate aspect forms for simple and complex verbal groups. We distinguish five different types of criteria all of them operating on the level of a syntactic surface structure enriched by semantic features:</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
1. Lexkai Information
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> German verbs which in every context denote non-resultative activities are always translated by a Russian verb in imperfective aspect form, e.g. arbeiten 'to work' - &gt; pa6OTaTT~.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> A contrasting class of verbs (siegen 'to win', erreichen 'to achieve') which represents achievements (see Vendler 1967) can be translated in an analogous way into perfectivC/ aspect forms unless the context suggests iterativity.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2. Valency Frames
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Some verbs allow different readings concerning their semantics. These may be distinguished by the occurrence of certain verbal complements:  (a) Er schrieb an einem Brief.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> 'He was writing a letter.' -&gt; Ou Iruca:I nHCbMO. (i.asp.) (b) Er schrieb einen Brief.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 'He was writing/wrote/has written a letter.' -&gt; Ou rr~tca~/uan~ca~ nuc~uo.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3">  (both aspect forms are possible) Furthermore, there are German verbs which include several semcmes differing with regard to their terminative/aterminative usage (cf. Mehlig 1988). Such a verb is, e. g., the verb sprechen 'to speak'. For translating the terminative reading of the verb - sprechen mit jmdm. 'to talk with sb.' - in Russian both aspect forms can be used: roBopHT~/IrOroBopHT~ c xeu. Theaterminative reading of sprechen does not occur in connection with the preposition mit 'with'. In Russian the imperfective aspect must be chosen: Er sprach (vor Studenten) aber Werkstoffe.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> 'He spoke (to the students) about materials.'</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Such temporal distinctions of verb readings make it to some extent possible to choose the appropriate aspect form already with the help of the dictionary only.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="7" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3. Adverbial Semantics
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Various types of adverbials may help to arrive at a decision. In cooecurrence with durative, iterative or intensity adverbials (e.g. den ganzen Tag lang 'all day long', h~ufig 'frequently', mehr und mehr 'more and more'), the imperfective aspect is chosen. If there are adverbials of punctual meaning (pl~tzlich 'suddenly', date, time) or of future events (demndchat 'soon') and no adverbial of the former class, the pcrfective aspect is preferred. Within the aspect choice algorithm (see fig. 1) these two classes of adverbs were named ADV-I and ADV-P.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="8" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4. Tense
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> If none of the aforesaid criteria applies some German tenses determine the aspect choice: Past perfect is translated to perfective aspect form, in the case of the present tense (pracsens futuri excluded) the imperfective aspect is preferred.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Future perfect is translated into future using the perfective aspect if there is no indicator of subjunctive meaning which is expressed in Russian by the preterite form an and insertion of BepoflTnO 'probably'(see the symbol PRT+VEROJ^TNO in fig.l).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 5. Aktionsart Type and Additional Conditions In the case of the remaining tense forms (not listed in 4.), choice of aspect depends on the verbal semantics. There are distinctions between durative verbs (warren 'to wait', diskutieren 'to discuss'), verbs with a resultative meaning (ertu)hen 'to raise', definieren &amp;quot;to define') or verbs such as aufz/lhlen 'to enumerate', produzieren 'to produce', which are characterized by such properties as limitedness, repeafibility, general faetitive meaning, named IIM+ITER in fig. I . In these cases the existence of a direct object, its number and definiteness (N4 PLUR, N4 BET in fig. 1) must be taken into consideration.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> For details see figure 1 showing the aspect choice algorithm for active voice sentences implemented in VIRTEX. Some of the strict decisions in this algorithm are preferential ones as will be discussed in the next paragraph. In the case of the passive voice or of modal constructions, different sequences of conditions are</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> checked in combination with the operations of passive to active transformation (if necessary) or structural transfer for certain modal constructions.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="9" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
THE ROLE OF CONTEXT
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> When translating isolated sentences into Russian the absence of information about how to interpret the verbal meaning from an aspectual point of view causes major problems. Often the sentence is too short to fred indicators allowing for a decision between several possible interpretations (of. Somers 1990) which would lead to different results of aspect choice. In such cases it is obvious that by using formal criteria an unambiguous solution is not possible. In other words: the rigid aspect choice algorithm implemented in VmTEX at first compelled us to make preferential decisions although we have been aware of the fact that sometimes another interpretation of the sentence to be translated would not be captured.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> In the following we shall show with five examples how certain contexts help us to clarify the intended interpretation of the given sentence in order to choose the proper aspect form. Here the term 'context' refers to what is expressed in the text surrounding the sentence to be translated or to the user's background knowledge about the text. As long as this kind of knowledge is not accessible, it shall be introduced by means of a dialogue compo- null nent.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Current Process I Result (1) Der Student schrieb einen Brief.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> (la) CTyZOHT ~anlcca:~ nHCbUO. (p.asp:) 'The student wrote/has written a letter.' (lb) CTy,PSeUT nHcaJI rrHcbuo. (i.asp.)  'The student was writing a letter.' In the first version of VmTEX designed without a user dialogue we preferred the interpretation by:which the denoted action is assumed to be completed and consequently the perfective aspect is chosen (see: (la)). For verifying this reading a suitable context criterion could be, e. g., whether another action follows (sequence of predicates): &amp;quot;Der Student schrieb einen Brief. Danach brachte er ihn zur Post.&amp;quot; 'The student wrote a letter. After that he took it to the post office.' Variant (lb) is a good translation if the sentence can be related to a parallel situation or to an action going on simultaneously: &amp;quot;F.s war sp~t am Abend. Der Student schrieb einen Brief.&amp;quot; 'It was late in the evening. The student was writing a letter.' To solve this ambiguity by dialogue the user should be asked whether a continuous process or a completed action is meant. This may be done by inserting an adverb into the sentence and asking the user whether the meaning remains unchanged. The following question should be asked: &amp;quot;Ist der Satz so gemeint: 'Der Student schrieb gerade einen Brief? O/n)&amp;quot; 'Does the sentence mean: The student was iust writing a letter ? (y/n)'. If the user says no, reading (lb) is excluded.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4">  Depending on context, German present tense can be used to express future events. That holds for every kind of verb. Indicators like adverbs help in recognizing the future meaning (&amp;quot;Er kommt morgen. &amp;quot; 'He will come tomorrow'). Even if the sentence lacks such adverbs, a future interpretation may be possible but we neglect this fact for the time being. Only if the German sentence contains an achievement verb (the achievement verbs form a subclass of the non-durative ones), the future interpretation seems to have a higher probability because this class of verbs cannot be used to denote a currently  ongoing action: (2) Er ~st die Aufgaben rechtzeitig.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> (2a) OH pollIHT 3a~a ~rH so-Bpez4~. (p. asp.) 'He will solve the tasks in time.' (2b) Os peruser aa~a tnf BO-BpeU~. (i.asp.)  'He solves the tasks in time.' An indicator for the praesens futuri interpretation leading to the translation (2a) would be a context like &amp;quot;Morgen mu~ der Student die Arbeit abgeben. Ich bin sicher: Er ll~st die Aufgaben rechtzeitig. &amp;quot; 'Tomorrow the student has to submit the paper. I am sure: he will solve the tasks in time.' In this case the perfective aspect is necessary. But it is also possible to assign the sentence an iterativeJhabitual interpretation leading to sentence (2b). Then we have in mind rather a certain property than a concrete action of the person specified in the subject position. A context suggesting this reading could be a characterization of the student.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> - 272 To test whether this reading is meant the user is invited to compare the original sentence with &amp;quot;Er l~st die Aufgaben in der Re~el rechtzeitig.&amp;quot; 'As a rule he solves the tasks in time.' If the insertion is possible without changing the sentence meaning, the imperfective aspect of the verb will be chosen, otherwise we assume that the future interpretation holds, which is expressed by the per fective aspect.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> Type / Token Another class of verbs (such as herstellen 'to produce', exportieren 'to export', verkaufen 'to sell') causes a type of ambiguity as shown in (3):  (3) Der Trabant wurde in der DDR verkaujg.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> (3a) Tpa6a;zT 5~ur rrpozraH B FzTP. (p.asp.) 'The Trabant car was sold in the GDR.' (3b) Tpa6al4T rtpo~aBayIc~ B Fz~P. (i.asp.)  'The Trabant car was sold in the GDR.' In a context like &amp;quot;Au{3erhalb des Landes stieB der Trabant aufAbsatzschwierigkeiten.&amp;quot; 'Abroad the Trabant car met with sales resistance.' sentence (3) describes a frequentative process. In another context a single event of verkaufen 'to sell' could be meant: &amp;quot;Die Polizei befaBt sich noch immer mit dera Unfallauto. Es ist jetzt sicher: Der Trabant wurde in der DDR verkaufl. &amp;quot; 'The police is still investigating the car damaged in the accident. Now it is clear: the Trabant car was sold in the GDR.' You may observe in our example that the aspectual ambiguity is interrelated with an ambiguity of the semantic object: whereas in the first reading i t refers to a set of objects, Trabant is type, ill the second reading it denotes one concrete individual - Trabant is token. The distinction between type and token requires deeper semantic analysis which is impossible without contextual knowledge.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> In order to avoid the terms 'type' and 'token' within the dialogue, two sentences are offered to the user. He must decide which of them is more suitable to be used as a paraphrase of the original sentence. With our example, he must select between &amp;quot;Dieses Ob/ekt wurde in der DDR verkaufl&amp;quot; 'This object was sold in the GDR' and &amp;quot;Di__ge Objekte wurden in der DDR verkaufl&amp;quot; 'The objects were sold in the GDR'. If the user prefers the first paraphrase, the Russian perfcctivc aspect will be used, otherwise the  irnperfcctive one.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> (4) Er (4a) General Factitive Meaning I Concrete Action hat Plane ausgearbeitet.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> OH pa3pa6aT~Ba:C/ n:mu~. (i.asp.) 'He has worked out plans.' (4b) OH pazpaSoTagC/ IrZaHH. (p.asp.)  'He has worked out plans.' The imperfective meaning (sec (4a)) is inherent in the source sentence when it is interpreted in the following way: a person has gained some experience in working out plans, maybe it was his professional task. Such a translation underlines the general faetitive meaning which can be emphasized by using the adverbials irgendwann einmal, eine Zet#ang 'some time (during his life)': &amp;quot;Er hat irgendwann einmal / eine Zeitlang Plane ausgearbeitel.&amp;quot; 'Some ti..m.C/ he worked out plans.' This is the preferred reading in the V\]RTEX aspect choice algorithm. Nevertheless, the sentence also can suggest a concrete, completed action, e. g., if the context refers to the result of this action as in &amp;quot;Er hat Plane ausgearbeitet. Sic liegen zur Ansicht aus.&amp;quot; 'He has elaborated plans. They are open to inspection.' In this case the translation must use the perfcctive aspect.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> To test which of the two readings is the appropriate one, the system offers a sentence with the inserted adverbs as mentioned above, and the user is requested to compare its meaning with that of the sentence to be translated.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> The preference of (4a) to (4b) assumed by VIRT~ would be the converse if the direct object were definite. Further types of aspectual ambiguity may occur. In addition, within one aspect form it may become necessary to resolve temporal ambiguities, e.g.:  ol~en expresses a presumption with regard to events, actions, etc. which took place in the past. The latter interpretation could be indicated by adverbs which - 273 semantically contradict the future interpretation. These are adverbs of anteriority denoting spans or points of time in the past such as gestern 'yesterday', eben / gerade 'just' or letztes Jahr 'last year'. In this ease the choice of the proper aspect form depends on the semantic subclass of the associated verb. For non-durative verbs the perfective aspect must be chosen, for durative verbs - the imperfective one. On the other hand, adverbs of posteriority underline the future tense interpretation. Without such adverbials the sentence remains ambiguous. Adverbs of simultaneity and those deietie adverbs which can express simultaneity as well as anteriority and posteriority do not contribute to disambiguating future perfect sentences because they allow for both interpretations. null To solve the ambiguity in example (5) the inquiry might be: &amp;quot;Nehmen Sic an, da\[3 dos bereits erfolgt ist?&amp;quot; 'Do you think that it already happened?' When formulating the inquiries of the dialogue component, we followed the principle that the questions to be answered by the user should be made as precise and simple as possible and should not presuppose any special knowledge in linguistics.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>