File Information
File: 05-lr/acl_arc_1_sum/cleansed_text/xml_by_section/metho/96/w96-0414_metho.xml
Size: 31,111 bytes
Last Modified: 2025-10-06 14:14:24
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <Paper uid="W96-0414"> <Title>A Study of some Lexical Differences between French and English Instructions in a Multilingual Generation Framework* Farid Cerbah Dassault Aviation</Title> <Section position="3" start_page="131" end_page="131" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 2 The sentence generator </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Our sentence realiser GLOSE is based on Meaning-Text Theory (MTT) \[14\]. This linguistic theory offers many potentialities for multilingual applications. In computational linguistics, it has been primarily used as a theoretical basis for language generation models (e.g. \[2, 1, 16\]). Recently, some works in the fields of machine translation and computational lexicography (e.g. \[8\], \[9\]) take advantage of lexicographic descriptive concepts offered by MTT, in particular the well-known notion of lexicalfunction. In accordance with the stratified framework of MTT, the target representation of the lexicalisation process of CLOSE is a Deep Syntactic representation -- mainly a dependency tree, whose nodes are labeled with full lexemes and lexical fimctions. The relations between nodes represent deep syntactic relations which are defined as abstractions over superficial syntactic relations. The dependency tree is enriched with communicative bipartitions such as Theme/Rheme and Given~New.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> We will ignore these communicative constraints in this paper because they are of minor importance for the linguistic phenomena considered here. Lexical functions are used to represent syntactico-semantic relations between lexemes, such as synonymy, hyperonymy, and various types of cotlocational relations.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> GLOSE is composed of two MT-models 2, one for each of the two languages considered in our domain. It should be mentioned that only the grammatical realisation 3 component of GLOSE can be considered as an implementation of &quot;pure&quot; MY-models, since we do not use at the lexicalisation phase MTT-style semantic networks which represent in this theory a linguistically motivated semantic level, independent of the conceptual level. The integration of such semantic representations in a multilingual environment raises several theoretical and practical problems which will be the object of future investigations. We should note that these prob- null (main) linguistic operations: (1) transition from deep syntactic representation to surface syntactic representation, (2) linearisation of the surface syntactic representation and (3) surface morphology.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> lems are studied by several NLG researchers (eg, \[10, 11, 13\]). At present, we consider the lexicalisation problem as a mapping process from conceptual representations to French and English lexemes. This process relies on conceptlexeme mapping structures, integrated in the lexicon, and which represent elementary transitions from conceptual structures to lexemes.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="4" start_page="131" end_page="132" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3 The contrastive analysis </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The corpus is composed of about thirty bilingual pairs of extended procedural texts extracted fl'om aircraft maintenance manuals.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Our contrastive analysis concentrates on verbal expressions. Verbal differences between French and English instructions can be classified along three interrelated dimensions: (1) lezical-French and English versions diverge because of differences in the lexical resources available in both languages -- (2) syntactic- equivalent verbs exist but the two versions cannot rely on similar syntactic constructions--, and (3) stylistic -- lexically and syntactically equivalent versions may be obtained but one of them would be stylistically incorrect.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> We should stress that, when designing the lexicalisation component of a multilingual generation system, one should be careful in deciding how much importance should be given to such a contrastive analysis. In the corpus, bilingual sentences expressing the same content may differ significantly, even though closely related and acceptable versions can be obtained.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> Hence, in such cases, it is difficult to know if the author(s) had good reasons to make the English and French versions so different and if the differences should be respected in the automatic generation process. For aeronautic maintenance procedures, controlled languages -- in particular AECMA/AIA Simplified English and GIFAS Rationalised French -- provide useful guidances, which help to identify the relevant differences for multilingual generation.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> The lexical differences reported in the next sections will be systematically evaluated from a controlled language perspective. This does not mean that controlled languages should be considered as &quot;absolute&quot; references. We will see that the writing rules defining these languages are sometimes too general.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="5" start_page="132" end_page="135" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 4 Operator verbs </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Our corpus analysis reveals that a precise account of operator verbs is required. This texical class encloses semantically poor items like do, carry out in English and effectuer, proc~der in French, which are combined with predicative nouns to form complex predicates. For exampie, in sentence (1F), the operator verb procgder takes as its direct object the predicative noun remplissage which, in some way, denotes the action to be performed: (1F) Procdder au remplissage du rdservoir hydraulique. null (Lit. 'Proceeds with the filling of the hydraulic reservoir.') Operator verb constructions have already been studied from a machine translation perspective \[5\]. Such constructions raise an interesting problem for MT because they cannot be translated in a purely compositional manner.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> For example, a compositional English translation of the sentence &quot;John a posd une question d Mary&quot; would lead to the incorrect sentence &quot;John put a question to Mary&quot;, whereas the correct (or the more closely related) translation would be &quot;John asked Mary a question&quot;. To make the appropriate translation, an MT system should be able to identify in the initial sentence the semi-idiomatic expression poser une question and consequently build a sentence based on the equivalent English expression ask a question. Besides, the equivalent expression in the target language does not always exist,, which means that even more complex correspondences should be found. The literal translation associated to sentence (Iv) illustrates this point. We can hardly get an acceptable English translation if we want to preserve the structure of the French instruction. The English equivalent of (1F) found in the corpus is based on the verb fill which takes as direct object the translation of the argument of the predicative noun remplissage in (1F): (1E) Fill the hydraulic reservoir.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> French and English instructions often diverge on this aspect. Operator verbs are exceedingly common in the French versions. We have found many pairs of bilingual instructions where the French instruction is based on an operator verb construction and the English instruction on a simple verb. Here are some excerpts which illustrate this regularity: (2E) Bleed suction lines.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> (2F) Effectuev la purge du circuit d'aspiration. (Lit. 'Carry out the bleeding of suction lines.') (3E) Change the hydraulic fluid.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> (3F) Effectuer le renouvellement du liquide hydraulique.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> (Lit. 'Carry out the renewal of hydraulic liquid.') (4E) Carefully clean the filter body.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> (4F) Effeetuer un nettoyage soignC du corps du filtre.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> (Lit. 'Carry out a careful cleaning of the filter body.') It is important to note that, in many cases, these French instructions can be paraphrased by sentences based on simple verbs. For example, sentence (2F) can be paraphrased by the sentence based on the verb purger, directly related to the predicative noun used in (2F): (2F') Purger le circuit d'aspiration.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> ((2F') is the closest translation of the English version (2E)) This remark holds for all the examples given above. The choice of operator verbs is often a consequence of technical writers'stylistic preferences. However, as shown by the literal translations, stylistically inadequate sentences would result if this preference were equally applied for English.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> Simplified English and Rationalised French suggest to restrict the use of operator verbs, assuming that verbs that directly show the actions make maintenance instructions clearer. However, operator verbs cannot always be avoided, even in English. Consider the following pair: (5E) Gain access to rear compartment.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> (5F) Acedder d la soute artiste.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> We can hardly find an acceptable paraphrase of (5E) built on a simple verb. We will also show later that sometinms operator verbs cannot be avoided when some attributes of the action to be performed should be conveyed explicitly.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"/> <Section position="1" start_page="133" end_page="134" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 4.1 Operator verb constructions in </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> the lexicallsation process The sentence generator should be able to generate multilingual pairs of instructions similar to the excerpts (2), (3) and (4), by selecting an operator verb construction for one element of the pair and a 'simple verb construction' for the other element. For this kind of differences, the French and English lexicalisations rely on the same basic mechanisms. However, the way these basic mechanisms are combined is language-specific.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Let us look more closely at the pair (1) 4 and at the lexicalisation process required to produce such sentences. Surface realisation starts with the following input representation:</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> This structure represents an imperative illocutionary act. Its propositional content is an action of type fill which has two arguments Agent and Patient. The figure I illustrates 4(1E) Fill the hydraulic reservoir.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> (IF) Procdder au remplissage du rdservoir hydraulique.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> potential correspondences between this input representation an(\] the deep syntactic representations required to derive sentences (1E), (iF'), and (le) after grammatical realisation. The dotted arrows indicate the possible lexical mappings of the conceptual predicate fill. Tile English realisation and the first French option (1F') rely on a simple correspondence between the predicate fill and corresponding verbs (fill and remplir). By contrast, the second French option is based on a complex correspondence between the predicate fill and a multi-lexemic structure procdder it> remplissage. null To deal with this lexical phenomenon, two lexicalisation rules are involved. These rules may roughly be described as follows. Given the in-</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> 5For sake of clarity, we consider that the illocutioncry value is always imperative since we strictly focus in this paper on the instructional parts of the procedures.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> This illocutionary value does not affect the lexicalisation of the proposition, i.e the construction of the deep syntactic tree. However, it has an effect on grammatical realisation, such as erasing the subject during the transition to surface syntactic level.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> rl: Simple Verb Construction 1. Look in the concept - lexeme mapping structures for a correspondence P ~ V.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> 2. Lexicalise the arguments xl, ..., Xn and link the resulting lexemic structures to V.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> r2: Operator Verb Construction 1. Look for a mapping structure P ~ N.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> 2. Look in the lexical entry of N for a verb g such that V = Operl(N).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> 3. lexicalise xl and link the resulting lexemic structure to V by means era deep syntactic relation I.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> 4. Link N to V by means of a relation II.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> 5. Lexicalise the remaining arguments xa, .... Xn and link the resulting lexemic structures to 1'1'.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> Several remarks should be made about these rules: * To link predicative lexemes to their dependents (i.e. realisations of arguments), correspondences I)etween conceptual roles and deep syntactic relations (\[, 1I, ..., IV) are specified in the lexical entry of each verb and predicative noun. Hence, a conceptual-lexeme mapping structure indicates not only which lexeme(s) can be used to express a concept but also how the roles of the concept should be realised in terms of deep syntactic relations.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="17"> * In a MTT-like lexicon, predicative nouns are linked to their operator verbs I)y means of the lexical functions Operx, Opera, ...(for example, Operl(remplissage) = procdder). The number designates the actant of the predicative noun which is promoted as first actant (syntactic subject) of the operator verb. In the procedures we have analysed, only the Operl function seems to be relevant.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="18"> * The rule r2 maps a single concept P to a multi-lexemic structure composed of an operator verb governing a predicative noun. However, this correspondence is not given as such in the lexicon. It appears more natural to consider that the lexical realisation performed by rule r2 relies primarily on a correspondence between the predicate P and the predicative noun. It should also be mentioned that such basic correspondences can also be exploited to generate similar phrases in other types of constructions. For example, the correspondence :f5.11 rernplissage, used by the rule r2 when generating the sentence (1F) can also be used to construct the nominalisation le remplissage de l'accumulateur in the declarative sentence: (6F) .Le remplissage de l'aeeumulateur dolt provoquer l'allumage du voyant sur le tableau hydluulique.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="19"> (Lit. 'The replenish of the accumulator should cause the warning light to come on on the hydraulic panel.') * The lexicalisation of arguments involves other mechanisms, which concern in particular the construction of referring expressions \[3\].</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="20"> * An appropriate generation of multilingual instructions in accordance with these lexical differences can be achieved by assigning priorities to these rules. In English, rt should be privileged and r2 applied only if rx fails. For example, this last case would occur when generating sentence (SE) 6. rl would fail because the lexicon does not contain a mapping structure relating the atomic predicate gain_access and a simple verb. In French, it is, however, difficult to assign absolute priorities in the same way, since we can find both types of constructions in similar contexts. If stylistic preferences observed in the corpus have to be reflected in the automatically generated texts, a reasonable solution would be to select indifferently one of these rules. Notice that Rationalised French, which is not, respected in the procedural texts we have analysed, will assign a higher priority to rl, resulting in an identical parameterisation of the lexicalisation mechanisms for both languages. null</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="134" end_page="135" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 4.2 The problem of complex actions </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> We have assumed so far that actions to be verbalised can be represented by simple predicate - argument structures. However, actions may have attributes (manner, temporal constraints, S(5E) Gain access to rear compartment.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> ...) which should be conveyed explicitly. In general, the two types of constructions represented by rules rl ~nd r2 are possible, even when some attribute of the action should be realised at surface level. For example, in (4F) 7 the manner attribute of the cleaning action is expressed as an adjective since this action is nominalised. But if the same action were expressed as a verb the manner attribute would take the form of an adverbial modifier: (4F') Nettoyer soigneusement le corps du filtre. (Lit. 'Carefully clean the body of the filter.') To deal with such modifiers, a minor extension of rules rl and r2 is required. The rules should be able to introduce modifiers on the 'main' predicative element of the sentence, i.e. the main verb in rx and the direct object of the operator verb (the predicative noun) in r2: * In rx: an attribute of the action will be realised as an adverb linked to the main verb V by means of an attributive deep syntactic relation (ATTR).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> * In r2: the attribute will be reatised as an adjective which linked to the predicative noun N with an attributive relation.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> The problem is that sometimes these attributes cannot take an adverbial form anti in the analysed procedural texts, it seems that this limitation is an important motivation for using operator verbs. They provide the ability to introduce such attributes in an adjectival form. Consider the following pair: (7E) Carry out a dry ventilation of the reactor. (7v) Effectuer une ventilation s~che du rdacteur.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> From both English and French versions, we cannot derive in a simple way equivalent expressions based on a simple verb because of the adverbial modifiers: (TE') *Ventilate drily the reactor.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> (7F') *Ventiler s~chement le rdaeteur.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> A key problem for text generation is to be able to avoid such incorrect sentences. This problem has already been tackled in \[1..5\]. Meteer proposes to express the input semantic content in terms of abstract linguistic resources, 7 (4F) Effectuer un nettoyage soignd du corps du filtre. i.e. semantic categories, which prevent incorrect combinations of concrete linguistic resources during surface realisation. Following Meteer's analysis, the lexeme dry in (7E) denotes a property which cannot be realised if an event perspective is taken on the predicate. This constraint enforces the nominalisation of the action. By contrast, an attribute of category manner can be combined with both event and object perspectives. This explains why (4F) and (4F') are both acceptable. In many cases, the characterisation of attributes along the semantic opposition manner/property explains the acceptability or inacceptability of the &quot;adverbial forms&quot;. However, this characterisation is not always straightforward and it appears that more precise oppositions should be introduced.</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="6" start_page="135" end_page="136" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 5 Specificity level of verbal </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> items Another important lexical difference concerns the specificity level of each element of the bilingual pairs. A French instruction may be less specific because a conceptual argument has been left implicit while explicitly realised in the equivalent English instruction. However, even when both instructions are at tile same specificity level, differences may appear in the way semantic content is spread over the lexical material. This is mainly due to the fact that verbs available in both languages do not necessarily cover the same part of the initial content.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> We will focus on three types of lexical divergences which are frequent in the analysed procedures: null 1. Domain-speclfic vs ordinary verb The two verbs have similar argument structures but one of them belongs to the technical jargon of the domain.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (8E) Unlock valve clapper nut.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> (8F) Ddfreiner l'dcrou du clapet de valve. The verbs unlock and dgfreiner have a very close meaning, but tile second one is domain specific and imposes more c~nstraints on its second argument (the direct object). For example, the English sentence unlock the door is acceptable but not the French one Ddfreiner la porte.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> 2. Specific vs general verb One of the two verbs has a more specific meaning: null (9E) Charge the accumulator with nitrogen. (9F) Gonfler l'accumulaleur h l'azote.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> (Lit. 'Inflate the accumulator with nitrogen.') The choice of a more general verb for the English version is purely stylistic since a specific verb -- inflate -- exists, as shown in the literal translation of (gF). We have found several divergences of this kind, which seem to be stylistically motivated. \[19\] describes similar divergences between English and German instructions. null Notice that, with respect to Simplified English. sentence (9E) is not acceptable, since specific verbs have to be prefered when available.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> We will see in section 5.1 that, interestingly, instructions can be made more precise with general verbs because of differences in argument structures: a general verb may have a more extended argument structure than a specific one.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="7" start_page="136" end_page="138" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3. Ordinary vs denominal verb </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The two verbs have distinct argument structures. One of them, in general the English one, incorporates an argument which is expresse(t at surface level in the French version. Such argument incorporation is often realised through the use denominal verbs which are much more frequent in English procedures: (iOE) Jack up the aircraft.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> (IOF) Mettre l'avion sur vdrins.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (Lit. 'Put the aircraft on jacks.') The verb jack up has no direct equivalent in French. Hence, the French version has to rely on a general verb and the locative argument should be realised at surface level. In the corpus, denominal verbs are systematically used in the English versions (when they are available) even though this choice leads to bilingual pairs with quite different lexical structures.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> Such verbs ensure conciseness and, sometimes, the lack of denominal verbs in French makes the French version much longer. It should be stressed that, in general, both instructions are at the same specificity level, even though one of them appears more complex.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> 5.1 Consequences for the lexicalisation mechanisms 1. Let us start with the first type of differences, domain-specific us ordinary verb. The corpus shows that domain-specific verbs are often prefered over ordinary verbs. A plausible motivation of this preference is that, as illustrated by example (8) s, they impose precise selectional restrictions on the arguments. The important point for multilingual generation is that the absence of a domain specific verb in one language does not affect lexicalisation in the other one (i.e., a specific verb will be used if available). 2. The second type of differences is a more complex issue. Both Simplified English and Rationalised French include a writing rule which says that specific words should be prefered over general words. This rule can be used as a guiding principle in the verb selection mechanisms. However, it is not always sufficient in order to reach the appropriate specificity level required for the instruction. Selecting a more specific verb does not necessarily lead to a more specific instruction., A verb may have a precise meaning but a restricted argument structure which may force to leave implicit some part of the initial content. To illustrate this point, let us compare the following surface realisations of the same instruction: (11 E) Remove lockwire from filler bowl.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> (liE') Unlock the filter bowl.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> The verb unlock is more specific than remove, but the locking device to be removed is not specified as a surface argument of the verb. By contrast, this argument can be made explicit with the verb remove. Which of these two versions can be considered more specific? (llE) seems more specific, for the 'unlocking' action, though incompletely specified by the main verb remove, is somewhat suggested by the argument loekwire (since, obviously, the function of a lockwire is to lock). Besides, it brings another information -- the nature of the locking device -- which cannot be expressed in (liE').</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> The integration in a text generation system of such evaluations of instruction specificity level is not a straightforward issue. Complex world s(8E) Unlock valve clapper nut.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> (8F) Ddfreiner l'dcrou du clapet de valve.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> knowledge and lexical semantic inferences are involved in these evaluations, and they require a deeper model of domain knowledge and precise semantic definitions of lexical items. At present, our approach is less ambitious. We take advantage of the simple heuristic: &quot;the more arguments a verb has, the more specific the resulting instruction&quot; in order to detect potential conflicts. This ability of detecting lexical options may help to perform rephrasing operations. For example, if sentence (liE') is generated first, considering that more specific verbs should be privileged, a rephrasing request would cause the generator to propose an alternative realisation based on the general verb remove which allows to express at surface level the argument left implicit in the first proposal. According to our corpus, this kind of rephrasing operations will normally concerns only the English versions, since in the French procedures specific verbs are systematically prefered.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> Let us now describe briefly how these functionalities are concretely integrated in the lexicalisation component. The generation of an instruction based on a specific verb involves the rules rx and r2 (see section 4.1)&quot;( These rules make correspondences between the conceptual predicate of the action and a specific lexical item. The choice of a more general verb relies on the same rules but the generation process will proceed from a transformed input representation built on a superordinate predicate. For instance, to produce sentence (11E') m, lexicalisation will proceed from the following representation, provided that the mapping structure remove-locking-device ~ unlock is given in the lexicon: denominal verbs and wlfich will be defined later. m(llE') Unlock the filter bowl.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> At the deep syntactic level, only arguments Agent and Location will be realised as actants of the verb unlock (Agent as actant \[ and Location as actant II). The generation of sentence (lIE) 11 will proceed from an input representation based on the superordinate conceptua.l predicate romove with the same arguments. The predicate will be directly linked to tile verb remove as specified in the lexicon and the three arguments will be realised at the deep syntactic level.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> 3. As we have already said, the use of denominal verbs often causes differences between the French and English versions of instructions, since they are usually not available in French.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> Besides, even when they are available they are not systematically used as in the English versions, as attested by the following example: (12E) Pvessurise the hydraulic system.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> (12F) Mettre le circuit hydraulique sous pres8iOn. null (Lit. 'Put the hydraulic system under pressure.') The sentence (12F') based on the denominal verb prdssuriser and which is equivalent to (12F) is also present in the corpus: (12F') Pressuriser le circuit hydraulique.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> The lexicalisation rules defined so far perform mappings between a single concept (the predicate) and one or several lexemes. By contrast, the selection of denominal verbs involves mappings between several concepts and a single lexeme. A denominal verb covers not only the main predicate but also an argument of the predicate. In the example given in figure 2, the French and English versions are derived from the same conceptual representation. The French version results from a one to one mapping between concepts of the input representation and lexemes. In particular, the predicate lock is directly mapped to the verb freiner and the argument Instrument to the phraseme 'ill frein'. The generation of such sentences relies on rules rl and r 2. However, in the English version, it is the combination of the predicate lock and the argument Instrument which is mapped to the main verb lockwire.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> To ensure such correspondences, an additional It (llz) Remove lockwire from filter bowl.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="17"> r3: Argument Incorporation 1. Look in the concept - lexeme map- null ping structures for a correspondence P+xi ~ V, i 6 {1,...,n}.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="18"> 2. Lexicalise the remaining arguments and link the resulting lexemic structures to V.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="19"> To be consistent with the lexical preferences observed in the corpus, this rule should have the highest priority.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="20"> The incorporated argument does not always hold the same semantic role. For example, it can be the instrument as in the verbs lockwire, energise and pressurise or a locative argument as in the verb jack up. It should also be mentioned that such incorporations are not restricted to arguments. \[19\] discusses closely related phenomena concerning German, English and French instructions. The authors provide in particular some examples where a manner attribute is realised as an adverb in English while incorporated in the verb in German and French tu.</Paragraph> </Section> class="xml-element"></Paper>