File Information
File: 05-lr/acl_arc_1_sum/cleansed_text/xml_by_section/metho/86/c86-1075_metho.xml
Size: 30,915 bytes
Last Modified: 2025-10-06 14:11:47
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <Paper uid="C86-1075"> <Title>I OIO~S :iN THE ROSETTA MACHINE TRANSLATION SY.~TEM</Title> <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="321" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> I OIO~S :iN THE ROSETTA MACHINE TRANSLATION SY.~TEM Andr~ Schenk Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven, The Netherlands Abstract </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> This paper discusses one of the problems of machine trans\].ation, n.m~mly the translation of idioms. The paper describes a solution to this problem within the theoretical framework of the Rosetta machine translation syst~n.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Rosetta is an experimental trans\] at\]on system which uses an intermediate lard,mate and translates between Dutch, English and, in the future, Spanish.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> I ~nt roduet ion Idioms have been told still are a basic theoretical sttnlbling block in most linguistic theories. For the purposes of machine translation or, in genera\], natural language processing, it is necessary to Ix~ able to deal with :idioms because there are so i~any of th~n in every language and because they are an essential part of it.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> ldioms occur in sentences as a number of words, possibly scattered over the sentence and possibly with sonde inflected el~nents; this ntnfl~er of words has to be interpreted as havip4~, one primitive meaning. For example, in (1) &quot;nade&quot;, &quot;peace&quot; and &quot;~.Rth&quot; have to be interpreted idlomatically. Note that words that are part of the idJ~n are underlined.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> (1) lie has made his peace with his neighbour The classic example Is (2): (2) Pete kicked the bucket Literally this sentence means that Pete hit a specific vessel ~C/\[th his foot. In the idiomatic reading the interpretation is that Pete died. It is impossib\]e to infer this idiomatic meaning directly fron the prlm~tives &quot;Pete&quot;, &quot;kick&quot;, &quot;the&quot; and &quot;bucket&quot; and from the way they are eomblned.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> Idioms can undergo sy~itaetie transformations, but sometimes they are reluctant to do so. The passive sentence (3) has lost its idiomatic reading, while in the ~assive sentence (4) the idiomatic reading has heen retained .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> (3) The bucket was kicked by Pete (4) Mary's heart was broken by Pete Other examples are (5-12). In the idiomatic reading in (5) clefting with the object as focus is not allowed, while it is allowed in (6) if &quot;Mary&quot; is stressed. Clefting with the subject as focus in both (7) and (8) is permitted. In (9) the PP &quot;at whose door&quot; and in (I0) the NP &quot;whose heart&quot; can be subject to wh-movement. In (ii) the NP &quot;Mary's heart&quot; can be topicallzed (if &quot;Mary&quot; is stressed), but in (1.2) tbe NP &quot;the bucket&quot; cannot undergo this transformation without losing the idicanatic reading. Thus idioms behave syntactically like non-idiomatic structnres, although sometimes they are restricted .</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> (5) It was the bucket that Pete Idcked (6) It was Mart's heart that Pete broke (7) It was Pete that kicked the bucket (8) It was Pete that broke Mary's heart &quot; (9) At whose door did Pete lay his failure (i0) those heart did Pete say that Mary broke (ll) Mary's heart Pete broke (12) The bucket Pete Icicloed Idioms can take free arguments or can have elenents, llke possessive pronotms, which have to be hound hy arguments. In sentences (13-1.5) &quot;Mary&quot; \].s a complement to the idiomatic verb, and realizes different grammatical functions in the sentence (i.e. indirect object, possessive NP and to-PP object respectively)deg In (16) the pronoun &quot;his&quot; has to Im bound by the subject &quot;l?ete&quot;.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> (13) Pete gave Mary the finger (14) Pete broke Mary's heart (15) Pete Laid down the law I:o Mary</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> l.ingtdstic theories on idioms should he able to account for the prohibits out\]\]ned above. The proposals made are usually fragmentary, ill the sense that they only are concerned with part of the probl~n, for instance Fraser (1970), who only deals with the possible application of transfo~vaations to idioms, or they are a relatively minor part of a larger theory, for example Chomsky (1981.), who gives a very general and prfneipled account of idioms, Nit cannot cope with all the data. More elaborate studies on idioms are usually not directly relevant to machine translation, for instance Boisset (1978), who treats idioms frc~n a more pragm~qtic lYoint of view. To illustrate it could be argued that Chomsky (1981) can cope with sentences such as (2) and (15), but not wtt:h (13), (1.4) and (16); Pesetsky (1985) can deal with (2) or (13-16), hut not with a sentence lilm: (17) Pete lald his failure a:t Mary's d_oo ~ Chonsky (198\[, p. 146, note 94) claims that &quot;we may think of an idiom rule for an idiom with a verbal head as a rule adding the string aVc to the phrase marker of each terminal string abc, ~dmre b is the idiom, now understanding a phrase marker to be a set of strings&quot; and that idioms &quot;appear either :In D-structure or S-strncture or LF-form.&quot; Furthermore &quot;at: D-structure, idioms can be distinguished as subject or not snhject to Move alpha&quot;.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> Thus here it is possible to reanalyse a string abe ~nto aVc as for example for sentence (2) in figure (18), where the reanalysis is indicated by a double tree and where a is It seams that on this approach ele~tents of idioms must be adjacent at a certain level (D-structure, S-structure or LF-form), which is the case for sentence (2). ttowever, in sentence (14) the parts of the idiom &quot;breok&quot; and &quot;heart&quot; are not adjacent at any level, since the free argument &quot;Mary&quot; is situated between the idiom parts and in (16) &quot;lose&quot; and &quot;temper&quot; are not: adjacent at any level either. IIence this theory is not able to deal with every type of idiom.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> According to Pesetsky (1985) in a configuration such as figure (19) B and E may undergo a rule of idiosyncratic interpretation, if E is the head of C.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> For sentence (14) in which &quot;heart&quot; is the head of the NP dominating '~ury's heart&quot;, the Me of idtosyncratie Interpretation is allowed, resulting in:</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> In the above tree, the effect of the rule of idiosyncratic interpretation is indicated by the dotted lines; the effect is that the idiom parts are mapped onto one meaning.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="16"> As snggested by Pesetsky, this would also account for sentence (13) if we follow F~yne (1982) in his analysis of double object constructions. Kayne claims that &quot;NP the finger&quot; forms a constituent with &quot;the finger&quot; as its head, so the rule of idiosyncratic interpretation is allowed.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="17"> Sentences (17) and (21-22) are problematic even under this analysis: (21) Pete rammed his lack of money down Mary's throat (22) Pete gave Mary credit for her work Figure (23) gives a representation of sentence (21) in which &quot;his lack of money&quot; and &quot;Mary&quot; are free arguments: Since &quot;throat&quot; and &quot;down&quot; are heads of their constituents, one might suggest a successive application of the rule of idiosyncratic interpretation, but it is not clear how such a rule should operate and since every constituent has a head and syntactic categories are no barrier to rule application, the domain in which this rule is permitted is unlimited.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="18"> It seems that Chomsky (1981) and Pesetsky (1985) are not capable of dealing with the counter examples given here. The treatment of idioms presented in this paper can cope with these phenomena because it is based on the asst~nption that elements of idioms neither have to be adjacent at the level of interpretation nor do they have to be in the specific configuration proposed by Pesetsky.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="19"> In the field of compntational linguistics not much attention has been paid to idioms. Some examples are Rothkegel (1973) and Wehrli (1984). However, in their proposals idioms are treated in the lexicon or morphology and there is no apparent way to account for the scattering of elements of idioms in sentences.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="20"> The organisation of the rest of the paper is as follows: in section (2) an outline of the theoretical framework of t|~ Rosetta machine translation system will be given; section (3) discusses idioms within this frmuework; section (4) discusses some of the typical problems mentioned in the introduction.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="21"> 2 Outline of Isomorphic M-Grammars The Rosetta system is based on the &quot;isomorphic grammar&quot; approach to machine translation. In this approach a sentence s&quot; is considered a possible translation of a sentence s if s and s&quot; have not only the same meaning but if they also have similar derivational histories, which implies that their meanings are derived in the same way from the same basic meanings. This approach requires that &quot;isomorphic grammars&quot; are written for the languages under consideration.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="22"> The term &quot;possible translation&quot; should be interpreted as &quot;possible in a particular context&quot;. The discussion in this paper will be restricted to the translation of isolated sentences on the basis of linguistic knowledge only.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="23"> In the following sections the notions M-gremmars, the variant of Montague grammar used in the Rosetta system, and isomorphic grammars will be introduced. For a more detailed discussion of isomorphic M-grammars the reader is referred to Landshergen (1982, 1984). In section (2.3) an example of an M-grammar will be given.</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="320" end_page="320" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 2.1 M-Gray, mrs </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The grammars used in the system, called M-grammars, can be seen as a computationally viable variant of Montague Grammar which is in accordance with the transformational extensions proposed by Partee (1973). This implies that the syntactic rules operate on syntactic trees rather than on strings. Restrictions have been imposed on the grammars in such a way that effective parsing procedures are possible.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> An M-grammar consists of (i) a syntactic, (ii) a morphological and (iii) a semantic component.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (i) The syntactic component of an M-grammar defines a set of &quot;S-trees&quot;.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> An &quot;S-tree&quot; is a labelled ordered tree. The labels of the nodes consist of a syntactic category and a list of attribute-value pairs. The branches are labelled with the names of syntactic relations, such as subject, head, object, etc.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> An M-grammar defi~es a set of S-trees by specifying a set of basic S-trees and a set of syntactic rules called &quot;M-Rule s&quot;.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> An &quot;M-Rule&quot; defines a partial function from tuples of S-trees to S-trees.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> Starting from basic expressions, an expression can be formed by applying syntactic rules. The result of this is a surface tree, in which the labels of the terminal nodes correspond to words. This process of making an expression is represented in an M-grammar by a &quot;syntactic derivation tree', in which the basic expressions are labels of the terminal nodes and the names of the rules that are applicable are labels of the non-terminal nodes. In the example below (Fig. (25)), rule R I makes the NP &quot;the cat&quot; from the 'basic expression &quot;cat&quot; and rule R 2 makes the S-tree for the sentence (24) on the basis of the NP and the basic expression &quot;walk&quot; (the constructions to the left of the dotted llrms are abbreviations of ~lat the result of the application of the rule looks like).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> (24) the cat is walking (25) SEN%EN~ ...... R 2 ~z_J-- ~'~-- . /X the cat is walking / ~ ~NP ...... R I walk J the cat cat (ii) The morp|mlogical component relates terminal S-trees to stringsdeg This conu~nent will be ignor~l in the rest of the discussion.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> In this way the syntactic and the n~rphological component define sentences.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> (iii) The sem~mtic c~nponent. M-grammars obey the compositionality principle, i.e. every syntactic rule and every basic S-tree gets a model-theoretical interpretation. For translation purposes only the names of meanings and the names of meaning rules are relevant as ~il\] be shown later. The model-theoretical interpretation of the basic S-trees and the synt~tic m*les is represented in a &quot;s~lantic derivation tree&quot;, which has the same ~eo~l~try as the syntactic derivation tree, hut is labelled with naales of meanings of r~es and basic expressions. An example is given below in (27).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> Before giving an example of an M-gramnmr in section (2.3), isomorphic M-grm~mars will be discussed.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="320" end_page="320" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 2.2 Isomorphic M-Grammars </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> To establish the possible translation relation the gramnars must be attuned to each other as follows: - For each basic express:ion of a gr~maar G of a language L there is at least one basic expression of a grammar G&quot; of a language L&quot; with the same meaning.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> - For each syntactic rule of G there is at least one syntactic rile of G ~ corresponding to the sane meaning operation. Syntactically these roles nmy differ considerably. null Two sentences are defined to be (possible) translations of each other if they have derivation trees with the sm~e geometry, in which the corresponding nodes are labelled with names of corresponding rt~es and basic expressions. If this is the case then the derivation trees are isomorphic and the two sentences have the same semantic derivation tree.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Grammars that correspond to each other in the way described above will be called &quot;isomorphic grammars&quot; if the corresponding rules satisfy certain conditions on application, such that for each well-fonned syntactic derivation tree in one language there is at least one corresponding well-formed syntactic derivation tree in the other language. A syntactic derivation tree is well-formed if it defines a sentence, ioe~ if the rules are applicable.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> The following is an illustration of these principles= X~e left part of figure (27) shows the derivation tree of sentence (26) which is the Dutch trm~slation of sentence (24). Rule R~ h~ilds the NP &quot;de kat&quot; from the basic expression &quot;kat' and rule R&quot; 2 constructs the expression &quot;de kat loopt&quot; from the NP and the basic expression &quot;lopen&quot;. There is a correspondence between both the basic expressions and the syntactic rules of the two granmars. Each rule of the syntactic derivation tree is mapped onto a corresponding rule of the s~antic derivation tree and each basic expression is mapped onto the corresponding basic meaning.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> tree tree tree The Rosetta machine translation syst~n is based on the isomorphic gram~qrs approach. The semantic derivation trees are used as the interlingua. The analysis cc~ponent translates sentences into semantic derivation trees; the generation component translates semantic derivation trees into target lang~mge sentences. In this paper the translation relation will ~ discussed generatively only.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="3" start_page="320" end_page="321" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 2.3 All Example of an M-Gr~mmmar </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In this section an example will be given of an M-grammar that generates sentence (28)i (28) Pete lends the glrl a book Only those M-Rules that are relevant to the discussion in the following sections will be dealt with. Note that the rules given here are in an info~xaal notation.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> The M-gran~nar needed for this exanple:</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> (in this infomnal notation the syntactic information in the basic S-trees, given in the focal of attribute-value pairs, - tl, t , etc. are S-trees, mu's ~ndicate arbitrary strings of relation/S-tree pairs, - square brackets indicate nesting, - in an expression of the fonn det/ART(the) det is the relation, ART the category and &quot;the&quot; a literal. So an expression like CL\[subJ/NP, head/VERB, n~l\] stands for:</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> t 4 is of category VAR with index k then: CL\[subj/t , head/t , iobj/t , obj/t \] 2 i &quot; 3 4 The rule operates on a ditransitive verb and three vari~ ables at~d makes a clause in which the variables are the subject, indirect object and direct object respectively.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> R 2 : if t\] is of category NOUN then:&quot; NP \[head/t i\] R 3 if t I is of category NOUN then: NP\[det/ART(the), head/tl\] R 4 : if t\] is of category NOUN then: NP\[det/ART(a), head/tl\] R5 i: if t I is of category NP and~ ' t~ is of the form CL\[subj/VAR(xi) , mul\] then: z CL\[subj/tl, mul\] This is a rule scheme with an instance for every variable index i. The rule substitutes an NP for the subject variable. The same holds for rules R~ ~ and R~ , in which the NP's are substituted for the indif@.dt and di~ct object respectively.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> Apart from changing the category, this rule assigns the tense to the verb and specifies the form in accordance with the number and person of the subject, which is not indicated here (the correct form is spelled out in the morphological component ).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> In this example the rules operate as follows: -Rule R I applied to &quot;lend&quot;, VAR(xi) , VAR(xj) and VAR(Xk) as indicated, - rule Rp applied to &quot;'Pete&quot; gives NP(Pete), - R 3 applied to &quot;girl&quot; renders NP(the girl), - R 4 applied to &quot;'book&quot; NP(a book), - rule R 5 { applied to &quot;lend&quot; and NP(Pete) renders CL(Pete lend x. x~'~, K ., - appl~cation of R~ . to lend&quot; and NP(the girl) renders CL(Pete lend the gi~IJx~), ~ - application of ~ k fro &quot;lend&quot; and NP(a book) resLtlts in i CL(Pete lend the gir~ a book), - application of R 8 gives PSEhTI~NCE(Pete lends the girl a book).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> ~he derivation tree for this example is represented in</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="321" end_page="322" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3 Idioms and Isomorphic M-Grammmrs </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Traditionally, in Montague semantics, as for instance in the PTQ paper (Moutague, 1973), a basic expression has a primitive meaning. However, the semantic concept basic expression does not always coincide with what one would call a syntactic primitive. This is the case, for instance, with idioms. For exmnple the idiom &quot;kick the bucket&quot; has the primitive meaning &quot;die', but the syntactic primitives are &quot;kick&quot;, &quot;the&quot; and &quot;bucket&quot;.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> For reasons given in the introduction it is impossible to treat idioms as strings (i.e. syntactic primitives)deg The possibility of applying syntactic transformations to (eloments of) idioms, which are also applicable to non-idiomatic constructs, suggests that idi~l~s should be treated as having complex constituent structures, which are similar to non-ldiomatic constituent structures. The possibility of having free arguments, which are realized by various grammatical functions, suggests that parts of idioms do not have to be adjacent at any level of the syntactic process.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> The complex idiomatic constituent structure should accommodate this.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> In Rosetta, before idioms were introduced, basic expressions were terminal S-trees, i.e. tenminal nodes.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> Idioms can be treated as basic S-trees that have an internal structure. This type of expression is an example of what will be called a &quot;comp\]ex basic expression&quot; (CBE). A CBE is a basic expression from a semantic point of view, i.e. it correspands to a basic meaning, and a complex expression from a syntactic point of view, i.e. it is a non-terminal S-tree. For exmnple, the basic S~tree for &quot;kick the bucket&quot; looks like the following:</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> By extending the notion of basic expression in this way the attuning of grammars (as defined in section (2.2)) is easJer to achieve: corresponding basic expressions may be CBE's. For ex~nple the D~itch verb &quot;doodgaan&quot; may correspond to the English idiom &quot;kick the bucket&quot;. Special measures are necessary to guarantee that the rules obey the conditions on application (cf. section (2.2)).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> Basic expressions are listed in the basic lexicon of a grammar. A CBE is represented as a canonical surface tree structure in the lexicon. A canonical surface tree structure is the default tree structure for a certain sentence, phrase, etc., i.e. the structure to which no syntactic transformations have applied. For example: if there is a passive transformation, the canonical structure is in the active form. Figure (32) shows the lexicon representation of the idiom: (31) x I lend x 2 a hand (32) VERB sub J -. \]~ea~ iob~jbj~j obj VAR VERB VAR NP</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"/> </Section> <Section position="3" start_page="322" end_page="322" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> ART NOUN </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> &quot;a&quot; &quot;hand&quot; The VAR nodes are not specified (i.e. not referring to an actual VAR) in the dictionary. These variables will be replaced by syntactic variables, when the CBE is inserted into the syntactic tree, Apart from the category VERB and the usual attribute-value pairs~ the top node contains a set of attribute-value pairs that indicates which trans= formations are possible.</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="322" end_page="322" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.1 Treatment of Complex Basic Expressions </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In this section an extension of the M-grammar of section (2.3) will be given that can deal with an interesting class of Complex Basic Expressions and t~o M-grarmnars will be related to each other according to the isomorphy approach.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Some other reasons for having complex basic expressions will be given.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="322" end_page="322" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.1.1 An Example of an M-grmmmar for Complex Basic Expressions </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In this section an M-graml~mr will be presented that generates the idiomatic sentence: R 9 : if t I is of the form VERB\[suhj/VI, head/~\]U~B, iob~/V~\] and t 2 is of category VAR with index~i and t 3 is of category VAR with index j tllen: CL \[ sub J/t2 ,. head/VERB,* Lobj/t 3 \] This rule expects a complex, transitive verb and two variables; it constructs a clause in which tile variables are the subject and the indirect object. For this example the rules operate as follows: - R 9 renders CL(x i lend x. a hand), R 2 and R 3 as in section3(2.3), R5 i renders CL(Pete lend x. a hand), R6'. gives CL(Pete lend theJgirl a hand), ru~ R 8 results in CL(Pete lends the girl a hand). The derivation tree for this sentence is represented in the left part of figure (37).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> The resnlt of application of rules Rp, R2, R , R5.i and ..... 3 R is represented as a tree structure in figure (34&quot;).&quot; 6,j applying, rule~,~ R. to R 7_~, in the example of section (2.3). One of the basic expresJions differs. So the structures can he idiomatic or non-idiomatic and other rules of tlle M-granmmr (e.g. wh~novement or passiw\[sation) are applicable to both these structures, unless, as In tile case of certain idioms, they are prohibited as indicated at the top node.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Assume we have an M-grammar that generates the Dutch sentence (35) wldch is a translation of (33). It is then possible to let the English M-grammar given above for (33) correspond to this grmnmar in the following way: Here &quot;Pete&quot; in both languages corresponds to the basic meaning B , &quot;V lend V 2 a hand&quot; and &quot;help&quot; to B , rules R 9 1 \]. 2 and R&quot; correspond to meaning rule MI, R 2 and R&quot; 2 to M2, R 5 and R'~ to M4, etc..</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> In this ~ray it is possible to establish a correspondence between complex basic expressions in one language and basic expressions that are not complex in another. In a similar fashion it is possible to establish a relation between complex basic expressions in one language and cc~nplex basic expressions in another. Note that in this way it is not necessary to incorporate a so-e&lled structural transfer in the machine translation syst~n for the translation of CBE&quot; s.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="3" start_page="322" end_page="322" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.2 Other Reasons for Waving Complex Basic Expressions </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Expressions that: are not idiomatic, but that consist of more than one word can be handled by means of a c~nplex basic expression in order to retain the isomorphy. This is the case if the expression (i) corresponds to an idiom or (ii) corresponds to a word in another lmlguage. Examples are tlle follo~clng: (i) In l)utch (37) is not an idiom it* the sense defined above (i.e. the meaning of the expression &quot;kwaad worden&quot; can be composed in a natural way from &quot;kwaad&quot; and &quot;worden&quot;), but has an idiomatic equivalent in English (38). (37) kwaad worden (Eng. &quot;become angry&quot;) (38) lose one's temper If &quot;kwaad worden&quot; has to correspond to &quot;lose one's temper&quot;, then in a technical sense, in Dutch, &quot;kwaad worden&quot; can be treated in the s~ne way as an idiom.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> (ii) The Italian word (39) which translates into F.nglish (40) and Spanish (41) whieh translates into English (42) are words that correspond to complex expressions in English (and Dutch). From a translational point of view cases like &quot;get up early&quot; can be treated in the same way as idioms. (39) adagiare (40) lay down with care (4\]) madrugar (42) get up early</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="4" start_page="322" end_page="323" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 4 Some Typical Problems </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In this section sonle of the problems mentioned in the introduction will he briefly discussed.</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="322" end_page="323" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 4.1 Argument Variables Embedded in a Complex Bas:\[c Expression </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In sentence (43) there are two arguments &quot;Pete&quot; arid &quot;Mary&quot; and the idiom &quot;x. break x_'s heart&quot;. The subject (&quot;Pete&quot;) \[ z is treated in the same way as in the previous examples. The argument substitution 1&quot;ele substitutes the variable by the NP &quot;Pete&quot;, giving the structure in (44), in which, eventtmlly, the NP &quot;Mary&quot; substitutes for the argument variable x I. Special M-Rules will have to be added to an M-granmar to achieve this kind of substitution. &quot;Normal&quot; argument substitution rules substitute for the variables in their canonical positions, i.e. as a subject or (indirect) object directly under the clause node or as an object to a preposition in a prepositional object.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> The argument substitution rule for this type of construct looks like the following: Rlo,h: if t I is of category NP and t 2 is of the form CL\[n~al, NP\[det/VAR(~), mu2\], mu3\] then: CL\[mul, NP\[de~/tl, mu2\], mu3\] In this rule tl is assigned genitive case.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Rule R. 0 h applied to NP(Ymry) results in CL(Pete break Mary's ~e'ar t).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> In this way it is also possible to deal with the constructs mentioned in the introduction, as for example &quot;x\] ram x 2 down x3&quot;s throat&quot;~</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="323" end_page="323" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 4.2 Variables Bound hy Arguments </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Sentence (45) contains a possessive pronoun &quot;his&quot;, that refers to the subject &quot;the boy&quot;. In the lexicon the basic expression is represented as in (46).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> The M-Rule that inserts the CBE makes all possible forms of the possessive pronoun (his, her, their, etc.). The substitution rule for the subject decides upon the form of the possessive pronoun.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> In (47) the possessive pronoun &quot;her&quot; is bound to the object &quot;the woman&quot;. The treatment here is similar to the one above. The argument to which the pronoun has to be bound is indicated in the lexicon.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> (47) the man gave the woman her freedom</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> class="xml-element"></Paper>