<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="E89-1040">
  <Title>AN APPROACH TO SENTENCE-LEVEL ANAPHORA IN MACHINE TRANSLATION</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
1 MiMo
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The MiMo formalism tries to come up with an answer to the question what compositional translation should imply.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Strictly compositional systems have to deal with several translation problems. As to what these problems exactly are depends on the nature of the definition of the notion compositionality. In general, two kinds of problems can be distinguished. First, there are the problems that arise when languages do not really match. Second, the problems that occur when translations of two constructions depend on one another.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The former type of problem is caused by lexical and structural holes. It means that source and target representation do not really match. Lexical holes occur when a language lacks words equivalent to the ones in the source language.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> In the case of structural holes, the target language lacks an equivalent construction rather than a word. A description of the concept will have to be used in these cases. For an example of a lexical hole, compare sentence (1) and its translation into English (2).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4">  (1) Jan zwemt graag (2) John likes to swim  Unlike sentences with an adverb like 'vandaag', (i) cannot be translated c0mpositionally in the strictest sense. The translation of (1) is not simply the translation of the parts the constituent is composed of. This problem has been solved in the CAT framework by liberalizing the definition of compositionaiity in such a way that it will be possible to render (1) directly into (2), by means of a rule like (3).  The translation of 'gewoonlijk' requires a rule similar to (3). However, a combination of 'graag' and 'gewoonlijk' appears to be possible as well. An additional rule will have to account for this. This will lead to an enormous explosion of the number of rules. It is one of the main reasons for an alternative definition of compositionality within the MiMo system. The nature of the definition allows the translation of both 'gewoonlijk' and 'graag' in case they cooccur. A translation rule separates a constituent into an ordinary part and an exceptional part. Both parts are then translated separately and finally, in the target language, the two translated parts are joined again. In the case of a sentence consisting of both 'graag' and 'gewoonUjk', the sentence is separated into an exceptional part, 'graag' for example, and an ordinary part, the rest of the sentence. This rest again is separated into an exceptional, 'gewoonlijk', and an ordinary part. The latter is again that which is left behind after extraction of the exceptional part. In the end, all these parts are joined and will make up a construction in the target language. So, in MiMo not all daughters are translated in one shot but part of a constituent is translated while the rules can still work on the rest of the constituent. An extensive discussion ofproblerns like these is to be found in Arnold e.a (1988).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> The second type of problems w.r.t compositionality in translation involves translation of phrases that are mutually dependent. Examples hereof are translations of phrases that are anaphorically linked. Translation requires that these relations are established. Examples are to be found in (8). In (6), the relation between the subject and the refiexive pronominal is necessary to arrive at the correct form of the reflexive pronominal in French. In (7), knowledge of the functional status of the wh-word is relevant to be able to generate the right case in German.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6">  (6) the women think of themselves =~ les femmes pensent a elles-memes/*ils-memes (7) who did you see =~ wen/*wer/*wem sahest du (3) rl(sl,s2,graag) ==~ r2(t(sl),r3(like,t(s2))) By (3) a construction composed of three daughters, sl, s2  and 'graag' will be translated into a construction having two daughters, viz. the translation of sl and a construction that again has two daughters, that is, the verb 'like' and the translation of s2. The main disadvantage of this approach is the fact that combinations of exceptions have to be described explicitly again, see (4) and (5).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> In this paper we will examine the component of the MiMo formalism that has been developed to enable the formula.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> tion of anaphoric relations on the one hand and compositional translation on .the other. The system distinguishes itself from other systems in the field of computational linguistics, such as GPSG (Gazdar et al. 1985), PATR (see e.g. Shieber 1986) and DCG (Pereira and Warren 1980) for its central notion of modularity. The formalism enables - 300 the writer of rules to express generalizations in a simple and declarative way. This will be exemplified in section 4. In an MT context, it is however not enough to establish anaphoric relations monolingually. The question is what the behaviour of these relations in translation is. In MiMo, it is possible to translate the relations compositionally. This will be discussed in section 5.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2 The basic model
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In this section an overview of the MiMo system will be given as far as is relevant for the rest of this paper. The system's architecture is as in (8). In (8) it is indicated that a text in</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> target text a source language is parsed into an interface structure (I). This I-structure, in its turn, is translated into an interface structure in the target language. From this structure the target language text can then be generated. In this paper, mainly the construction of I-structures, through analysis and through transfer, will be focused on, hence the importance of understanding what these structures look like in MiMo terms.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> An I-structure is a tree. The mother node consists of the lexical identifier (LI, the name of the lexical element), possibly provided with a set of features, and a number of slots. Slots can be filled with other I-structures that meet the requirements specified by the slots. (9) is an example of an I-structure. The I-structure (9) has an LI 'kiss' and two</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> slots, an object slot and a subject slot. Fillers of these slots will have to be nominal. The subject slot has been filled by an I-structure that has 'john' as LI, the object slot by the I-structure with LI 'mary'. We will abbreviate structures like these as in (10) henceforth. So, an I-structure consists of a certain LI, a feature bundle in parenthesis and a number of slots in square brackets preceded by a dot. A slot is made up of the name followed by the equal sign and the I-structure that fills it.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Possible I-structures are defined in the lexicon. Distinct (phrase structure) rules that define I-structures are not needed, all structures are specified in the lexicon. Generalizations should be expressed in the lexicon as well. The advantage of this approach is the possibility of defining all subcategorization phenomena directly. So, only coherent structures in the sense of LFG (Bresnan 1982) are built.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> In the lexicon, the slots have not yet been filled by other I-structures. The I-structure for 'kiss' looks like (11) in the lexicon, the question marks indicate that the slot are still empty. In (12) the lexical representation of 'john' is given, which has no slots. When an I-structure can fill the slot of</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> some other I-structure, the features of the slot and those of the I-structure are unified (see e.g. Shieber 1987). The I-structures represented so far were simplified for the sake of readability. In reality, there is the possibility of indicating whether slots are optional or obligatory. Slots can also be marked with the Kleene star. The effect of this operator is that the slot is copied when an I-structure fills the slot. The I-structure will fill the copy and the original slot remains as it was. The slot can he filled several times by I-structures in this way. The slot for modmers is in fact marked with the Kleene star 2 . An I-structure for (13a) looks like (13b) s .</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> (13) a. De mooie vrouw ontmoet mannen op zondag The nice woman meets men on sunday</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> Some words in the lexicon can have the special feature 2Thls results in a flat structure for modJ~ers, This is perhaps not correct from a linguistic point of view. However, translation ;- often much slmp\]er this way. The representation of modifiers is s field in MT that deserves further attention.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> SNote that the order of slots is quite arbitrary. Surface order is not reI~ted to the order of slots in l-structures in any way.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="14"> - 301 'anaphor'. I-structures having this feature will have to be bound by an antecedent in the end. Examples of these are pronouns and reflexives. This requirement also holds for empty slots. They are considered anaphoric and will have to be bound as well unless we deal with optional slots.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="15"> Binding of I-structures happens through anaphoric rules.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="16"> In the next section we will show the way these rules are formulated. The final structure of (13a) will be (14). In (14), a relation between the topic (Ii) and the embedded subject position (I2) 4 is established s . The subordinate</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="18"> complementizer is also regarded as a lexical word. Even sentences that do not show a complernentizer at surface are assigned one. This is not in any way intrinsic to MiMo but makes a uniform account of several phenomena possible. This type of cornplementizer has two slots: an optional slot for topics or wh-words and a slot for a verb construction. null</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 The definition of anaphoric rela-
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> tions Anaphoric relations are defined by a type of rule that is quite different from the ordinary rules. This distinguishes the system from, for example DCG. With PATR and DCG the possibility of percolation from, say topic to trace, influences all the other rules. MiMo's approach, a separate type of rule for the anaphoric component, has the advantage of leaving the other rules, i.e the lexical I-structures, as they are. Modularity is one of MiMo's qualities. This quality is also considered important in GPSG (Gasdar et al. 1985) where it is realized by the use of metarules that multiply the number of rules. This would be undesirable in MiMo 411 and I2 are unique nantes which are autonmtlcally assigned to every I-structure. We will indicate them henceforth as capitalized words. Names to which no further reference is nmde will be omitted for clarlty's sake. An I-structure consists of a tree and 8 set of annotstlons that denote the anaphoric relations within the tree. The tree  since every lexical word is its own rule. So then even the number of words would have to be multiplied.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The use of a different rule type is also motivated by the process of translating anaphoric relations. If we only used feature percolation to encode anaphoric relations, the relations established would not be explicit anymore. Annotations in MiMo are clearly distinguishable from the rest of the representation and as such make it possible to define a compositional translation of them in transfer.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Besides being modular, the system also proves to be declarative. Both qualities, modularity and declarativity, enhance the workability for the user. Changes and extensions are quite easily achieved and rules can be defined in a general way. An anaphoric component written for one particular language can often be used for another language with minor changes.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Anaphoric rules create anaphoric relations within Istructures. This has two consequences in our system. In the first place, some of the features of antecedent and anaphor are unified. These features are called 'transparent'. This, for example, makes it possible to define agreement phenomena. The linguist defines which features are transparent with respect to a certain rule. The motivation for this approach is discussed at length in Krauwer et al. (1987). The main point is that identity of some but not all features is required in an antecedent-anaphor relation. In the second place, the I-structure is augmented with an annotation that specifies the binding. This annotation consists of the name of the relation and the unique names of the nodes between which the relation exists. The definition of anaphoric relations makes use of these annotations (see also section 5). A relation cannot be created unless the correct structural relation between antecedent and anaphor exists. So the grammar writer defines for each relation:  1) the name of the relation 2) the transparent features 3) the structural relation  An example of an anaphoric rule is the one that establishes a relation between a wh-element and an open slot. The rule looks like (15) e MiMo 7 .</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> (15) wh_trace : c_command( {wh}, {open} ){agreement,case} null The wh-trace relation is established when the structural relation c_cornnmnd holds between a wh-constituent and eIn f~ct, the wh-trace rel~tlon is subject to more restrlct;ons than c-commandment. We will return to this in section 4.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> 7A special feature 'open' is used to refer to open slots. All slots have this feature by default as long ~&amp;quot; they are not filled. Sot 'open' can be regarded as a feature of the trace ~;nce slots not (yet) FtUed can he considered potential traces.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> - 302an open slot* The agreement features and the case feature are unified if possible, if not, the relation will not be established. The structural relation itself, c_command in this case, is defined by the user as well. Either a simple structural relation is defined or a complex structural relation. The latter is composed of a regular expression over structural relations s . An example of a simple structural relation is the sister-relation, defined in (16).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> The structural relation sister holds between the Lstructures ANT and ANA if there exists an I-structure in which both ANT and ANA fill slots* The exact nature of the LIs is not important nor are the features or the names of the slots, hence their representation as question marks in (16) 9 * A complex structural relation is defined by means of a regular expression over structural relations. The regular expressions make use of the operators '^', indicating optionality, ';' for disjunction, '*' for iterativity (0, 1 or more times ) and '+'. The latter has a special meaning which can best be explained by means of the definition of the c_command relation mentioned in (17). The '+' operator indicates that the sister relation should hold between the antecedent and some intermediate node and the ancestorrelation between this intermediate node and the anaphor. The Prolog-variant of (17) is (18)* So, the c_command relation holds between the I-structures ANT and ANA when one of ANT's sisters is ANA's ancestor. The MiMo defini(18) c_command(Ant,Ana) :sister(Ant,X), ancestor(X,Ana).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> tion of 'ancestor' is given in (19a). The relation is defined in terms of the simple relation 'mother'. The structural relation of the latter is in (19b) 1deg . Features can be added to the structural pattern to restrict the range of possible relations further. This will be illustrated in the fourth section when we discuss a possible way of treating wh-movement. To aThls idea il partly based on LFG's notion of functional uncertainty. See Kaplan et al. 1987.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> degNote that the order of ANT w.r.t ANA is not relevant since the order of the slots is not in any way related to word order in the sentence.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> ldegAll I-structures are also their own ancestor according to the deftnlt|onin (19a). This is the correct result when used in the c_command deKnltlon since sisters do c_command one another. In case this is uno desirable however, the relation could be defined as follows : ancestor : mother + * mother Generally, the correct deKrdtlon of a relation llke c.command depends of course on the use it's being made of in anaphorlc rules and on the make up of the I-structures used. The definition above should merely be regarded as an exemplification of the mechanism.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> (19) a. ancestor : * mother</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="14"> conclude this section, we give an example of an Lstructure to which (15) applies. (20b) shows the structure before and  (20c) after application of (15).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="15"> (20) a. war ziet John (what does John see)</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="17"> In this section, the actual working of the anaphoric component will be discussed. We will do this by showing how a linguistic phenomenon like wh-movement could be implemented. Note that none of the linguistics in this section follows from the system. The aim of the discussion is to give an idea of the power of the anaphoric component and of the kinds of linguistics that can be put to use. We will first introduce the linguistic environment and present some data from Spanish that reflect some of the surface phenomena caused by the presence of anaphoric relations. The section on the implementation of the wh-relation will argue that and show how surface phenomena of this nature can be handled deterministically.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The wh-trace relation seems the most interesting one because it shows both how general and powerful the mechanism is and how restrictive the rules should be to account for the data* At least the data shown in (21) should be accounted for. In the GB framework (e.g. Chomsky 1981), wh-movement is seen as an instance of the transformation 'move alpha', which respects the subjacency principle. The  - 303 (21) a. why do you think John left (ambiguous) b. who do you think Bill told me ... Susan said _ was ill (unbounded dependency) c. *who do you believe the claim that Bill saw _ (violation complex NP constraint) d. *who do you know whether _ left</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> For English, S and NP are assumed to be bounding nodes.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> Wh-movement takes place cyclically via the comp-posltions of the intermediate clauses, leaving behind traces (the so-called comp-to-comp movement). As such, it does not cross more than one bounding node at a time in a structure like (23).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Our discussion of wh-movement in the next section is in accordance with the comp-to-comp movement. Although other approaches, such as direct movement, are feasible too, we win adhere to the comp-to-comp approach. Data from Spanish (Torrego 1984) also seem to support the preference for actual movement from complementizer to complementizer. null (24) Que \[ dice Juan \[ que \[ creian los dos \[ que \[ habia pensado Pedro \[ que \[ habia aplazado el grupo \[ el grupo habia aplasado What says John that thought the two that believed Peter had postponed the group ; that the group had postponed According to Torrego, inversion is obligatory in all clauses except the lowest. In the lowest clause, inversion is optional. The GB theory accounts for this by claiming that for Spanish S-bar, instead of S, is the bounding node. This predicts that movement in the lowest cycle can take place in two ways, as shown in (25). Neither of the two violates subjacency. Assuming that a wh-constituent, or its trace, in comp triggers inversion, the variation in Spanish word-order in the lowest cycle is accounted for.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> We will return to these data in the next section. We will argue that these data can be handled by the MiMemechanism as well, given the correct rules for the binding</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.2 Implementation
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The structural relation for wh-movement should reflect the idea that the wh-constltuent may bind across one bounding node at most. Note that, before and after the crossing of this bounding node, it may theoretically cross an unlimited number of nodes that are not bounding. The structural relation that reflects this idea looks like (26b), the wh-trace relation is defined in (26a). The wh-trace rela- null (26) a. wh_trace : subjacent(wh,open)-</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> tion is established by the structural relation subjacent between a wh-element and an open slot. The definition of the subjacent-relation closely resembles that of c_command.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> Instead of the relation 'ancestor', a relation 'subj_path' is defined that specifies a path consisting of one bounding node at most. Non-bounding nodes may invervene freely.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Subjacency then is not defined as a filter, it is a positive formulation of possible relations. Note that (26) is valid both for languages in which S is a bounding node, such as English, and for languages which have S-bar as bounding node. The difference in boundedness will be expressed in the lexicon and the bindings will be established according to the definition of subjacency and given the boundedness of particular nodes 11 .</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> As has been shown in (25a) and (25b), the trace can always be bound in two ways in languages that have S-bar as a bounding node, provided there are at least two clauses in between the antecedent and the trace. We can make good tZThe difference between bridge verbs and other verbs is abe encoded in the lexicon. Only bridge verbs allow comp-to-comp movement. The genernlization might be expressed by assigning the feature bounding to sbar complements and modifiers in all other cases. Like this, sbar is a bounding node in some cases too.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> - 304 use of this in MiMo. The Spanish synthesis component can check whether the comp-position of a clause is either filled or bound. If so, the clause is inverted. In this way, the variation in word order in Spanish wh-questions will be quite naturally accounted for.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> This leaves us to show that our definition of wh-trace indeed establishes a relation in two dlITerent ways between the antecedent and the open position. (27b) shows the MiMo version of the structure in (27a). (27c) indicates the way in which the relation is found without binding the complementizer in the embedded clause. The relation 'sister' holds between the antecedent and the node 'pensado'. Ths node in its turn binds the open position 13, through mother-relations. The movement involves the crossing of one bounding node. (27d) indicates the relation found.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> (28) shows that two relations can be found. The GB structure and the MiMo structure are shown in (28a) and (28b) respectively. In (28cl), the relation between 11 and I2 is found and (28c2) shows the one between I2 and 13. Both relations are mentioned in (28d).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> In (28), the intermediate empty complementiser-position is bound, hence inversion will take place. In (27) the complementi~.er is neither filled nor bound, so no inversion in this case. The data are accounted for in quite a natural and linguistically sound way. They are the direct consequence of the definitions of structural relations and they do not have to be generated by some kind of arbitrary inversion mechanism.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11">  gual account of coindexation is quite an achievement. In machine translation, the most important part of research deals with the translation of the relations that were established monolingually.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="12"> The I-object to be translated consists of an I-structure annotated with anaphorlc relations. An I-object is the result of the application of certain anaphoric relations (denoted by the annotations) to a particular I-structure. The compositional translation of an I-object is the result of the application of the translated annotations to the translated I-structure. We hold the view that anaphoric relations are universal in MiMo. The translation of a relation between the I-structures I and J is that same relation between the translations of I and J. This is summarized in (29).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="13"> (29) the translation of an I-object: The translation of an I-object Ii is the result of the application of the translations of the annotations of I1 to the translation of Ii's I-structure. The translation of an annotation RCI,J) is R(tCl),t(J)).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="14"> The final set of anaphoric relations of the target object should be equivalent to the set that existed at the source level. The following example illustrates principle (30) : The translation of anaphoric relations null (30) Por que \[ dice Juan \[ que \[los dos creian \[ que \[ Pedro habia pensado \[ que \[ el grupo habia aplazado la reunion Why say John that the two thought that Peter believed that the group postponed the meeting In this section, we intend to give an impression of the usefulness of coindex relations in translation and the translation of the relations themselves. In linguistics, a monolin-Inversion being obligatory in all clauses except the lowest, 'por que' can only bind the modifier position in either the first or the second clause. Each relation further down is ex- 305 cluded as more clauses would have to show inversion then. When we ignore the bindings established at the Spanish I-level, translation into English will produce a lot of possible translations since 'that' rnhy or may not be inserted in every complementiser position in English. However, the impact of this cornplementizer on possible anaphoric relations is not totally irrelevant. According to WAHL (1987), the complementizer blocks binding of 'why' to an empty position deeper down, cf. (31) and (32).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="15"> (31) why(i)/(j) do you think _(i) the boat sank _(j) (32) why(i) do you think _(i) that the boat sank _ (37).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="16"> (37) Hoe graag zwom Jan =:, How much did John like to swim Since 'graag' is displaced, translation of 'graag' as the exceptional part of the embedded sentence is not possible, given that the movement is not undone 12 . These cases are even noncompositional from MiMo's tolerant view on compositionality.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="17"> When we preserve the bindings from Spanish and we claim that in English 'that' may never be inserted when its modifier position is bound to an antecedent, we can deterministically arrive at the right translation : (33) Pot que \[ dice Juan \[ que \[los dos creian \[ que \[ Pedro habia pensado \[ que \[ el grupo habia aplazado la reunion (34) Why \[ did John say \[ \[ the two thought \[ that \[ Peter believed \[ (that) the group had postponed the meeting Both are ambiguous since both can question the reason for John's 'saying it' and 'the two believing it'. Other interpretations are excluded in both Spanish and English. Definition (29) also causes some problems. Take the following example from Italian (cf. Chomsky 1981) : (35) l'uomo \[che mi domando \[chi abbia visto\]\] the man(i) of whom I wonder who(j) e(i) saw e(j) One might wonder what the English translation would have to be in the first place. In MiMo, the incorrect literal translation will not be found because the necessary anaphoric relations cannot be established. In cases like these, separate translation rules are needed to arrive at a translation of (35). It is possible to refer explicitly to anaphoric relations as long as they are restricted in depth. This is necessary in case an expression without anaphorlc relations translates into one which requires s linking between an antecedent and an anaphor. An example is (36).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="18"> (36) Jan zwernt graag =~ John(i) likes _(i) to swim Unboundedly deep embedded relations are however not accessible by translation rules in the transfer component. Another problem we face deals with the interaction of anaphora and other standard 'non-compositional' phenomena, such as the example of Dutch 'graag' translating as 'to like' in English (see section 1). These examples, as well as anaphora, can be handled compositlonally, as we have shown. The interaction however poses some problems, see Conclusion In this paper we showed the need for a non-standard notion of compositionality in translation. With the MiMo definition of compositionality we are able to define the translation of sentence level anaphora. In MiMo, anaphoric relations are defined by a separate type of rule. This enables linguists to define anaphoric relations in a declarative and modular way. It appeared that linguistic generalizations can be defined quite naturally and generally. It is up to the linguist to decide which generalizations are to be preferred and how they can best be expressed. We chose to formulate principles in a general way. The relation 'subjacent' was meant to serve all languages. Restrictions, e.g. by semantic features, can be added freely. The definitions relate to information that is encoded in the language-specific lexicon. This produces the variations that exist across languages. null The use of a separate type of rule enables a compositional definition of the translation of anaphorlc relations because the applied rules are still visible - as annotations - in the structure to be translated. The translation of an I-object was defined as the translation of the I-structure to which the translations of the anaphoric rules applied. The translation of an anaphoric rule is the target equivalent of that rule. This point of view poses problems in cases where the source language is less restrictive than the target language. In that case, special rules have to be written to assign a translation nonetheless. When a particular relation (read also : interpreation) has been established in the source language, it should be present in the target language. All interpretations should be translated of course. This is not yet possible in the current system when unboundedly deep relations need to be seen in the transfer component.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="19"> t2It is of course also possible to assume that 811 wh-movmuents have been undone. In Mimo, this only means ~ shift of problems from the transfer to the analysis and synthesis modules. Besides, the issue would still hold for other long-dlstance phenomen8 like pronouns. - 306-</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>