Bilingual Hebrew-English Generation of Possessives and Partitives: Raising the Input Abstraction Level

We present a contrastive analysis of the syntactic realizations of possessives and partitives in Hebrew and English and conclude by presenting an input specification for complex NPs which is slightly more abstract than the one used in SURGE. We define two main features - possessor and ref-set and discuss how the grammar handles complex syntactic co-occurrence phenomena based on this input. We conclude by evaluating how the resulting input specification language is appropriate for both languages. Syntactic realization grammars have traditionally attempted to accept inputs with the highest possible level of abstraction, in order to facilitate the work of the components (sentence planner) preparing the input. Recently, the search for higher abstraction has been, however, challenged (Elhadad and Robin, 1996) (Lavoie and Rambow, 1997) (Busemann and Horacek, 1998). In this paper, we contribute to the issue of selecting the "ideal" abstraction level in the input to syntactic realization grammar by considering the case of partitives and possessives in a bilingual Hebrew-English generation grammar. In the case of bilingual generation, the ultimate goal is to provide a single input structure, where only the openclass lexical entries are specific to the language. In that case, the minimal abstraction required must cover the different syntactic constraints of the two languages.

[1]  Helmut Horacek,et al.  A Flexible Shallow Approach to Text Generation , 1998, INLG.

[2]  John A. Bateman,et al.  The Re-use of Linguistic Resources across Languages in Multilingual Generation Components , 1991, IJCAI.

[3]  Michael Elhadad,et al.  An Overview of SURGE: a Reusable Comprehensive Syntactic Realization Component , 1996, INLG.

[4]  Michael Elhadad,et al.  Generating Determiners and Quantifiers in Hebrew , 1998, SEMITIC@COLING.

[5]  Regina Barzilay,et al.  Information Fusion in the Context of Multi-Document Summarization , 1999, ACL.

[6]  Hagit Borer On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs , 1988 .

[7]  Michael Elhadad,et al.  Lexical Choice for Complex Noun Phrases , 1996 .

[8]  L. Glinert The Grammar of Modern Hebrew , 1989 .

[9]  Michael Elhadad,et al.  Generation of Noun Compounds in Hebrew: Can Syntactic Knowledge Be Fully Encapsulated? , 1998, INLG.

[10]  Benoit Lavoie,et al.  A Fast and Portable Realizer for Text Generation Systems , 1997, ANLP.

[11]  Michael Halliday,et al.  An Introduction to Functional Grammar , 1985 .

[12]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Language as a cognitive process 1: Syntax , 1982 .

[13]  Jan Svartvik,et al.  A __ comprehensive grammar of the English language , 1988 .

[14]  Uzzi Ornan THE NOMINAL PHRASE IN MODERN HEBREW. PART 1, INTRODUCTION AND ARTICLE. , 1965 .

[15]  永井 正司,et al.  On NP-Structure , 1997 .

[16]  John A. Bateman KPML development environment - multilingual linguistic resource development and sentence generation , 1996, GMD-Studien.

[17]  Bonnie J. Dorr,et al.  Machine Translation Divergences: A Formal Description and Proposed Solution , 1994, CL.

[18]  Shmuel Bolozky,et al.  Modern Hebrew structure , 1982 .