Skip to main content
Log in

Token reference vs. type reference: Implications for machine translation

  • Published:
Machine Translation

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the conditions under which token reference to individuals comes about on the one hand and type reference to the whole kind of an entity is rendered on the other. We consider how the process of reference comes about with nouns inherently denoting mass concepts and with nouns denoting countable concepts. We exemplify the interpretation of np readings with a rule component which has been implemented in the machine translation system cat2. Out of these np readings those articles are to be generated which are in accordance with the language-specific conventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arnold, D.J., S. Krauwer, M. Rosner, L. des Tombe, G.B. Varile. 1986. The <C,A>,T Framework in Eurotra: A Theoretically Committed Notion for MT. In Proceedings of coling-86, Bonn, 297–303.

  • Bierwisch, M. 1987. Semantik der Graduierung. In Bierwisch, M. and E. Lang (eds.), Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven. Berlin: Akademieverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunt, H. 1985. Mass Terms and Model-Theorietic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G. 1982. Generic Terms and Generic Sentences. Jounal of Philosophical Logic 11: 145–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, W. 1985. Determiners and Specification. In J. Hobbs, T. Blenko, W. Croft, G. Hager, H.A. Kautz, P. Kube and Y. Shoam, Commonsense Summer: Final Report, CSLI Report 85-35, Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Ö. 1988. Inherited Genericity. In M. Krifka (ed.).

  • Declerck, R. 1986. The Manifold Interpretations of Generic Sentences. Lingua 68: 149–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D.R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, B. 1988. The Representation of Generic Knowledge. In M. Krifka (ed.).

  • Hawkins, J.A. 1980. On Surface Definite Articles in English. In J. van der Auwera (ed.).

  • Heyer, G. 1988. A Frame-Based Approach to Generic Descriptions. In M. Krifka (ed.).

  • Kamp, J.A.W. 1975. Two Theories about Adjectives. In E.L. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 51–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. 1988. The Relational Theory of Genericity. In M. Krifka (ed.).

  • Krifka, M. (ed.). 1988. Genericity in Natural Language. In Proceedings of the 1988 Tübingen Conference, Seminar für natürlich-sprachliche Systeme.

  • Langacker, R. 1987a. Nouns and Verbs. Language 63:53–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langacker, R. 1987b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, G. 1983. The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Nouns: a Lattice-theoretical Approach. In R. Baeuerle, C. Schwarze and A. Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, C.G. 1980. The Meaning of the English Definite Article. In J. van der Auwera (ed.).

  • McDermott, D. and J. Doyle. 1980. Nonmonotonic Logic I. Artificial Intelligence 13:41–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meya, M. 1990. Tenets for an Interlingual Representation of Definite NPs. In Proceedings of coling-90, Helsinki, 263–269.

  • Morreau, M. 1988. Default Formalisms for Generics. In M. Krifka (ed.).

  • Platteau, F. 1980. Definite and Indefinite Generics. In: Van der Auwera, J. (ed.) The Semantics of Determiners. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. 1975. The Meaning of Meaning. In H. Putnam, Mind, Language, and Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W.V.O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R. 1980. A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13:81–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, L.K. and F.J. Pelletier. 1988 An Outlook on Generic Statements. In M. Krifka (ed.).

  • Sharp, R. 1988. cat2—Implementing a Formalism for Multilingual MT. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ter Meulen, A. 1988. Semantic Constraints on Type-shifting Anaphora. In M. Krifka (ed.).

  • Van der Auwera, J. 1980. The Semantics of Determiners. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkelmann, O. 1980. Some Reflections on the French Article System. In J. van der Auwera (ed.).

  • Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1988. From Cognitive Grammar to the Generation of Semantic Interpretation in Machine Translation. In E. Steiner, P. Schmidt and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, Insights from Machine Translation, London: Pinter, 105–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1989. Machine Translation Based on Cognitive Linguistics: What Lexical Semantics Contributes to the Semantic Unity of the Sentence. Eurotra-D Working Paper 16, Saarbrüecken.

  • Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. Forthcoming 1992. The Interpretation and Translation of Prepositions. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions in Natural Language Processing, Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

I would like to thank Randall Sharp for many discussions particularly about the English examples and for correcting my English. I would also like to thank Nadia Mesli for helping me with the French examples. With respect to my own explanation of the translation from German to French I am indebted to Michael Grabski, whose extensive classification of examples inspired me. Last but not least, thanks are due to the editors Erich Steiner and Valerio Allegranza, who pointed out a number of inconsistencies to me.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. Token reference vs. type reference: Implications for machine translation. Machine Translation 6, 183–192 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00397281

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00397281

Keywords

Navigation