Unifying TENSE, ASPECT and MODALITY across

Cornelia Zelinsky–Wibbelt Englisches Seminar, Universitat¨ Hannover Konigsw¨ orther Platz 1 D-30167 Hannover, Germany [email protected]

Abstract Consider the following cross– compar- ison of verbs which express the lexical sense This paper computes the semantic rep- of a DIRECTIONAL MOTION alongside with the resentation of while as the pragmati- grammatical sense of the FUTURE: cally most relevant one which speak- (1) English: to be going to, to come ers select from a variety of grammatical (2) German: gehen, kommen constructions in which while may occur (3) French: etrˆ e en train de, aller faire in current English. The semantic repre- (4) Spanish: ir a sentation of while provides the condi- The lexical meanings of these MOTION verbs co- tion for translating it into the adequate exist with the grammatical meaning of the FU- German equivalent. This computation TURE. The domain of SPACE provides the lex- is implemented in a unification–based ical source of the grammatical domain of TIME formalism and may thus be applied in a (Bybee et al., 1994, 269). This is an obvious ex- machine translation system. tension from more lexical to more grammatical categorization which speakers create by a change 1 Introduction from one domain to another and it is therefore a metaphorical extension. In this metaphorical This paper analyzes the of while as re- transfer the domain of SPACE provides a model flecting the of its TEMPORAL for the domain of TIME. The periphrastic con- meaning. While grammaticalization is generally structions in (1) to (4) provide evidence for this studied as the linguistic change from more lexical direction of development, which has been at- to more grammatical form and meaning, our in- tested for a wide number of languages (Bybee vestigation is concerned with the synchronic vari- et al., 1994). Yet, the TEMPORAL sense rep- ation between lexically autonomous and contex- resents a conversational implicature of the SPA- tually dependent meaning with the current use TIAL sense as SPATIAL MOTION logically pre- of English while and its translation into Ger- supposes EXTENSION through TIME. This gram- man. This view on grammaticalization allows maticalization by metaphorical transfer reduces the typological study of a variety of grammati- the speakers’ reference from reference to SPA- cal functions across languages (Hopper and Trau- TIAL AND TEMPORAL DIRECTION to reference gott, 1993, 90). From a typological point of view to TEMPORAL DIRECTION. The semantic reduc- we are particularly interested in the persistence of tion strengthens the informativity and relevance grammaticalization. In the ideal case we may ob- of the TEMPORAL meaning (Hopper and Trau- serve how different grammatical functions of the gott, 1993, 65). Yet the general semantic schema same form are synchronically constrained by their of a DIRECTION FROM SOURCE TO GOAL is lexical sources (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, 120). preserved in this transfer. As may be seen with the above given exam- an expression’s meaning occurs by its integration ples, the same series of semantic transitions or into the contextually related schemata. In this uni- “clines” reoccur with different lexical units both fication an expression’s meaning is constrained within one and the same language, as with the by the schemata of other functions. The compo- English MOTION verbs go and come, and across sition of a composite structure may thus be rep- languages, as with the equivalents go in English, resented by a unification–based model par excel- gehen in German, aller in French and finally ir lence (Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 2000). In terms of this in Spanish. These clines are also similar across formalism composition occurs through the unifi- languages which are areally and genetically un- cation of attribute–value structures. At each level related. The claim is therefore that these clines these structures consist of an attribute on the left– are universal and in most cases irreversible path- hand side and a value on the right–hand side:

ways of semantic change, that is we cannot ob-

serve speakers to be involved in a semantic exten- LU V ¡

¢ £¥¤ N T A ¡ sion from the domain of TIME to the domain of SPACE. This is the universal cognitive principle In this schematic attribute–value matrix the lex- of unidirectionality (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, ical unit LU is the only variable specified by a 1,6); (Bybee et al., 1994, 19,300). This paper simplex value V. The attribute LU is conjoined will provide a theory about unidirectionality from by the attribute N, N being paired with the com- the perspective of cognitive which will plex value consisting of the attribute–value pair T be evaluated and formalized by the grammatical- A. Integers represent the inheritance from free to ization cline of while. Finally we will discuss bound categories. which implications the grammaticalization cline In accordance with Gutt (1991, 189), we claim of while has for a our theory of unidirectionality. that translators produce an equivalent target lan- guage text by following the principle of relevance. 2 Formalization and translation As communication in general translation involves the of interpretations as a universal We will compute the semantic representation of disposition of human reasoning (Sperber and Wil- while as the pragmatically most relevant one son, 1995, 46ff.). In order to agree in their in- which speakers select from a variety of gram- terpretations, speakers negotiate their mental rep- matical constructions in which while may occur resentations by recognizing the relevant informa- in contemporary English. The different uses of tion with minimal cognitive cost and maximal while form a cline from relatively free to bound cognitive benefit. meaning. The meanings of this cline are repre- sented by a componential analysis, which pro- 3 Clines between grammatical vides the condition for translating while into the categories adequate German equivalent. We analyse the use of while in terms of several grammatical and se- On account of its intension while is part of a cline mantic components: of the grammatical categories from more lexical to more grammatical meaning in the following or- 1. grammatical categories der:

2. grammatical domains

¦ ¦ ¦ N ¦ V ADJ ADV PREP / CONJ 3. image schemata which represent domains metonymically and which are transferred Clearly nouns are lexically richer in meaning than across domains metaphorically verbs, that is the intension of nouns is lexically more autonomous, as verbs are contextually de- The semantic representations of while are imple- pendent on the semantic values of the arguments mented in a unification–based formalism as in- which they lexically expect or contextually re- troduced by Martin Kay (1985) and may thus be quire (Langacker, 1987; Gentner, 1981). This used in a machine translation system. Accord- means that the senses of verbs are less constrained ing to Langacker (1991, 532) the categorization of by their own attributes. Instead their attributes function as variables which unify with the values lators also take nouns to contribute more to their of the arguments which provide the gammatical interpretation of a text than other grammatical context. categories (Konigs,¨ 1993, 233f.). accounts for this intensional In comparison to verbs are semanti- difference between nouns and verbs by the nat- cally even more dependent on the nouns which ural partitions hypothesis about the speakers’ they modify and from which they inherit their spatial conceptualization. Nouns correspond to specific value. In (6) the lexically vague meaning relatively stable concepts and verbs, adjectives, of the high is contextually graded on a , prepositions and conjunctions corre- scale by the specific size which is a component of spond to more variable concepts. The stability the lexical concepts of heel and tower: of nominal concepts results from perma- (6) high heel, high tower nence. The notion of object permanence has been introduced by Piaget (1972) as the child’s To summarize: the contextual and cross– ability to represent an object permanently, inde- linguistic semantic variability increases from pendently of its physical existence. Object per- nouns to verbs over adjectives to prepositions and manence as a condition for conceptual stability conjunctions (Gentner, 1981, 176). implies the persistence of the object’s attributes With the senses of while it is most evident that which are internally cohesive, that is densely in- they are related in a grammaticalization cline in terrelated. Furthermore, the stability of nominal the above pathway with the noun at the lexical concepts results from external boundedness. All pole and the at the grammatical pole. of these properties adhere less to the concepts of verbs on account of their contextual variability 4 Clines between grammatical domains (Imai and Gentner, 1997, 193). Verbal and prepo- Each is organized in a sitional concepts have less internal relations be- cline of grammatical domains. Thus the cline tween attributes than nominal concepts. Instead of while may be represented in a semantically verbs, prepositions and conjunctions have exter- more finegrained way with the comparison of the nal relations to the parts of speech they interrelate different grammatical domains of MODALITY, (Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 1990). TENSE and ASPECT. Bybee (1994, 22ff., 300ff.) The extensional variations of verbal concepts claims this order of domains to be universally explain that they are harder to learn, to remember, valid by drawing on extensive cross–language to produce and to comprehend. statistical analyses . She also correlates this The context–dependent concepts of verbs, ad- cline of grammatical domains with the order in jectives, prepositions, and conjunctions are also which the morphemes expressing the domains of less similar across languages than the more au- MODALITY, TENSE and ASPECT are arranged tonomous concepts of nouns (Zelinsky-Wibbelt, around the verb stem: the proximity of these 1993). morphemes to the verb correlates with the degree (5) The bottle floated into the cave. to which they influence the meaning of the verb, MANNER DIRECTION for which Bybee introduces the term “semantic

§©¨ relevance”. Semantic relevance is also signalled by the degree of morphologization: La botella entro´ la cueva, flotando.

DIRECTION MANNER ¦ (Talmy, 1978) MODALITY ¦ TENSE ASPECT (7) She might be telling the truth. Whereas in English the MOTION verb float ex- TENSE ASPECT presses MANNER and the preposition into DI- MODALITY RECTION, this is reversed in Spanish, where the verb entrar expresses DIRECTION while the the The domain of ASPECT most directly influences adverbial phrase flotando expresses MANNER. the verb meaning by representing the internal On account of their extensional consistency trans- constituency of the situation in relation to the speech time (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, 142ff.); domain of TIME. With this lexically vague con- (Comrie, 1976) and by the morphological fusion cept while is very untypical of the grammatical manifested by the –ing inflection of the verb in category of nouns as content bearers within our (7). The domain of TENSE is less relevant to cline of grammatical categories. Yet, grammat- the verb as it expresses how the EVENT TIME ically the noun while has the autonomous quali- is related to another TIME, either to SPEECH or ties of nouns (Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 1988; Zelinsky- REFERENCE TIME. MODALITY is even less rel- Wibbelt, 1992). It constrains the relational mean- evant to the verb, and thus least grammatical in ings of verbs, it can be determined and modified, our comparison, as is evident from the word or- and it can have co–referential functions, as it has der in (7) in which the MODAL form of might in (9) (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, 104): is most distant from the verb stem. EPISTEMIC (9) We waited for three hours, all the while hop- MODALITY represents the speakers’ evaluation of ing that someone would come and fetch us. the truth of the proposition. DEONTIC MODAL- (Hornby and Crowther, 1995, OALD) ITY represents the which speakers im- pose on the situation expressed by the proposi- In example (9) the quantifying and identifying NP tion. all the while refers anaphorically to the NP three hours, which specifies the reference time (REF 5 Clines through metonymy and TIME) from which the NP the while inherits the exact measure of its boundary. By inheriting this boundary, the while functions as the CONTAINER Each grammatical domain is organized through (CONTAIN) of the CONTENT which is expressed metonymy and metaphor. Both semantic exten- by the verb phrase hoping that .... The PRO- sions are two complementary stages of the same GRESSIVE ASPECT (PROGRESS) of the form hop- problem–solving activity (Heine et al., 1991, 49); ing is thereby bounded to what fits into the CON- (Croft, 1993). Metonymy is a semantic extension TAINER. This attribute–value representation is a within the same domain of discourse: condition for the corresponding German equiva-

(8) We had a glass or two. lent Weile:





¢ £

while TIME CONTAIN ¡ 

In (8) the noun phrase a glass represents an ellip-



¢

¡ £ 

tical construction of e.g. a glass of wine. In the 3 hours REF TIME BOUND

 ¢

discourse domain of DRINKING the two contin- waited TENSE PAST £

¢ ¡ gent objects glass and wine embody the image– £

hoping ASPECT PROGRESS 

schema of CONTAINER and CONTENT (Lakoff, ¢ would come TENSE PAST £

1987, 272f.). (8) exemplifies a metonymic exten- ¨ Weile sion, where the CONTAINER represents the CON- By its lexically vague and reduced meaning TENT. Each metonymy embodies at least two the noun while is metonymically related to the parts of a schema, such as CONTAINER and CON- conjunction while within the same domain and TENT. context of discourse. Formally this is illustrated 6 Grammaticalization paths of while by deleting the referential functions of the deter- miner and the quantifier whereby the noun while A grammaticalization cline initially proceeds turns into a conjunction.

metonymically by semantic reduction within the  (10) We waited for three hours, while  we were same domain. In this way the TEMPORAL mean- ing of the noun while has become reduced to the hoping that someone would come and fetch grammatical meaning of a conjunction within the us. same domain. Prerequisite of this metonymic By this formal reduction while has lost all referen- bleaching is the previous semantic reduction of tial functions, it cannot be determined and quanti- the lexical meaning, which is the case with the fied (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, 104), nor can it noun while. Intensionally the noun while is re- be modified or have co–referential functions. The lated to the vague concept of a CONTAINER in the anaphoric reference relation of the NP the while to the NP three hours has changed to the grammat- schemata in a way which is cognitively relevant ical relation of SIMULTANEITY (SIMULTAN) be- enough for the metaphorical transfer of these im- tween two situations in TIME as expressed by the age schemata into a different target domain. The conjunction while. Semantically, while has lost TEMPORAL sense of the conjuntion while is se- the iconic function of a CONTAINER. Instead the mantically related to two metaphorical extensions conjunction while indexically interrelates other in the domain of MODALITY (MODAL). The SI- expressions in the context which provide the func- MULTANEITY between two situations is related to tions of CONTAINER and CONTENT. In (10) the the ADVERSATIVE CONCESSIVE (ADVERS CON- conjunction while relates the nucleus as the CON- CESS) sense relating two antonymous situations. TAINER to the adverbial clause as the CONTENT In (11) while expresses the ADVERSATIVE rela- (Langacker, 1991, 424ff.). The TEMPORAL situa- tion, in that the adverbial clause asserts the oppo- tion expressed in the adverbial clause is within the site of the nucleus (Heine, 1997, 116f.); (Bybee scope of the situation expressed in the nucleus by et al., 1994, 225). The ADVERSATIVE sense of the predication of the ACCOMPLISHMENT (AC- WHILE is a lexicalization from the speakers’ con- COMPL) verb wait and the NP three hours spec- versational implicature of an ANTONYMY (Grice, ifying the reference time. Thereby the reference 1975). The SIMULTANEITY between two dif- time defines the length of the SIMULTANEITY. In ferent situations supports this implicature if it is these relations the SIMULTANEITY sense of while communicatively relevant (Traugott and Konig,¨ is computed from two conditions: firstly, both 1991, 201), thereby again strengthening the in- clauses need to express the same TENSE value. formativity and the relevance of the conjunction Secondly there has to be partial or complete TEM- while. In this metaphorical transfer the abstract PORAL overlap between the two situations. structure of the image schema has been preserved. Cognitively, the metonymic reduction to the SIMULTANEITY is the result of comparing two grammatical meaning increases the schematic se- situations in the domain of TIME. The ADVER- mantic structure of while and improves the recog- SATIVE relation results from contrasting two situ- nition of the relevant information in the dis- ations in the domain of MODALITY: course domain of TIME. This configuration of (11) While this is an attractive theory there is lit- the TEMPORAL meaning of the conjunction while tle or no contemporary evidence ... to sup- provides a condition for the German equivalent port it (ICE-GB:W1A-001 # 29:1)

wahr¨ end:



In (11) the conjunction while juxtaposes EPIS-



¢ ¡ 

while TIME SIMULTAN £  TEMIC ERTAINTY CERTAIN

C ( ) expressed by the



 

BOUND ACCOMPL positive mood in the adverbial clause with EPIS- 

waited ¤

TENSE PAST ¡





TEMIC UNCERTAINTY (UNCERTAIN) expressed

¢ £

three hours REF TIME BOUND  by the negative mood in the nucleus. From this

¢  £

hoping ASPECT PROGRESSIVE  the ADVERSATIVE CONCESSIVE sense

¢ ¡ would come TENSE PAST £ of while is computed which translates into the

¨ wahr¨ end German equivalent obwohl:





¢ ¡  If we compare (9) to (10), we can now locate while MODAL ADVERS CONCESS £

while at the two opposite poles of the cline be- attractive

¢  MODAL EPISTEMIC CERTAIN £

tween grammatical categories: the noun while as theory 

¢ ¡

a content word is lexically most autonomous in its no evidence MODAL EPISTEMIC UNCERTAIN £ ¨ meaning and thus is ordered at the leftmost end obwohl of the cline, whereas the conjunction while is in- While the TEMPORAL SIMULTANEITY sense of tensionally most reduced and extensionally most the conjunction while may be computed from the dependent on the content words it interrelates and morphological functions of the verbs expressing thus is ordered at the rightmost end of the cline. the PROGRESSIVE ASPECT and the PAST TENSE By this metonymic representation the TEM- which while relates in (10), the ADVERSATIVE PORAL domain is organized in terms of image sense of the conjunction while in (11) has to be inferred from the discourse coherence relations In (12) the general image schema is preserved by between several semantic values imposing con- the conjunction while in the domain of MODAL- straints on each other: the lexical units theory ITY in two respects: firstly, the CONDITIONAL and evidence intensionally embody CERTAINTY CONCESSIVE sense presupposes partial or com- of knowledge. This lexical value of theory is em- plete TEMPORAL overlap between the situations phasized by the adjectival modifier attractive in expressed in both clauses. Secondly, the bound- the adverbial clause, while the lexical value of ev- ary condition of the COMPLETIVE ASPECT is idence in the nucleus is negated and downtoned schematically isomorphous with the scope of by the modifying adjective little. predication, which the ACCOMPLISHMENT verb The other metaphorical sense of while which of the nucleus has on the TEMPORAL meaning of proceeds from the TEMPORAL domain draws on the adverbial clause in (10). the scope which the predication of the nucleus The schema of the CONDITIONAL CONCES- clause has on the situation expressed in the ad- SION sense of while in the domain of MODALITY verbial clause in (10). This is the metaphorical is metonymically closely related to the CAUSAL concept of a CONCESSIVE relation presupposing sense. In the following example the CAUSAL a condition. sense of while may be computed from relating the CONDITION (CONDIT) expressed in the adver- (12) In a few weeks the Fourteenth Household Di- bial clause to the CONSEQUENCE (CONSEQU) ex- vision will be moving from Horse Guards pressed by the indirect IMPERATIVE speech act of here to a temporary home at Chelsea Bar- the nucleus: racks while Horse Guard’s building is com- pletely refurbished (13) While you’re in the kitchen, bring me an-

(ICE-GB:S2A-011 # 101:1:A) other drink. (Quirk et al., 1985, 15.46)



¢ ¡  while MODAL CAUSAL £

In (12) the COMPLETIVE ASPECT expressed in

¢  £

the adverbial clause provides a boundary con- bring CONSEQU IMPERATIVE 

¢ £ be in CONDIT EPISTEMIC CERTAIN ¡

dition for the continuously extending OBLIGA- ¨ TION expressed in the nucleus and thereby in- weil duces the CONDITIONAL CONCESSIVE sense on The transfer in the domain of MODALITY has pre- while, which is translated into German solange served the basic structure of the image schema. bis. This computation needs even more compo- The DEONTIC OBLIGATION uttered with respect sitional work to be done. The REFERENCE TIME to the FUTURE in the nucleus in (12) corresponds expressed by the PP in a few weeks and the mor- to the DEONTIC OBLIGATION uttered in the in- phological function of will locate the situation in direct IMPERATIVE speech act of the nucleus in the FUTURE. The discourse coherence relation (13). Moreover the CAUSAL sense of while pre- which the verbs refurbish and move adopt in the supposes TEMPORAL overlap between the CON- respective discourse domain induce the DEONTIC DITION and the CONSEQUENCE. This is to say, OBLIGATION (OBLIG) sense on will and the CON- that the CAUSAL sense is intended as a conversa- DITIONAL mood on the adverbial clause. This is tional implicature in (12). consonant with Bybee’s claim that the FUTURE This sense of while is not lexicalized. We did is less a TEMPORAL than a MODAL category not find it in our corpus, nor in any monolingual with important temporal implications (Bybee et dictionary. Yet, it is used in contemporary En-

al., 1994, 280). glish and may be hypothesized to be indicative of



the ongoing dynamics of English typically pro-



¢

  £

while MODAL CONDIT CONCESS ¡ 

moted at the colloquial level of speech. In (13) the



DEONTIC OBLIGATION 



 informal style becomes evident from the contra- will be moving  REF TIME FUTURE

ASPECT CONTINUOUS  diction involved in the SIMULTANEITY between



is completely ASPECT COMPLETIVE  the addressee’s SPATIAL presence and absence. ¤ refurbished MOOD CONDITION ¡ This non–monotonic reasoning is less typical of

¨ solange bis the written medium.

  while1 noun TIME

container

extension metonymy

while2 conjunction TIME SIMULTANEITY

progressive, completive





 

extension  extension



 

metaphor  metaphor





 

while3 conjunction while4 conjunction  MODALITY MODALITY ADVERSATIVE CONCESSIVE CONDITIONAL CONCESSIVE

positive, negative obligation, completive

extension metonymy

while5 conjunction MODALITY CAUSAL CONCESSIVE condition, consequence

Figure 1: Grammaticalization cline of while

7 Summary 8 Conclusion

We have shown that the isomorphism of image As we have seen the TEMPORAL meaning of schemata bears implications with respect to lexi- while is presupposed in all , cography and translation. By virtue of their cul- except in the ADVERSATIVE CONCESSIVE sense. tural independence image schemata may be eval- Therefore it represents the prototypical core uated multilingually. By accounting for trans- meaning from which all other senses derive. The lational equivalents, this contrastive perspective initial grammaticalization from the noun to the may enable the verification of universal categories conjunction is a typical case of bleaching, i.e. of human experience. We may empirically repre- reduction of semantic components whereby the sent the lexical domain by proceeding from the semiotic function of while changes from an icon theoretical hypothesis that the image–schematic to an index. Yet, the emptying of meaning occurs core meanings involved in the speakers’ gram- in the same domain. Once the minor grammat- matical meta–knowledge structure the whole lex- ical category is derived, the grammaticalization icon. This may be further evaluated from a ty- cline continues metaphorically by a shift from pological perspective. Polysemous predications, reference to the text world to reference to the such as while which may express both the lexi- internal cognitive situation of the speakers, i.e. cally autonomous concept and the grammatically from objective to subjective reasoning, from the dependent relational concept, are a case in point. speakers’ measurement of TEMPORAL periods to their measurement of EVALUATIVE and ATTITU- DINAL values (Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 2001). Thus Acknowledgements our grammaticalization cline of while starts from the speakers’ reference to the relatively stable na- We would like to thank the anonymous referees ture of their external environment by lexical con- who accepted the paper. For most of the exam- cepts. The cline initially increases the textual rel- ples I am indebted to ICE-GB, The International evance and then continues to increase the rele- Corpus of Englishes – Great Britain, Survey of vance which the text has for the speakers, as rep- English Usage, University College, London. resented in figure 1. References Ronald Langacker. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive . Practical Applications, volume 2. Stan- Joan Bybee, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. ford University Press, Stanford. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. The Jean Piaget. 1972. Die Psychologie der Intelligenz. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. s’Gravenhage, Holland. (Translated from the orig- inal La Psychologie de l’Intelligence. Librairie Ar- Bernard Comrie. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge Univer- mand Colin, Paris, 1947). sity Press. Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Greg Leech, and William Croft. 1993. The role of domains in the inter- Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Grammar of Contemporary pretation of and metonymies. Cognitive English. Longman, London. Linguistics, 4(4):335 – 370. Dan Sperber and Deidre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Dedre Gentner. 1981. Some interesting differences Communication and Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford. between verbs and nouns. Cognition and Brain Theory, 4:161–178. Leonard Talmy. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Joseph H. Greenberg, editor, Univer- Herbert P. Grice. 1975. Method in philosophical psy- sals of Human Language, volume 4. , pages chology. Proceedings and Addresses of the Ameri- 625–649. Stanford University Press, Stanford. can Philosophical Association, 48:23–53. Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Ekkehard Konig.¨ 1991. Ernst-August Gutt. 1991. Translation and Relevance. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization Basil Blackwell, Oxford. revisited. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Bernd Heine, Ulrike Claudi, and Friderike Heine, editors, Approaches to Grammaticalization. Hunneme¨ yer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Vol. 1, pages 191–251. John Benjamins, Amster- Conceptual Framework. Chicago University Press, dam. Chicago. Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt. 1988. Universal quan- Bernd Heine. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Gram- tification in machine translation. In Proceedings mar. Oxford University Press, Oxford. of the 12th International Conference on Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 791–795, Budapest. Paul Hopper and Elizabeth Traugott. 1993. Gram- maticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cam- Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt. 1990. The semantic rep- bridge. resentation of spatial configurations: A conceptual motivation for generation in machine translation. Albert Sidney Hornby and Jonathan Crowther, editors. In Proceedings of the 13th International Confer- 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of ence on Computational Linguistics, pages 299–303, Current English. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Helsinki. Mutsumi Imai and Dedre Gentner. 1997. A cross- Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt. 1992. Exploiting linguis- linguistic study of early word meaning: univer- tic iconism for article selection in machine transla- sal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, tion. In Proceedings of the 15th International Con- 62:169–200. ference on Computational Linguistics, 1992, pages 792–797, Nantes. Martin Kay. 1985. Parsing in functional unification grammar. In David R. Dowty, Laury Karttunen, Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt, editor. 1993. The Seman- and Arnold M. Zwicky, editors, Parsing Natural tics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Language, pages 251–278. Cambridge University Natural Language Processing. Mouton de Gruyter, Press, Cambridge. Berlin. Frank G. Konigs.¨ 1993. Text und Ubersetzer:¨ Wer Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt. 2000. Discourse and the macht was mit wem? In Justa Holz-Mantt¨ ari¨ Continuity of Reference: Representing Mental Cat- and Christiane Nord, editors, Traducere Navem. egorization. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Festschrift fur¨ Katharina Reiß, pages 229–248. Tampere, Helsinki. Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt. 2001. A hypertext model of text comprehension. In Cornelia Zelinsky- George Lakoff. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Wibbelt, editor, Text Transfer: Metonymies and Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Metaphors, Translation and Expert–Lay Communi- University of Chicago Press, Chicago. cation. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Ronald Langacker. 1987. Nouns and verbs. Lan- guage, 63(1):53–94.