Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An overview of MiMo2

  • Published:
Machine Translation

Abstract

The MiMo2 translation system combines several leading ideas in the areas of linguistics, computation and translation. In the area of translation we follow the ideas of Landsbergen (1987) by assuming that translation is symmetric; and combine these ideas with the advantages of a transfer approach. Computationally the system focuses on computability and declarativity. The linguistics of the system is based on a lexicalistic and sign-based approach to grammar.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, M. 1978. Morphological Investigations. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.

  • Appelt, D. 1987. Bidirectional grammars and the design of natural language generation systems. In Proceedings of tinlap-3 (Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing), New Mexico State University, La Cruces, N.M., 206–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Bear, J. 1986. A Morphological Recognizer with Syntactic and Phonological Rules. In Proceedings of coling-86, Bonn, 272–276.

  • Black, A., G. Ritchie, S. Pulman, G. Russell. 1987. Formalisms for Morphographemic Description. In Proceedings of eacl-3, Copenhagen, 11–18.

  • Bresnan, J. (ed.). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calder, J. 1989. Paradigmatic Morphology. In Proceedings of eacl-4, Manchester, 58–65.

  • Calder, J. M. Reape and H. Zeevat. 1989. An alorithm for generation in unification categorial grammar. In Proceedings of eacl-4, Manchester, 233–240.

  • Chierchia, G. and R. Turner. 1988. Semantics and Property Theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 11:261–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dymetman, M. and P. Isabelle. 1988. Reversible Logic Grammars for Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flickinger, D., C. Pollard and T. Wasow. Structure Sharing in Lexical Representation. 1985. In proceedings of acl-23, Chicago, 262–267.

  • Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G. Pullum and I. Sag. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, S. 1988. p-part: A Compiler for Unification-Based Grammars. In V. Dahl and P. Saint-Dizier (eds.), Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming II, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra, H. 1988. Negation. M.A. thesis, University of Utrecht.

  • Isabelle, P. Toward Reversible MT Systems. 1989. In Proceedings of MT Summit II, Munich, 67–68.

  • Jacobs, P. 1988. Achieving Bidirectionality. In Proceedings of coling-88, Budapest.

  • Katz, J. 1978. Effability and Translation. In F. Guenthner and M. Guenthner-Reuter (eds.), Meaning and Translation, London: Duckworth, 191–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keenan, E. 1978. Some Logical Problems in Translation. In F. Guenthner and M. Guenthner-Reutter (eds.), Meaning and Translation, London: Duckworth, 157–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittredge, R. 1987. The Significance of Sublanguage for Automatic Translation. In S. Nirenburg (ed.), Machine Translation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 59–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi, K. 1983. Two-level Morphology: a General Computational Model for Word-form Recognition and Production. Technical Report 11, Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki.

  • Landsbergen, J. 1987. Isomorphic Grammars and their Use in the rosetta Translation System. In M. King (ed.), Machine Translation Today, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 351–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. 1972. General Semantics. In D. Davidson and G. Herman, (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Dordrecht: Reidel, 169–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. 1986. Eskimo Words for Snow: A Case Study in the Genesis and Decay of an Anthropological Example. American Anthropologist 88:418–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto, Y., H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi and H. Yasukawa. 1983. bup: A Bottom Up Parser Embedded in Prolog. New Generation Computing 1:145–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, F. and S. Shieber. 1987. Prolog and Natural Language Analysis. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, F. and D. Warren. 1980. Definite clause Grammars for Language Analysis—A Survey of the Formalism and a Comparison with Augmented Transition Networks. Artificial Intelligence 13:231–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, C. and I. Sag. 1987. Information Based Syntax and Semantics Volume 1. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, C. and I. Sag. 1991. Information Based Syntax and Semantics Volume 2. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullum, G. 1989. The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7:271–275.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, G. S. Pulman, A. Black and G. Russell. A Computational Framework for Lexical Description. Computational Linguistics 13: 290–307.

  • Ruessink, H. 1989. Two-level Formalisms. Leuven/Utrecht Working Papers in Natural Language Processing, 5, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Stichting Taaltechnologie Utrecht.

  • Sag, I. 1987. Grammatical Hierarchy and Linear Precedence. Syntax and Semantics 20:303–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber, S. 1985. Using Restriction to Extend Parsing Algorithms for Complex-feature-based Formalisms. In Proceedings of acl-23, Chicago, 145–152.

  • Shieber, S. 1986. Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber, S. 1989. A Uniform Architecture for Parsing and Generation. In Proceedings of coling-88, Budapest, 614–619.

  • Shieber, S., H. Uszkoreit, F. Pereira, J. Robinson and M.Tyson. 1983. The Formalism and Implementation of patr-II. In B. Grosz and M. Stickel (eds.), Research on Interactive Acquisition and Use of Knowledge, SRI Technical Report, Menlo Park, Calif.

  • Shieber, S. G. van Noord, R. Moore and F Pereira. 1989. A Semantic-head-driven Generation Algorithm for Unification Based Formalisms. In Proceedings of acl-27, Vancouver, 7–17.

  • Shieber, S., G.van Noord, R. Moore and F. Pereira. 1990. Semantic-head-driven Generation. Computational Linguistics 16:30–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strzalkowsky, T. 1989. Automated Inversion of a Unification Parser into a Unification Generator. Technical report 465, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University.

  • van der Eijk, P. and T. van der Wouden. A Modular Lexicon Environment for nlp. In Proceedings of the First International Lexical Acquisition Workshop, Detroit.

  • van Noord, G. 1989. bug: A Directed Bottom-Up Generator for Unification Based Formalisms. Leuven/Utrecht Working Papers in Natural Language Processing, 4, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Stichting Taaltechnologie Utrecht.

  • van Noord, G. 1990. Reversible Unification-based Machine Translation. In Proceedings of coling-90, Helsinki, 299–304.

  • van Noord, G., J. Dorrepaal, P. van der Eijk, M. Florenza, L. des Tombe. The MiMo2 Research System. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, University of Texas at Austin, 1990.

  • Wedekind, J. 1988. Generation as Structure-driven Derivation. In Proceedings of coling-88, Budapest, 732–737.

  • Zeevat, H., E. Klein and J. Calder. Unification Categorial Grammar. In N. Haddock, E. Klein and G. Morril (eds.), Categorial Grammar, Unification Grammar and Parsing, Working Papers in Cognitive Science, Volume 1, Center for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Institute for Language and Speech, State University Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Gertjan Van Noord, Joke Dorrepaal, Pim Van Der Eijk, Maria Florenza, Herbert Ruessink & Louis des Tombe

Authors
  1. Gertjan Van Noord
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joke Dorrepaal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pim Van Der Eijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Florenza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Herbert Ruessink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Louis des Tombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

MiMo2 is a sideline project of the Dutch Eurotra team in Utrecht. An extended version of this article was presented at the machine translation workshop in Austin, Texas, June 1990.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Noord, G., Dorrepaal, J., Van Der Eijk, P. et al. An overview of MiMo2. Machine Translation 6, 201–214 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00397283

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00397283

Keywords

Search

Navigation