Advertisement

Machine Translation

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 193–200 | Cite as

Transfer formalisms

  • Doug Arnold
  • Louisa Sadler
Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

We discuss some different ideas about the sort of formalism appropriate for translation (more specifically, transfer) that have been explored within Eurotra. The intention is not to evaluate these different ideas, but to outline the issues of general interest and relevance that they raise. Section 1 describes some common assumptions, section 2 describes the different ways they have been interpreted, and section 3 considers some further implications.

Keywords

cornpositionality constructivism Dutch English formalism transfer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Appelo, L. and F. de Jong, F. 1987. Synonymy and Translation. Philips Research M.S. 14.269, Eindhoven, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, D. and L.des Tombe. 1987. Basic Theory and Methodology in Eurotra. In S. Nirenburg (ed.), Machine Translation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 114–135Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, D., S. Krauwer, L. des Tombe and L. Sadler. 1988. “Relaxed” Compositionality in 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
  4. Arnold, D. and L. Sadler. 1988. (Non)-Compositionality and Translation. In Jeremy Peckham (ed.), Recent Developments and Applications of Natural Language Processing, London: Kogan Page, 23–55.Google Scholar
  5. Arnold, D. and L. Sadler. 1989. MiMo: Theoretical Aspects of the System. Working Papers in Language Processing 6, Department of Language & Linguistics, University of Essex, Colchester.Google Scholar
  6. Arnold, D. and L. Sadler. 1990. The Theoretical Basis of MiMo. Machine Translation 5:195–222.Google Scholar
  7. Bech, A. and A. Nygaard. 1988. The E-Framework: A Formalism for Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings coling-88, Budapest, 36–39.Google Scholar
  8. Dymetman, M. and P. Isabelle. 1988. Reversible Logic Grammars for MT. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa.Google Scholar
  9. Isabelle, P. and E. Macklovitch. 1986. Transfer and MT Modularity. In Proceedings of coling-86, Bonn, 115–117.Google Scholar
  10. King, M. (ed.). 1987. Machine Translation Today. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Landsbergen, J. 1987a. Montague Grammar and Machine Translation. In P. Whitelock et al. (eds.), 113–148.Google Scholar
  12. Landsbergen, J. 1987b. Isomorphic Grammars in the rosetta Translation System. In M. King (ed.), 351–372.Google Scholar
  13. Nagao, M. and J. Tsujii. 1986. The Transfer Phase of the Mu Machine Translation System. In Proceedings of coling-86, Bonn, 97–103.Google Scholar
  14. Sharp, R. 1988. cat2—Implementing a Formalism for Multi-Lingual MT. 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
  15. Whitelock, P., M. Wood, H. Somers, R. Johnson and P. Bennett (eds.). 1987. Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doug Arnold
    • 1
  • Louisa Sadler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Language and LinguisticsUniversity of EssexColchesterUK

Personalised recommendations