Advertisement

Machine Translation

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 201–214 | Cite as

An overview of MiMo2

  • Gertjan Van Noord
  • Joke Dorrepaal
  • Pim Van Der Eijk
  • Maria Florenza
  • Herbert Ruessink
  • Louis des Tombe
Article

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.

Keywords

computability declarativity Dutch English reversibility symmetry transfer unification grammar 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, M. 1978. Morphological Investigations. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  2. 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., 206–212Google Scholar
  3. Bear, J. 1986. A Morphological Recognizer with Syntactic and Phonological Rules. In Proceedings of coling-86, Bonn, 272–276.Google Scholar
  4. Black, A., G. Ritchie, S. Pulman, G. Russell. 1987. Formalisms for Morphographemic Description. In Proceedings of eacl-3, Copenhagen, 11–18.Google Scholar
  5. Bresnan, J. (ed.). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Calder, J. 1989. Paradigmatic Morphology. In Proceedings of eacl-4, Manchester, 58–65.Google Scholar
  7. Calder, J. M. Reape and H. Zeevat. 1989. An alorithm for generation in unification categorial grammar. In Proceedings of eacl-4, Manchester, 233–240.Google Scholar
  8. Chierchia, G. and R. Turner. 1988. Semantics and Property Theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 11:261–302.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Flickinger, D., C. Pollard and T. Wasow. Structure Sharing in Lexical Representation. 1985. In proceedings of acl-23, Chicago, 262–267.Google Scholar
  11. Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G. Pullum and I. Sag. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Hoekstra, H. 1988. Negation. M.A. thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  14. Isabelle, P. Toward Reversible MT Systems. 1989. In Proceedings of MT Summit II, Munich, 67–68.Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs, P. 1988. Achieving Bidirectionality. In Proceedings of coling-88, Budapest.Google Scholar
  16. Katz, J. 1978. Effability and Translation. In F. Guenthner and M. Guenthner-Reuter (eds.), Meaning and Translation, London: Duckworth, 191–234.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Lewis, D. 1972. General Semantics. In D. Davidson and G. Herman, (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Dordrecht: Reidel, 169–218.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Pereira, F. and S. Shieber. 1987. Prolog and Natural Language Analysis. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Pullum, G. 1989. The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7:271–275.Google Scholar
  29. Quine, W. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ritchie, G. S. Pulman, A. Black and G. Russell. A Computational Framework for Lexical Description. Computational Linguistics 13: 290–307.Google Scholar
  31. Ruessink, H. 1989. Two-level Formalisms. Leuven/Utrecht Working Papers in Natural Language Processing, 5, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Stichting Taaltechnologie Utrecht.Google Scholar
  32. Sag, I. 1987. Grammatical Hierarchy and Linear Precedence. Syntax and Semantics 20:303–340.Google Scholar
  33. Shieber, S. 1985. Using Restriction to Extend Parsing Algorithms for Complex-feature-based Formalisms. In Proceedings of acl-23, Chicago, 145–152.Google Scholar
  34. Shieber, S. 1986. Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  35. Shieber, S. 1989. A Uniform Architecture for Parsing and Generation. In Proceedings of coling-88, Budapest, 614–619.Google Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. Shieber, S., G.van Noord, R. Moore and F. Pereira. 1990. Semantic-head-driven Generation. Computational Linguistics 16:30–42.Google Scholar
  39. Strzalkowsky, T. 1989. Automated Inversion of a Unification Parser into a Unification Generator. Technical report 465, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. van Noord, G. 1990. Reversible Unification-based Machine Translation. In Proceedings of coling-90, Helsinki, 299–304.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. Wedekind, J. 1988. Generation as Structure-driven Derivation. In Proceedings of coling-88, Budapest, 732–737.Google Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gertjan Van Noord
    • 1
  • Joke Dorrepaal
    • 1
  • Pim Van Der Eijk
    • 1
  • Maria Florenza
    • 1
  • Herbert Ruessink
    • 1
  • Louis des Tombe
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute for Language and SpeechState University UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations