Advertisement

Machine Translation

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 215–228 | Cite as

CAT2: An experimental eurotra alternative

  • Randall Sharp
Article

Abstract

In developing a theory of MT, it is desirable to have a methodology just powerful enough to achieve the intended results without introducing unnecessary complexity. A formalism designed to embody the methodology, and its implementation in some computer language, should also reflect this characteristic. This notion of appropriate complexity underlies the philosophy behind the cat2 MT system, a powerful yet simple instantiation of the Eurotra MT methodology. This report describes the cat2 formalism, and compares it to the Eurotra Engineering Framework, as well as to other formalisms for linguistic analysis. It is stressed that with a minimal set of formal devices the cat2 formalism achieves a level of adequacy equivalent to if not superior to the official Eurotra system.

Keywords

complexity English French German formalism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramson, H. 1984. Definite Clause Translation Grammars. In Proceedings of the 1984 International Symposium on Logic Programming, Silver Springs, Md., 233–240.Google Scholar
  2. Allegranza, V. and A. Bech. 1991. A Treatment of Unbounded Dependencies in Eurotra with an Experimental Coindexation Tool. Machine Translation 6: 171–182 [this isue].Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, D., L. Jaspaert, R. Johnson, S. Krauwer, M. Rosner, L. des Tombe, G.B. Varile and S. Warwick. 1985. A MU1 View of the <C,A> T Framework in Eurotra. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Hamilton, N.Y., 1–14.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, D., S. Krauwer, M. Rosner, L. des Tombe and G.B. Varile. 1986. The <C,A>, T Framework in Eurotra: A Theoretically Committed Notation for MT. In Proceedings of coling-86, Bonn, 297–303.Google Scholar
  5. 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, 114–135.Google Scholar
  6. Carbonell, J. and M. Tomita. 1987. Knowledge-based Machine Translation: The CMU Approach. In S. Nirenburg (ed.), Machine Translation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 68–89.Google Scholar
  7. Evans, R. and G. Gazdar. 1989. Inference in datr. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Manchester, 66–71.Google Scholar
  8. Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G. Pullum and I. Sag. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  10. Hirsh, S. 1987. p-patr: A Compiler for Unification-based Grammars. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming, Vancouver, 63–74.Google Scholar
  11. Karttunen, L. 1986. d-patr: A Development Environment for Unification-Based Grammars. CSLI Report No. CSLI-86-61, SRI, Stanford, Calif.Google Scholar
  12. Kasper, R. 1987a. A Unification Method for Disjunctive Feature Descriptions. In Proceedings of acl-25, Stanford, 235–242.Google Scholar
  13. Kasper, R. 1987b. Conditional Descriptions in Functional Unification Grammar. ISI Report IS/RR-87-191, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, Calif.Google Scholar
  14. Kay, M. 1984. Functional Unification Grammar: A Formalism for Machine Translation. In Proceedings of coling-84, Stanford, 75–78.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Pereira, F. and S. Shieber. 1987. Prolog and Natural Language Analysis. CSLI Lecture Notes 10, Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Pollard, C. and I. Sag. 1987. Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1. CSLI Lecture Notes 13, Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.Google Scholar
  19. 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 Language, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa.Google Scholar
  20. Sharp, R. 1990. Modelling gb in the Cat2 Machine Translation System. Paper delivered at the Workshop on gb Parsing, June 15–16, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  21. Shieber, S. 1984. The Design of a Computer Language for Linguistic Information. In Proceedings of coling-84, Stanford, 362–366.Google Scholar
  22. Shieber, S. 1986. An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes 4, Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.Google Scholar
  23. Steiner, E., U. Eckert, B. Roth and J. Winter-Thielen. 1988. The Development of the Eurotra-D System of Sematic Relations. In E. Steiner, P. Schmidt and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds.), From Syntax to Semantics: Insights from Machine Translation, London: Frances Pinter, 40–104.Google Scholar
  24. 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 (eds.), From Syntax to Semantics: Insights from Machine Translation, London: Frances Pinter, 105–132.Google Scholar
  25. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1991. Handling Transfer of Determination in a Eurotra Environment. Machine Translation 6: 183–192 [this issue].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Randall Sharp
    • 1
  1. 1.IAI/Eurotra-DSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations