Machine Translation

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 61–71 | Cite as


  • Valerio Allegranza
  • Steven Krauwer
  • Erich Steiner

Concluding remarks

With this brief exposition of the areas covered in this special double issue on Eurotra, we shall now conclude our introduction. We hope that the volume will achieve its goals, as outlined above, at least to some extent. Certainly, much more could be said about a wide range of topics which have been covered in the lifetime or the project so far. For instance, these article, mainly written by linguists, deliberately neglect the software implementation and environment aspects of the prototype Eurotra Translation System, as well as a number of peripheral tools and components of the system that are available to the user, such as lexical data bases, text-handling mechanisms and the like. The reader interested in aspects of this kind is referred to Raw et al. 1989 for a very brief introduction, and to the Eurotra software team at the Commission of the European Communities (DG XIII, Luxembourg) for more details. However, one goal that we do hope to come close to achieving is to give a fair overview of the Eurotra linguistic theory of translation and the mainstream and sideline formalisms expressing variant versions of it. If we have come anywhere near achieving that, our gratitude is due to the numerous Eurotra colleagues who have supported us in preparing this volume, and to the editor of this journal.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arnold, D., L. des Tombe and L. Jaspaert. 1985. Eurotra Linguistic Specifications. Version 3. Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  2. 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, 297–303Google Scholar
  3. 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, 114–134.Google Scholar
  4. Bech, A. and A. Nygaard. 1988. The E-Framework: A Formalism for Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of COLING-88, Budapest, 36–39.Google Scholar
  5. Dologlou, Y., G. Malnati and P. Paggio. 1991. A Preference Mechanism Based on Multiple Criteria Resolution. In Proceedings of EACL-91, Berlin.Google Scholar
  6. Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G. Pullum and I. Sag. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Hutchins, W. 1986. Machine Translation: Past, Present, Future. Chichister: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  8. Jaspaert, L. 1986. Linguistic Developments in Eurotra Since 1983. In Proceedings of COLING-86, Bonn.Google Scholar
  9. Kaplan, R., K. Netter, J. Wedekind and A. Zaenen. 1989. Translation by structural correspondences. In Proceedings of EACL-89, Manchester.Google Scholar
  10. King, M. 1981. EUROTRA—A European System for Machine Translation. Lebende Sprachen 26.Google Scholar
  11. King, M. 1982. EUROTRA—An Attempt to Achieve Multilingual MT. In V. Lawson (ed.), Practical Experience of Machine Translation, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  12. King, M. and S. Perschke. 1982. EUROTRA and Its Objectives. Multilingua 1(1).Google Scholar
  13. Landsbergen, J. 1987. Isomorphic Grammars and Their Use in the Rosetta Translation System. In M. King (ed.), Machine Translation Today: The State of the Art, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 351–372.Google Scholar
  14. Pollard, C. and I. Sag. 1987. Information Based Syntax and Semantics, vol. 1. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  15. Raw, A., B. Vandecapelle and F. van Eynde. 1988. Eurotra: An Overview. Interface. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3.1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valerio Allegranza
    • 1
  • Steven Krauwer
    • 2
  • Erich Steiner
    • 3
  1. 1.Gruppo DIMATorinoItaly
  2. 2.OTS-Univ. of Utrechtthe Netherlands
  3. 3.Inst. für angewandte Sprachwissenschaft sowie Übersetzen und DolmetschenUniv. des SaarlandesSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations