Machine Translation

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 83–101 | Cite as

The Eurotra MT formalism

  • Annelise Bech
  • Bente Maegaard
  • Anders Nygaard


This paper gives a presentation of the E-framework, the formalism used in Eurotra for implementing the prototype translation system. In Section 1, we outline some of the underlying design principles and briefly discuss the evolutionary history of the Eurotra formalism, relating it to its predecessors and other recent unification-based formalisms. Section 2 introduces the reader to some central concepts and gives a comprehensive description of the core of the formalism.


Eurotra MT formalisms 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arnold, D.J., 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. Proceedings of coling-86, Bonn, 297–303.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, D.J. 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
  3. Arnold, D.J. and L. Sadler. 1989. MiMo: Theoretical Aspects of the System. Working papers in language processing, no. 6. Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, D.J., S. Krauwer, L. des Tombe and L. Sadler. 1988. Relaxed Compositionality in Machine Translation. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  5. Bech, A. and A. Nygaard. 1988. The E-Framework: A Formalism for Natural Language Processing. Proceedings of coling-88, Budapest, 36–39.Google Scholar
  6. Damas, L. and G.B. Varile. Forthcoming. CLG: A Grammar Formalism Based on Constraint Resolution. Proceedings of epai-89.Google Scholar
  7. Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G.K. Pullum and I. Sag. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Halvorsen, P. and R. Kaplan. 1988. Projections and Semantic Descriptions in Lexical Functional Grammar. Proceedings of fgcs-88, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  9. Hauenschild, C. and S. Busemann. 1988. A Construtive Version of GPSG for Machine Translation. In E. Steiner, P. Schmidt and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds.), From Syntax to Semantics: Insights from Machine Translation. London: Francis Pinter, 216–236.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, R.L., S. Krauwer, M.A. Rosner and G.B. Varile. 1984. The Design of the Kernel Architecture for the Eurotra Software. Proceedings of coling-84, Stanford University, Stanford, 226–235.Google Scholar
  11. Kaplan, R. and J. Bresnan. 1982. Lexical Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation. In J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 173–282.Google Scholar
  12. Kaplan, R., K. Netter, J. Wedekind and A. Zaenen. 1989. Translation by Structural Correspondences. Proceedings of eacl-89, Manchester, 272–282.Google Scholar
  13. Kay, M. 1984. Functional Unification Grammar: A Formalism for Machine Translation. Proceedings of coling-84. Stanford University, Stanford, 75–79.Google Scholar
  14. McCord, M.C. 1980. Slot Grammars. Computational Linguistics 6:31–43.Google Scholar
  15. McCord, M.C. 1986. Design of a Prolog-based Machine Translation System. Proceedings of the Third International Logic Programming Conference. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 350–374.Google Scholar
  16. McCord, M.C. 1989. Design of LMT: A Prolog-based Machine Translation System. Computational Linguistics 15:33–52. (IBM Research Report RC 13536, Yorktown Heights, N.Y.)Google Scholar
  17. Pollard, C. and I. Sag. 1987. Information-based Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 1. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  18. Sharp, R. 1988. CAT-2—Implementing a Formalism for Multi-Lingual Machine Translation. Proceedings of the second International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  19. Shieber, S., H. Uszkoreit, F. Pereira, J. Robinson and M. Tyson. 1983. The Formalism and Implementation of part-II. In B. Grosz and M. Stickel (eds.), Research and the Use of Knowledge, SRI Report, Menlo Park, Calif.Google Scholar
  20. Shieber, S. 1986. An Introduction to Unification-based Approaches to Grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  21. Shieber, S. 1987. Separating Linguistic Analyses from Linguistic Theories. In P. Whitelock, M.M. Wood, H.L. Somers, R. Johnson and P. Bennett (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications. Orlando: Academic Press, 1–37.Google Scholar
  22. Shieber, S., 1989. cl-patr Reference Manual. SRI Technical Note 456, Menlo Park, Calif.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annelise Bech
    • 1
  • Bente Maegaard
    • 1
  • Anders Nygaard
    • 1
  1. 1.Eurotra-DKUniversity of CopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations