Machine Translation

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 103–147 | Cite as

The Eurotra linguistic specifications: An overview

  • Jacques Durand
  • Paul Bennett
  • Valerio Allegranza
  • Frank van Eynde
  • Lee Humphreys
  • Paul Schmidt
  • Erich Steiner


In this article, we outline the contents of the linguistic specifications of the Eurotra machine translation system. We start in sections 1 and 2 from some of the requirements placed by multilingual MT on the overall design of the linguistic components. We then move on to a characterization of the Eurotra interface structure (section 3), the nature of transfer (section 4), and trends towards more interlingual representations within the project (section 5). Thereafter, we concentrate on the contents of the various levels beside the interface structure (section 6) before giving a brief survey of word structure (section 7) and outlining some areas for further research (section 8)1.

  1. 1.

    The authors of this article are indebted to many other members of the project too numerous to be mentioned here. They wish to record a special intellectual debt to previous members of the Eurotra Linguistics Specification team and, in particular, Doug Arnold, Louis des Tombe and Lieven Jaspaert who did so much to establish sound theoretical bases for multilingual MT (see inter alia Arnold, Jaspaert and des Tombe 1985; Arnold 1986; Arnold and des Tombe 1987). For an extensive version of the overview presented here, see Allegranza et al. 1991. For another recent presentation of Eurotra, see Raw, Vandecapelle and Van Eynde 1988.


Eurotra linguistic specifications translation theory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allegranza, V., P. Bennett, J. Durand, F. van Eynde, L. Humphreys, P. Schmidt, & E. Steiner. 1991. Linguistics for MT: The Eurotra Linguistic Specifications. In C. Copeland, J. Durand, S. Krauwer and B. Maegaard (eds.), Studies in Machine Translation and Natural Language Processing, Vol. 1, Luxemburg: Commission of the European Communities, 15–123.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, D. 1986. Eurotra: A European Perspective on MT. IEEE 74: 979–992.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, D., L. Jaspaert, & L. des Tombe. 1985. Eurotra ELS-3 Linguistic Specifications, DGXIII, CEC, Luxemburg.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, D. & 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
  5. Arnold, D., S. Krauwer, L. des Tombe, & L. Sadler. 1988. Relaxed compositionality in Machine Translation. In Proceedings of Second International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  6. Arnold, D., M. Atkinson, J. Durand, C. Grover & L. Sadler, L. (eds.). 1989. Essays on Grammatical Theory and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Back, M.-C. 1988. Problem description for modifiers. Saarbrücken: Eurotra-D.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bresnan, J. (ed.). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. 1987. London and Glasgow: Collins.Google Scholar
  11. Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cruse, D.A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Danlos, L. 1988. Les phrases à verbe support ‘être Prep’. Langages 90: 23–37.Google Scholar
  14. Danlos, L. 1989. Support verbs and predicative nouns. Paris: Eurotra-France.Google Scholar
  15. Durand, J. 1987. On simple lexical transfer. Essex: Eurotra-UK.Google Scholar
  16. Eynde, F. van. 1987. Time. A unified theory of tense, aspect and Aktionsart. Leuven: Eurotra-Belgium.Google Scholar
  17. Eynde, F. van. 1988. The Analysis of Tense and Aspect in Eurotra. In Proceedings of coling-12, Budapest, 699–704.Google Scholar
  18. Eynde, F. van 1989. A Discourse Representation Model for the Semantic Analysis of Temporal Expressions. in F.J. Heyvaert & F. Steurs (eds.), Worlds Behind Words, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 119–129.Google Scholar
  19. Fodor, J.D., J.A. Fodor, and M.F. Garrett. 1975. The Psychological Unreality of Semantic Representations. Linguistic Inquiry 6:515–31.Google Scholar
  20. Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G.K. Pullum, and I.A. Sag. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Gebruers, R. 1988. Valency and MT: Recent Developments in the Metal System, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Applied NLP, ACL, 168–175.Google Scholar
  22. Gross, M. 1984. A Linguistic Environment for Comparative Romance Syntax. In P. Baldi (ed.), Papers from the XIIth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 373–416.Google Scholar
  23. Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. Language Structure and Language Function. In J. Lyons (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 140–165.Google Scholar
  24. Hays, D. 1964. Dependency Theory: A Formalism and Some Observations. Language 40:511–25.Google Scholar
  25. Hudson, R. 1984. Word Grammar. Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. Jackendoff, R. 1977. X Syntax: a Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, Mass., and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jaworska, E. 1986. Aspects of the Syntax of Prepositions and Prepositional Phrases in English and Polish, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Oxford: St Hugh's College.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, M. 1981. A Unified Theory of Tense and Aspect. In P. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen (eds.), Tense and Aspect, New York: Academic Press, 145–175.Google Scholar
  29. Kaplan, R., K. Netter, W. Wedekind, and A. Zaenen. 1989. Translation by Structural Correspondence. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Manchester, 272–281.Google Scholar
  30. Kempson, R. 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lyons, J. 1989. Semantic Ascent: A Neglected Aspect of Syntactic Typology. In Arnold et al. (eds.), 153–186.Google Scholar
  33. Mel'čuk, I.A. 1979. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pesetsky, D. 1985. Morphology and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 16:193–246.Google Scholar
  35. Radford, A. 1989. Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Raw, A., B. Vandecapelle and F. van Eynde. 1988. Eurotra: An Overview, Interface. Journal of Applied Linguistics 3:3–32.Google Scholar
  37. Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rohrer, C. 1985. Indirect Discourse and “consecutio temporum.” In: V. Lo Cascio and C. Vet (eds.), Temporal Structure in Sentence and Discourse, Tubingen: Niemeyer, 79–97.Google Scholar
  39. Scalise, S. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  40. Schank, R.C. 1973. Identification of Conceptualizations Underlying Natural Language. In R. Schank and K. Colby (eds.), Computer Models of Thought and Language, San Francisco: Freeman, 187–248.Google Scholar
  41. Schmidt, P. 1988a. A Syntactic Description of a Fragment of German in the Eurotra Framework. In E. Steiner, P. Schmidt and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds.), 11–39.Google Scholar
  42. Schmidt, P. 1988b. LFG and the CAT Formalism. In E. Steiner, P. Schmidt and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds.), 239–250.Google Scholar
  43. Schmidt, P. 1988c. Transfer Strategies in Eurotra-D. In P. Steiner, P. Schmidt and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds.), 161–186.Google Scholar
  44. Schubert, K. 1987. Metataxis: Contrastive Dependency Syntax for Machine Translation. Dordrecht & Providence: Foris.Google Scholar
  45. Somers, H. 1984. On the Validity of the Complement-Adjunct Distinction in Valency Grammar. Linguistics 22:507–30.Google Scholar
  46. Somers, H. 1987. Valency and Case in Computational Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Steiner, E., U. Eckert, B. Roth, and J. Winter-Thielen. 1988. The Development of the Eurotra-D System of Semantic Relations. In E. Steiner, P. Schmidt and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds.), 40–104.Google Scholar
  48. Steiner, E., P. Schmidt, and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds.). 1988. From Syntax to Semantics: Insights from Machine Translation. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Steiner, E. and J. Winter-Thielen. 1988. On Problems of Focus in Eurotra. In Proceedings of coling-88, Budapest, 165–175.Google Scholar
  50. Togeby, O. 1986. The Disambiguation Machinery in Eurotra Transfer. In A. Hartnack and H. Ruus (eds.), Nordisk Seminrar om Maskinoversaetelse, Copenhagen, 97–104.Google Scholar
  51. Togeby, O. 1988. A proposal for an extended feature system, Copenhagen: Eurotra-DK.Google Scholar
  52. Vauquois, B. 1975. La traduction automatique à Grenoble. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  53. Wilks, Y. 1972. Grammar, Meaning and the Machine Analysis of Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  54. Wilks, Y. 1983. Machine Translation and the Artificial Intelligence Paradigm of Language Processes. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 19, Computers in Language Research 2:61–111.Google Scholar
  55. Williams, E. 1981. On the Notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word.’ Linguistic Inquiry 12:245–274.Google Scholar
  56. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1986. An Empirically Based Approach Towards a System of Semantic Features. In Proceedings of coling-86, Bonn, 7–12.Google Scholar
  57. 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.), 105–132.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacques Durand
    • 1
  • Paul Bennett
    • 2
  • Valerio Allegranza
    • 3
  • Frank van Eynde
    • 4
  • Lee Humphreys
    • 5
  • Paul Schmidt
    • 6
  • Erich Steiner
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Modern LanguagesUniversity of SalfordSalfordUK
  2. 2.CCL-UMISTManchesterUK
  3. 3.Gruppo DIMATorinoItaly
  4. 4.CSLC-KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Language and LinguisticsUniversity of EssexColchesterUK
  6. 6.IAISaarbrückenGermany
  7. 7.Inst. für angewandte SprachwissenschaftUniv. des SaarlandesSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations