Advertisement

Machine Translation

, Volume 10, Issue 1–2, pp 143–184 | Cite as

Toward a lexicalized grammar for interlinguas

  • Clare Voss
  • Bonnie J. Dorr
Article

Abstract

In this paper we present one aspect of our research on machine translation (MT): capturing the grammatical and computational relation between (i) the interlingua (IL) as defined declaratively in the lexicon and (ii) the IL as defined procedurally by way of algorithms that compose and decompose pivot IL forms. We begin by examining the interlinguas in the lexicons of a variety of current IL-based approaches to MT. This brief survey makes it clear that no consensus exists among MT researchers on the level of representation for defining the IL. In the section that follows, we explore the consequences of this missing formal framework for MT system builders who develop their own lexical-IL entries. The lack of software tools to support rapid IL respecification and testing greatly hampers their ability to modify representations to handle new data and new domains. Our view is that IL-based MT research needs both (a) the formal framework to specify possible IL grammars and (b) the software support tools to implement and test these grammars. With respect to (a), we propose adopting a lexicalized grammar approach, tapping research results from the study oftree grammars for natural language syntax. With respect to (b), we sketch the design and functional specifications for parts of ILustrate, the set of software tools that we need to implement and test the various IL formalisms that meet the requirements of a lexicalized grammar. In this way, we begin to address a basic issue in MT research, how to define and test an interlingua as a computational language — without building a full MT system for each possible IL formalism that might be proposed.

Keywords

interlingua machine translation lexicon lexicalized grammar 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abeillé, A., Y. Schabes, and A. Joshi. 1990. Using Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars for Machine Translation. InProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. 1971.The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localist Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  3. DiMarco, C., G. Hirst, and M. Stede. 1993. The Semantic and Stylistic Differentiation of Synonyms and Near-Synonyms. InWorking Notes for the AAAI Spring Symposium on Building Lexicons for Machine Translation, Technical Report SS-93-02, pages 114–121, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Dorr, B. 1990. Solving Thematic Divergences in Machine Translation. InProceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 127–134, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  5. Dorr, B. 1993.Machine Translation: A View from the Lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Dorr, B. and M. Palmer. 1995. Building a LCS-Based Lexicon in TAGs. InWorking Notes for the AAAI Spring Symposium on Representation and Aquisition of lexical Knowledge: Polysemy, Ambiguity, and Generativity, Technical Report SS-95, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
  7. Dorr, B. and C. Voss. 1993. Machine Translation of Spatial Expressions: Defining the Relation between an Interlingua and a Knowledge Representation System. InProceedings of the AAAI, pages 374–379, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. Dorr, B. and C. Voss. 1994. The Case for a MT Developers' Tool with a Two-Component View of the Interlingua. InProceedings of the First Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, pages 40–47, Columbia, MD.Google Scholar
  9. Dorr, B., C. Voss, E. Peterson, and M. Kiker. 1994. Concept Based Lexical Selection. InAAAI 1994 Fall Symposium on Knowledge Representation for Natural Language Processing in Implemented Systems, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  10. Frederking, R., S. Nirenburg, S. Helmrich D. Farwell, E. Hovy, K. Knight, S. Beale, C. Domashnev, D. Attardo, D. Grannes, and R. Brown. 1994. Integrating Translations from Multiple Sources within the Pangloss Mark III Machine Translation System. InProceedings of the First Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, pages 73–80, Columbia, MD.Google Scholar
  11. Grimshaw, J. 1993. Semantic Structure and Semantic Content in Lexical Represntation. Manuscript, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  12. Hale, K. and J. Keyser. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In K. Hale and J. Keyser, editors,The View From Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Herskovits, A. 1986.Language and Spatial Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  14. Hirst, G. 1995. Near-synonymy and the Structure of Lexical Knowledge. InWorking Notes for the AAAI Spring Symposium on Representation and Aquisition of lexical Knowledge: Polysemy, Ambiguity, and Generativity, Technical Report SS-95, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
  15. Hirst, G. and M. Ryan. 1992. Mixed-Depth Representations for Natural Language Text. In P. Jacobs, editor,Text-Based Intelligent Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pages 59–82.Google Scholar
  16. Hutchins, W.J. and H. Somers. 1992.An Introduction to Machine Translation. Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Jackendoff, R. 1983.Language and Cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Jackendoff, R. 1990.Semantic Structures. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Jensen, K. 1987. Binary Rules and Non-Binary Trees: Breaking Down the Concept of Phrase Structure. In A. Manaster-Ramer, editor,Mathematics of Language. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Philadelphia, PA, pages 65–86.Google Scholar
  20. Kay, M., J.M. Gawron, and P. Norvig. 1994.Verbmobil: A Translation System for Face-to-Face Dialog, volume 33. CSLI Lecture Notes, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Langacker, R. 1987.Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  22. Levin, B. and M. Rappaport-Hovav. 1991. Wiping the Slate Clean: A Lexical Semantic Exploration. In B. Levin and S. Pinker, editors,Lexical & Conceptual Semantics. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA, pages 123–151. (Reprinted fromCognition (1991) 41).Google Scholar
  23. Levin, B. and M. Rappaport-Hovav. 1995.Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Semantics Interface. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  24. Levin, L. and S. Nirenburg. 1994. The Correct Place Of Lexical Semantics in Interlingual MT. InProceedings of Fifteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
  25. Lindner, S. 1981.A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with OUT and UP. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  26. Mani, I. 1995. An Integrative, Layered Approach to Lexical Semantics and Its Application to Machine Translation. InWorking Notes for the AAAI Spring Symposium on Representation and Aquisition of lexical Knowledge: Polysemy, Ambiguity, and Generativity, Technical Report SS-95. Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Nirenburg, S., J. Carbonell, M. Tomita, and K. Goodman. 1992.Machine Translation: A Knowledge-Based Approach. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  28. Nomura, N., D. Jones, and R.C. Berwick. 1994. An Architecture for a Universal Lexicon: A Case Study on Shared Syntactic Information in Japanese, Hindi, Bengali, Greek, and English. InProceedings of Fifteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
  29. Onyshkevich, B. and S. Nirenburg. 1995. A Lexicon for Knowledge-Based MT.Machine Translation, 10(1–2).Google Scholar
  30. Pinker, S. 1989.Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  31. Rappaport, M. and B. Levin. 1988. What To Do With Theta-Roles. In W. Wilkins, editor,Thematic Relations. Academic Press, New York, NY, pages 7–36.Google Scholar
  32. Rosenfeld, A. 1990. Array, Tree and Graph Grammars. In H. Bunke and A. Sanfeliu, editors,Syntactic and Structural Pattern Recognition: Theory and Applications. World Scientific, Teaneck, NJ, pages 85–115.Google Scholar
  33. Rosetta, M.T. 1994.Rosetta: Compositional Translation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  34. Schabes, Y. 1990.Mathematical and Computational Aspects of Lexicalized Grammars. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  35. Schabes, Y., A. Abeillé, and A. Joshi. 1988. Parsing Strategies with ‘Lexicalized’ Grammars: Applications to Tree Adjoining Grammars. InProceedings of 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  36. Schimpf, K. 1982.A Parsing Method for Context-Free Tree Languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  37. Schimpf, K. and J. Gallier. 1985. Tree Pushdown Automata.Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 30:25–40.Google Scholar
  38. Sparck-Jones, K. 1983. Shifting Meaning Representations. InProceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Karlsruhe, Germany.Google Scholar
  39. Stede, M. 1993. Lexical Options in Multilingual Generation From a Knowledge Base. Manuscript, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  40. Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms. In T. Shopen, editor,Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. University Press, Cambridge, England, pages 57–149.Google Scholar
  41. Thatcher, J.W. 1967. Characterizing Derivation Trees of Context-Free Grammars through a Generalization of Finite Automata Theory.Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 1:317–322.Google Scholar
  42. Verrière, G. 1994. Manuel d'utilisation de la structure lexicale conceptuelle (LCS) pour représenter des phrases en français. Research note, IRIT, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France, June.Google Scholar
  43. Vijay-Shankar, K. and A. Joshi. 1985. Some Computational Properties of Tree Adjoining Grammars. InProceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  44. Vijay-Shankar, K., D. Weir, and A. Joshi. 1987a. Characterizing Structural Descriptions Produced by Various Grammatical Formalisms. InProceedings of the 25rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  45. Vijay-Shankar, K., D. Weir, and A. Joshi. 1987b. On the Progression from Context-Free to Tree Adjoining Languages. In A. Manaster-Ramer, editor,Mathematics of Language. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Philadelphia, PA, pages 389–401.Google Scholar
  46. Voss, C., B. Dorr, and M. Ülkü Şencan. 1995. Lexical Allocation in Interlingua-Based Machine Translation of Spatial Expressions. InWorking Notes for IJCAI-95 Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Spatial Expressions, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  47. Zwarts, J. and H. Verkuyl. 1994. An Algebra of Conceptual Structure: An Investigation Into Jackendoff's Conceptual Semantics.Linguistics and Philosophy, 17:1–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clare Voss
    • 1
  • Bonnie J. Dorr
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MarylandCollege Park

Personalised recommendations