Advertisement

Computers and the Humanities

, Volume 28, Issue 4–5, pp 225–234 | Cite as

Exploiting structural similarities in machine translation

  • Helge Dyvik
Article

Abstract

The central properties of an experimental system for machine translation, PONS, and the ideas behind them, are presented and motivated. PONS achieves a compromise between linguistic sophistication and efficiency by automatically exploiting structural similarities between source and target language in order to take “shortcuts” during the translation process. The system uses a PATR-type linguistic formalism to encode LFG-type grammatical descriptions and Situation Semantics-type semantic descriptions, and it is implemented in Medley Interlisp.

Key words

computational linguistics machine translation chart parsing sentence generation unification LFG situation semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barwise, J. and J. Perry.Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. Bresnan, J., ed.The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  3. Dyvik, H. “Sentence Synthesis from Situation Schemata: A Unification-based Algorithm.”Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 11 (1988), 17–32.Google Scholar
  4. Fenstad, J.E., P.-K. Halvorsen, T. Langholm and J. v. Benthem.Situations, Language and Logic. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G. Pullum and I. Sag.Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. Halvorsen, P.-K. “Situation Semantics and Semantic Interpretation in Constraint-based Grammars.” InProceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems. FGCS-88, Tokyo, Japan, November 1988.Google Scholar
  7. Halvorsen, P.-K. and R.M. Kaplan. “Projections and Semantic Description in Lexical-Functional Grammar.” InProceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems. FGCS-88, Tokyo, Japan, November 1988.Google Scholar
  8. Kaplan, R.M. and J. Bresnan. “Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation.” InThe Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Ed. J. Bresnan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1982, pp. 173–281.Google Scholar
  9. Kaplan, R.M., K. Netter, J. Wedekind and A. Zaenen. “Translation by Structural Correspondences.” InProceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. University of Manchester, 1989, pp. 272–81.Google Scholar
  10. Karttunen, L. “D-PATR — A Development Environment for Unification-Based Grammars.” Report no. 61. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. Koller, W.Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. 4. Auflage. Uni-Taschenbücher 819. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helge Dyvik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and PhoneticsUniversity of BergenNorway

Personalised recommendations