Computers and translation

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 3–21 | Cite as

The treatment of complex English nominalizations in machine translation

  • Harold Somers
  • Hideki Hirakawa
  • Seiji Miike
  • Shinya Amano


This paper concerns the treatment, in the context of machine translation, of English complex nominal groups which can be considered as nominalizations of verb phrases. We discuss the fact that many styles of English prose which are suitable for translation by machine typically favor the use of nominal rather than verbal syntagms. But such constructions when translated literally are often considered unnatural. The general problem is described in detail, with examples. The more specific problem of recognizing nominalizations and analyzing their structure is considered. How and where to achieve the required syntactic ‘transformation’ is discussed, and exemplified.


Machine translation structure preservation structural transfer nominalization Japanese 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amano, S. 1986. The Toshiba Machine Translation system.Japan Computer Quar terly,64, ‘Machine Translation — Threat or Tool’ (Japan Information Processing Development Center, Tokyo), 32–35.Google Scholar
  2. Amano, S., H. Hirakawa and Y. Tsutsumi. 1987. TAURAS: The Toshiba Machine Translation system. In: Proceedings of the MT Machine Translation Summit, Manuscripts & Program, Tokyo: Japan Electronic Industry Development Association (JEIDA), 15–23.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, D. 1986. Eurotra: a European Perspective on MT. Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 74, 979–992.Google Scholar
  4. Barwise, J. and R. Cooper. 1981. Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language.Linguistics and Philosophy,4, 159–219.Google Scholar
  5. Carbonell, J.G., R.E. Cullingford and A.V. Gershman. 1981. Steps towards Knowledge-Based Machine Translation.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 3, 376–392.Google Scholar
  6. Carbonell, J.G. and M. Tomita. 1987. Knowledge-Based Machine Translation, the CMU Approach. In Nirenburg (1987), 68–89.Google Scholar
  7. CEC [Commission of the European Communities]. 1982. Council decision 82/752/EEC: Outline of objectives and programme of work.Official Journal of the Commission of the European Communities,L317, 19–23; reprinted inMultilingua,2, (1983), 43.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, R.C. 1983.Quantification and Syntactic Theory. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  9. Cowie, A.P. and R. Mackin. 1975.Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Volume 1: Verbs with Prepositions & Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hobbs, J.R. and S.M. Shieber. 1987. An Algorithm for Generating Quantifier Scopings.Computational Linguistics 13, 47–63.Google Scholar
  11. Lytinen, S. and R.C. Schank. 1982. Representation and Translation. Technical Report 234, Department of Computer Science, Yale University.Google Scholar
  12. McDonald, D.D. 1987. Natural Language Generation: Complexities and Techniques. In Nirenburg (1987), 192–224.Google Scholar
  13. Moore, R.C. 1981. Problems in Logical Form. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Stanford, CA, 117–124.Google Scholar
  14. Nagao, M. 1987. Role of Structural Transformation in a Machine Translation System. In Nirenburg (1987), 262–277.Google Scholar
  15. Nirenburg, S. (ed.) 1987.Machine translation: Theoretical and methodological issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nirenburg, S., V. Raskin and A.B. Tucker. 1987. The Structure of Interlingua in TRANSLATOR. In Nirenburg (1987), 90–113.Google Scholar
  17. Nishida, F., S. Takamatsu and H. Kuroki. 1980. English-Japanese Translation through Case-Structure Conversion. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COL1NG-80) Tokyo, 447–454.Google Scholar
  18. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985.A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  19. Somers, H. 1987a.Some Thoughts on Interface Structure(s). In: W. Wilss and K.-D. Schmitz (eds.) Maschinelle Übersetzung — Methoden und Werkzeuge, Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 81–99.Google Scholar
  20. Somers, H. 1987b.Valency and Case in Computational Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Somers, H. and H. Nomura. 1987. LUTE-PTOSYS: An Experimental System Aiming at a Deep Text Representation. Research Report, NTT Basic Research Laboratories, Musashino-shi, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  22. Vauquois, B. 1975.La traduction automatique á Grenoble. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  23. Vauquois, B. 1978. Description de la structure intermédiaire (Communication présentée au Colloque Luxembourg, 17 et 18 avril 1978). Document GETA, Grenoble.Google Scholar
  24. Vendler, Z. 1967.Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Wilks, Y. 1985. Right Attachment and Preference Semantics. Proceedings of the Second Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Geneva), 89–92.Google Scholar
  26. Wilks, Y., X. Huang and D. Fass. 1985. Syntax, Preference and Right Attachment. Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Altos CA.: Morgan Kaufmann, 779–784.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harold Somers
    • 1
  • Hideki Hirakawa
    • 1
  • Seiji Miike
    • 1
  • Shinya Amano
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Systems Laboratory, R&D CenterToshiba CorporationJapan

Personalised recommendations