Machine translation based on unification link grammar
- 208 Downloads
- 1 Citations
Abstract
The goal of this article is to develop a translation method based on link grammar. Through this and to make it possible, we introduce a new formalism for syntactic analysis called Unification Link Grammar as a result of adding unification paradigms to link grammar. This brings about some other benefits such as more generative power, less complexity and being well organized for knowledge extraction. Based on this new formalism, we develop a translation method which is completely compatible with the linguistic basis of link grammar. This approach transfers graphs by using some kind of correspondence between the nodes and without using so called sub-constituents, sub-graphs or any similar concept. The introduced algorithm has a linear order time complexity. The implemented system shows the advantages of our approaches in covering complex structures of English language.
Keywords
Natural language processing Dependency grammar Machine translation Link grammarPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Abeille A, Schabes Y, Joshi AK (1990) Using lexicalized tree adjoining grammars for machine translation. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING ’90), HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
- Adji TB, Baharudin B, Zamin N (2008) Applying link grammar formalism in the development of English-Indonesian machine translation system. Lect Notes Comput Sci 5144: 17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Allen J (1994) Natural language understanding. The Benjamin/Cumming Publishing Company, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
- Berger AL, Brown PF, Pietra SD, Pietra VJD, Gillett JR, Lafferty JD, Mercer RL, Printz H, Ures L (1994) The candide system for machine translation. In: Proceedings of the human language technology workshop, pp 157–162Google Scholar
- Joshi AK, Schabes Y (1992) Tree-adjoining grammars and lexicalized grammars. In tree automata and LGS. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Kaplan R, Bresnan J (1982) Lexical functional grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In: Bresnan J (ed) The mental representation of grammatical relations. MIT, Cambridge, pp 173–281Google Scholar
- Kaplan R, Netter K, Wedekind J, Zaenen A (1989) Translation by structural correspondences. In: Fourth conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
- Knight K (1989) Unification: a multi-disciplinary survey. ACM Comput Surv 2(1): 93–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lafferty J, Sleator D, Temperly D (1992) Grammatical trigrams: a probabilistic model of link grammar. In: Proceedings of the AAAI fall symposium on probabilistic approaches to natural languageGoogle Scholar
- Megerdoomian K (2000a) Unification-based Persian morphology. In: Proceedings of CICLing, Alexander Gelbukh, Center of Investigation on Computation-IPN, MexicoGoogle Scholar
- Megerdoomian K (2000b) Persian computational morphology: a unification-based approach. NMSU, CLR, Memoranda in computer and cognitive science reportGoogle Scholar
- Noord GV (1990) Reversible unification-based machine translation. In: Proceedings, 13th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING’90), HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
- Sleator D, Temperley D (1991a) Parsing English with a link grammar. Carnegie Mellon University Computer Science technical report CMU-CS-91-196Google Scholar
- Sleator D, Temperley D (1991b) Parsing English with a link grammar. Third international workshop on parsing technologiesGoogle Scholar
- Sheiber S, Schabes Y (1990) Synchronous tree adjoining grammars. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING ’90), Helsinki, August. Association for Computational LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
- Shieber SM, Uszkoreit H, Pereira FCN, Robinson J, Tyson M (1983) The formalism and implementation of PATR-II. In: Grosz BJ, Stickel ME (eds) Research on interactive acquisition and use of knowledge. SRI reportGoogle Scholar