Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Toward a lexicalized grammar for interlinguas

  • Published:
Machine Translation

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

  • Anderson, J. 1971.The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localist Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Dorr, B. 1993.Machine Translation: A View from the Lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Grimshaw, J. 1993. Semantic Structure and Semantic Content in Lexical Represntation. Manuscript, Rutgers University.

  • 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 

  • Herskovits, A. 1986.Language and Spatial Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Hutchins, W.J. and H. Somers. 1992.An Introduction to Machine Translation. Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. 1983.Language and Cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. 1990.Semantic Structures. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Langacker, R. 1987.Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Levin, B. and M. Rappaport-Hovav. 1995.Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Semantics Interface. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Nirenburg, S., J. Carbonell, M. Tomita, and K. Goodman. 1992.Machine Translation: A Knowledge-Based Approach. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Onyshkevich, B. and S. Nirenburg. 1995. A Lexicon for Knowledge-Based MT.Machine Translation, 10(1–2).

  • Pinker, S. 1989.Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Rosetta, M.T. 1994.Rosetta: Compositional Translation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabes, Y. 1990.Mathematical and Computational Aspects of Lexicalized Grammars. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Schimpf, K. 1982.A Parsing Method for Context-Free Tree Languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimpf, K. and J. Gallier. 1985. Tree Pushdown Automata.Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 30:25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparck-Jones, K. 1983. Shifting Meaning Representations. InProceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Karlsruhe, Germany.

  • Stede, M. 1993. Lexical Options in Multilingual Generation From a Knowledge Base. Manuscript, University of Toronto.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, 20742, College Park, MD

    Clare Voss & Bonnie J. Dorr

Authors
  1. Clare Voss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bonnie J. Dorr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Voss, C., Dorr, B.J. Toward a lexicalized grammar for interlinguas. Mach Translat 10, 143–184 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00997234

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00997234

Keywords

Search

Navigation