Machine Translation

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 323–374 | Cite as

A Typology of Translation Problems for Eurotra Translation Machines

  • Andrew Way
  • Ian Crookston
  • Jane Shelton
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a detailed study of Eurotra Machine Translation engines, namely the mainstream Eurotra software known as the E-Framework, and two “unofficial” spin-offs – the 〈C,A〉,T and Relaxed Compositionality translator notations – with regard to how these systems handle “hard” cases, and in particular their ability to handle combinations of such problems. In the 〈C,A〉,T translator notation, some cases of complex transfer are “wild”, meaning roughly that they interact badly when presented with other complex cases in the same sentence. The effect of this is that each combination of a wild case and another complex case needs ad hoc treatment. The E-Framework is the same as the 〈C,A〉,T notation in this respect. In general, the E-Framework is equivalent to the 〈C,A〉,T notation for the task of transfer. The Relaxed Compositionality translator notation is able to handle each wild case (bar one exception) with a single rule even where it appears in the same sentence as other complex cases.

“Hard” translation problems Eurotra translation notations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abeillé, A., Y. Schabes & A. K. Joshi: 1990, ‘Using Lexicalized Tags for Machine Translation’, in COLING-90: Papers presented to the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki, Vol. 3, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  2. Allegranza, V., P. Bennett, J. Durand, F. Van Eynde, L. Humphreys, P. Schmidt & E. Steiner: 1991, J. Durand, S. Krauwer & B. Maegaard (eds) The Eurotra Linguistic Specifications, Office for Official Publications of the Commission of the European Community, Luxembourg, pp. 15Google Scholar
  3. Alshawi, H.: 1996, ‘Head Automata and Bilingual Tiling: Translation with Minimal Representations’, in Annual 34th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Santa Cruz, California, pp. 167–176.Google Scholar
  4. Appelo, L.: 1993, Categorial Divergences in a Compositional Translation System, PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Appelo, L., C. Fellinger & J. Landsbergen: 1987, ‘Subgrammars, Rule Classes and Control in the Rosetta Translation System’, in Third Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Copenhagen, pp. 118–133.Google Scholar
  6. Arnold, D. & L. des Tombe: 1987, ‘Basic Theory and Methodology in EUROTRA7#x2019;, in S. Nirenburg (ed.) Machine Translation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 114–135.Google Scholar
  7. Arnold, D., S. Krauwer, L. des Tombe & L. Sadler: 1988, ‘ ‘Relaxed’ Compositionality in Machine Translation’, in Second International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 6Google Scholar
  8. Arnold, D., S. Krauwer, M. Rosner, L. des Tombe & G. B. Varile: 1986, ‘The (C,A) </del>, T Framework in EUROTRA: A Theoretically Committed Notation for MT’, in 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Proceedings of COLING '86, Bonn pp. 297Google Scholar
  9. Arnold, D. & L. Sadler: 1987, ‘(Non)-Compositionality and Translation’, in J. Peckham (ed.)Recent Developments and Applications of Natural Language Processing, Kogan Page, London, pp.Google Scholar
  10. Arnold, D. & L. Sadler: 1989, ‘Mimo: Theoretical Aspects of the System’, Working Papers in Language Processing 6, Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, Colchester.Google Scholar
  11. Arnold, D. & L. Sadler: 1990, ‘The Theoretical Basis of MiMo’, Machine Translation 5, 195–222.Google Scholar
  12. Beaven, J. L.: 1992, ‘Shake-and-Bake Machine Translation’, in Proceedings of the fifteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Actes du quinzième colloque international en linguistique informatique: COLING-92, Nantes, France, pp. 603–609.Google Scholar
  13. Bech, A.: 1991, ‘Description of the E-framework’, in C. Copeland, J. Durand, S. Krauwer & B. Maegaard (eds) The Eurotra Formal Specifications, Office for Official Publications of the Commission of the European Community, Luxembourg, pp. 7–40.Google Scholar
  14. Bech, A. & A. Nygaard: 1988, ‘The E-Framework: A Formalism for Natural Language Processing’, in Coling Budapest: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Budapest pp. 36–39Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N.: 1986, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussets.Google Scholar
  16. Crookston, I.: 1988, ‘Linguistic Unmotivation in EUROTRA’, ET-Essex Internal Memorandum 11 Google Scholar
  17. Department of Language & Linguistics, University of Essex, Colchester.Google Scholar
  18. Dorr, B.J.: 1993, Machine Translation: A View from the Lexicon, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussets.Google Scholar
  19. Dymetman, M. & M. Copperman: 1996, ‘Extended Dependency Structures and their Formal Interpretation’, in COLING-96: The 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Copenhagen, pp. 255–261.Google Scholar
  20. Estival, D., A. Ballim, G. Russell & S. Warwick: 1990, ‘A Syntax and Semantics for Feature-Structure Transfer’ in The Third Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Language, Austin, Texas, pp. 131–143.Google Scholar
  21. Guilbaud, J.-P.: 1987, ‘Principles and Results of a German to French MT System at Grenoble University (GETA)’, in King (1987), pp. 278–318.Google Scholar
  22. Hutchins, W.J.: 1986, Machine Translation, Past, Present, Future, Ellis Horwood, Chichester.Google Scholar
  23. Isabelle, P.: 1987, ‘Machine Translation at the TAUM Group’, in King (1987), pp. 247–277.Google Scholar
  24. Isabelle, P., M. Dymetman & E. Macklovitch: 1988, ‘CRITTER:A Translation System for Agricultural Market Reports’, in COLING Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Budapest, pp. 261–266.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, R.: 1987, ‘Translation’, in Whitelock et al. (1987), pp. 257–285.Google Scholar
  26. Kaplan, R.M. & J. Bresnan: 1982, ‘Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation’, in J. Bresnan (ed.) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussets, pp. 173–281.Google Scholar
  27. Kaplan, R.M., K. Netter, J. Wedekind & A. Zaenen: 1989, ‘Translation by Structural Correspondences’, in Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Manchester, pp. 272–281.Google Scholar
  28. Kaplan, R. M. & J. Wedekind: 1993, ‘Restriction and Correspondence-based Translation’, in Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Utrecht, pp. 193–202.Google Scholar
  29. King, M. (ed.): 1987, Machine Translation Today, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  30. Krauwer, S. & L. des Tombe: 1984, ‘Transfer in a Multilingual MT System’, in 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 22nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Proceedings of COLING84, Stanford, California, pp. 464–467.Google Scholar
  31. Kudo, I. & H. Nomura: 1986, ‘Lexical-Functional Transfer: A Transfer Framework in a Machine Translation System Based on LFG’, in 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Proceedings of COLING '86, Bonn, pp. 112–114.Google Scholar
  32. Landsbergen, J.: 1987a, ‘Montague Grammar and Machine Translation’, in Whitelock et al. (1987), pp. 113–148.Google Scholar
  33. Landsbergen, J.: 1987b, ‘Isomorphic Grammars and their Use in the ROSETTA Translation System’, in King (1987), pp. 351–372.Google Scholar
  34. Landsbergen, J.: 1989, ‘The Rosetta Project’, in MT Summit II, Munich, pp. 82–87.Google Scholar
  35. Leermakers, R. & J. Rous: 1986, ‘The Translation Method of Rosetta’, Computers and Translation 1, 169–183.Google Scholar
  36. Lindop, J. & J-I. Tsujii: 1991, ‘Complex Transfer in MT: ASurvey of Examples’, CCL/UMIST Report 91/5, Centre for Computational Linguistics, UMIST, Manchester.Google Scholar
  37. Maas, H.-D.: 1987, ‘The MT System SUSY’ in King (1987), pp. 209–246.Google Scholar
  38. Nagao, M. & J-I. Tsujii: 1986, ‘The Transfer Phase of the Mu Machine Translation System’, in 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Proceedings of COLING '86, Bonn, pp. 97–103.Google Scholar
  39. Odijk, J.: 1989, ‘The Organisation of the Rosetta Grammars’, in Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Manchester, pp. 80–86.Google Scholar
  40. Radford, A.: 1988, Transformational Syntax: A First Course, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  41. Rosetta, M.T.: 1994, Compositional Translation, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  42. Sadler, L., I. Crookston, D. Arnold & A. Way: 1990, ‘LFG and Translation’, in Third Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Language, Austin, Texas, pp. 121–130.Google Scholar
  43. Sadler, L., I. Crookston & A. Way: 1989, ‘Co-description, projection, and ‘difficult’ translation’, Working Papers in Language Processing 8, Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, Colchester.Google Scholar
  44. Sanfilippo, A., T. Briscoe & A. Copestake: 1992, ‘Translation Equivalence and Lexicalization in the ACQUILEX LKB’, in Quatrième colloque international sur les aspects théoriques et méthodologiques de la traduction automatique, Fourth International Conference on Theoreti-cal and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation, Montréal, Canada, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  45. Schenk, A.: 1986, ‘Idioms in the Rosetta Machine Translation System’, in 11th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Proceedings of COLING '86, Bonn, pp. 319–324.Google Scholar
  46. Schmidt, P.: 1988a, ‘A Syntactic Description of a Fragment of German in the EUROTRA Framework’, in Steiner et al. (1988), pp. 11–39.Google Scholar
  47. Schubert, K.: 1987, Metataxis: Contrastive Dependency Syntax for Machine Translation,Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  48. Sharp, R.: 1988, ‘CAT2 - Implementing a Formalism for Multi-Lingual MT’, in Second International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 76–87.Google Scholar
  49. Sharp, R.: 1991, ‘CAT2: An Experimental Eurotra Alternative’, Machine Translation 6, 215–228.Google Scholar
  50. Shieber, S.M.: 1986, An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
  51. Shieber, S.M. & Y. Schabes: 1990, ‘Synchronous Tree-Adjoining Grammars’, in COLING-90: Papers presented to the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Helsinki, Vol. 3, pp. 253–258.Google Scholar
  52. Shieber, S.M., G. van Noord, R.C. Moore & F.C.N. Pereira: 1989, ‘A Semantic-Head-Driven Generation Algorithm for Unification-Based Formalisms’, in 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, British Columbia, pp. 7–17.Google Scholar
  53. Shieber, S.M., G. van Noord, F.C.N. Pereira & R.C. Moore: 1990, ‘Semantic-Head-Driven Generation’, Computational Linguistics 16, 30–42.Google Scholar
  54. Slocum, J.: 1985, ‘A Survey of Machine Translation: Its History, Current Status and Future Prospects’,Computational Linguistics 11, 1–17.Google Scholar
  55. Steiner, E., P. Schmidt & C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds): 1988, From Syntax to Semantics: Insights from Machine Translation, Pinter, London.Google Scholar
  56. Van Eynde, F.: 1993, ‘Machine Translation and Linguistic Motivation’, in F. Van Eynde (ed.) Linguistic Issues in Machine Translation, Pinter, London, pp. 1–43.Google Scholar
  57. van Noord, G., J. Dorrepaal, P. van der Eijk, M. Florenza, H. Ruessink & L. des Tombe: 1991, ‘An Overview of MiMo2’, Machine Translation 6, 201–214.Google Scholar
  58. Vauquois, B. & C. Boitet: 1985, ‘Automated Translation at Grenoble University’, Computational Linguistics 11, 28–36.Google Scholar
  59. Whitelock, P.: 1992, ‘Shake-and-Bake Translation’, in Proceedings of the fifteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Actes du quinzième colloque international en linguistique informatique: COLING-92, Nantes, France, pp. 784–791.Google Scholar
  60. Whitelock, P.: 1994, ‘Shake-and-Bake Translation’, in Rupp, C.J., M.A. Rosner & R.L. Johnson (eds) Constraints, Language and Computation, Academic Press, London, pp. 339–359.Google Scholar
  61. Whitelock, P., M.M. Wood, H.L. Somers, R. Johnson & P. Bennett (eds): 1987, Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  62. Zajac, R.: 1990, ‘A Relational Approach to Translation’, in Third Conference on Theoretical andMethodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Language, Austin, Texas, pp. 235–254.Google Scholar
  63. Zeevat, H., E. Klein & J. Calder: 1987, ‘Unificational Categorial Grammar’, in N.J. Haddock, E. Klein & G. Morrill (eds) Categorial Grammar, Unification Grammar and Parsing, Working Papers in Cognitive Science 1, University of Edinburgh, pp. 195–222.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Way
    • 1
  • Ian Crookston
    • 2
  • Jane Shelton
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Computer ApplicationsDublin City UniversityIreland
  2. 2.Faculty of Speech & Language SciencesLeeds Metropolitan UniversityEngland
  3. 3.School of Modern LanguagesUniversity of NewcastleEngland

Personalised recommendations