Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Typology of Translation Problems for Eurotra Translation Machines

  • Published:
Machine Translation

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.

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 & 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 

  • 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. 15

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Appelo, L.: 1993, Categorial Divergences in a Compositional Translation System, PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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. 6

  • 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. 297

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Arnold, D. & L. Sadler: 1990, ‘The Theoretical Basis of MiMo’, Machine Translation 5, 195–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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. 36–39

  • Chomsky, N.: 1986, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussets.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crookston, I.: 1988, ‘Linguistic Unmotivation in EUROTRA’, ET-Essex Internal Memorandum 11

  • Department of Language & Linguistics, University of Essex, Colchester.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Guilbaud, J.-P.: 1987, ‘Principles and Results of a German to French MT System at Grenoble University (GETA)’, in King (1987), pp. 278–318.

  • Hutchins, W.J.: 1986, Machine Translation, Past, Present, Future, Ellis Horwood, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isabelle, P.: 1987, ‘Machine Translation at the TAUM Group’, in King (1987), pp. 247–277.

  • 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.

  • Johnson, R.: 1987, ‘Translation’, in Whitelock et al. (1987), pp. 257–285.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • King, M. (ed.): 1987, Machine Translation Today, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Landsbergen, J.: 1987a, ‘Montague Grammar and Machine Translation’, in Whitelock et al. (1987), pp. 113–148.

  • Landsbergen, J.: 1987b, ‘Isomorphic Grammars and their Use in the ROSETTA Translation System’, in King (1987), pp. 351–372.

  • Landsbergen, J.: 1989, ‘The Rosetta Project’, in MT Summit II, Munich, pp. 82–87.

  • Leermakers, R. & J. Rous: 1986, ‘The Translation Method of Rosetta’, Computers and Translation 1, 169–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindop, J. & J-I. Tsujii: 1991, ‘Complex Transfer in MT: ASurvey of Examples’, CCL/UMIST Report 91/5, Centre for Computational Linguistics, UMIST, Manchester.

  • Maas, H.-D.: 1987, ‘The MT System SUSY’ in King (1987), pp. 209–246.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Radford, A.: 1988, Transformational Syntax: A First Course, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosetta, M.T.: 1994, Compositional Translation, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Schmidt, P.: 1988a, ‘A Syntactic Description of a Fragment of German in the EUROTRA Framework’, in Steiner et al. (1988), pp. 11–39.

  • Schubert, K.: 1987, Metataxis: Contrastive Dependency Syntax for Machine Translation,Foris, Dordrecht.

  • 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.

  • Sharp, R.: 1991, ‘CAT2: An Experimental Eurotra Alternative’, Machine Translation 6, 215–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber, S.M.: 1986, An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, California.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Slocum, J.: 1985, ‘A Survey of Machine Translation: Its History, Current Status and Future Prospects’,Computational Linguistics 11, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, E., P. Schmidt & C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds): 1988, From Syntax to Semantics: Insights from Machine Translation, Pinter, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Vauquois, B. & C. Boitet: 1985, ‘Automated Translation at Grenoble University’, Computational Linguistics 11, 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Whitelock, P., M.M. Wood, H.L. Somers, R. Johnson & P. Bennett (eds): 1987, Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Applications, Dublin City University, Ireland

    Andrew Way

  2. Faculty of Speech & Language Sciences, Leeds Metropolitan University, England

    Ian Crookston

  3. School of Modern Languages, University of Newcastle, England

    Jane Shelton

Authors
  1. Andrew Way
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian Crookston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jane Shelton
    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

Way, A., Crookston, I. & Shelton, J. A Typology of Translation Problems for Eurotra Translation Machines. Machine Translation 12, 323–374 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007942929342

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007942929342

Search

Navigation