Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Eurotra linguistic specifications: An overview

  • Published:
Machine Translation

Abstract

In this article, we outline the contents of the linguistic specifications of the Eurotra machine translation system. We start in sections 1 and 2 from some of the requirements placed by multilingual MT on the overall design of the linguistic components. We then move on to a characterization of the Eurotra interface structure (section 3), the nature of transfer (section 4), and trends towards more interlingual representations within the project (section 5). Thereafter, we concentrate on the contents of the various levels beside the interface structure (section 6) before giving a brief survey of word structure (section 7) and outlining some areas for further research (section 8)Footnote 1.

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

Notes

  1. The authors of this article are indebted to many other members of the project too numerous to be mentioned here. They wish to record a special intellectual debt to previous members of the Eurotra Linguistics Specification team and, in particular, Doug Arnold, Louis des Tombe and Lieven Jaspaert who did so much to establish sound theoretical bases for multilingual MT (see inter alia Arnold, Jaspaert and des Tombe 1985; Arnold 1986; Arnold and des Tombe 1987). For an extensive version of the overview presented here, see Allegranza et al. 1991. For another recent presentation of Eurotra, see Raw, Vandecapelle and Van Eynde 1988.

References

  • Allegranza, V., P. Bennett, J. Durand, F. van Eynde, L. Humphreys, P. Schmidt, & E. Steiner. 1991. Linguistics for MT: The Eurotra Linguistic Specifications. In C. Copeland, J. Durand, S. Krauwer and B. Maegaard (eds.), Studies in Machine Translation and Natural Language Processing, Vol. 1, Luxemburg: Commission of the European Communities, 15–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. 1986. Eurotra: A European Perspective on MT. IEEE 74: 979–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D., L. Jaspaert, & L. des Tombe. 1985. Eurotra ELS-3 Linguistic Specifications, DGXIII, CEC, Luxemburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. & L. des Tombe. 1987. Basic Theory and Methodology in Eurotra. In S. Nirenburg (ed.), Machine Translation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 114–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D., S. Krauwer, L. des Tombe, & L. Sadler. 1988. Relaxed compositionality in Machine Translation. In Proceedings of Second International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.

  • Arnold, D., M. Atkinson, J. Durand, C. Grover & L. Sadler, L. (eds.). 1989. Essays on Grammatical Theory and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Back, M.-C. 1988. Problem description for modifiers. Saarbrücken: Eurotra-D.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J. (ed.). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. 1987. London and Glasgow: Collins.

  • Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruse, D.A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danlos, L. 1988. Les phrases à verbe support ‘être Prep’. Langages 90: 23–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danlos, L. 1989. Support verbs and predicative nouns. Paris: Eurotra-France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durand, J. 1987. On simple lexical transfer. Essex: Eurotra-UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eynde, F. van. 1987. Time. A unified theory of tense, aspect and Aktionsart. Leuven: Eurotra-Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eynde, F. van. 1988. The Analysis of Tense and Aspect in Eurotra. In Proceedings of coling-12, Budapest, 699–704.

  • Eynde, F. van 1989. A Discourse Representation Model for the Semantic Analysis of Temporal Expressions. in F.J. Heyvaert & F. Steurs (eds.), Worlds Behind Words, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 119–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J.D., J.A. Fodor, and M.F. Garrett. 1975. The Psychological Unreality of Semantic Representations. Linguistic Inquiry 6:515–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G.K. Pullum, and I.A. Sag. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebruers, R. 1988. Valency and MT: Recent Developments in the Metal System, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Applied NLP, ACL, 168–175.

  • Gross, M. 1984. A Linguistic Environment for Comparative Romance Syntax. In P. Baldi (ed.), Papers from the XIIth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 373–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. Language Structure and Language Function. In J. Lyons (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 140–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays, D. 1964. Dependency Theory: A Formalism and Some Observations. Language 40:511–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, R. 1984. Word Grammar. Blackwell: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. 1977. X Syntax: a Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, Mass., and London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworska, E. 1986. Aspects of the Syntax of Prepositions and Prepositional Phrases in English and Polish, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Oxford: St Hugh's College.

  • Johnson, M. 1981. A Unified Theory of Tense and Aspect. In P. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen (eds.), Tense and Aspect, New York: Academic Press, 145–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R., K. Netter, W. Wedekind, and A. Zaenen. 1989. Translation by Structural Correspondence. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Manchester, 272–281.

  • Kempson, R. 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. 1989. Semantic Ascent: A Neglected Aspect of Syntactic Typology. In Arnold et al. (eds.), 153–186.

  • Mel'čuk, I.A. 1979. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, D. 1985. Morphology and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 16:193–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radford, A. 1989. Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raw, A., B. Vandecapelle and F. van Eynde. 1988. Eurotra: An Overview, Interface. Journal of Applied Linguistics 3:3–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, C. 1985. Indirect Discourse and “consecutio temporum.” In: V. Lo Cascio and C. Vet (eds.), Temporal Structure in Sentence and Discourse, Tubingen: Niemeyer, 79–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalise, S. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C. 1973. Identification of Conceptualizations Underlying Natural Language. In R. Schank and K. Colby (eds.), Computer Models of Thought and Language, San Francisco: Freeman, 187–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, P. 1988a. A Syntactic Description of a Fragment of German in the Eurotra Framework. In E. Steiner, P. Schmidt and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds.), 11–39.

  • Schmidt, P. 1988b. LFG and the CAT Formalism. In E. Steiner, P. Schmidt and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds.), 239–250.

  • Schmidt, P. 1988c. Transfer Strategies in Eurotra-D. In P. Steiner, P. Schmidt and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds.), 161–186.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Somers, H. 1984. On the Validity of the Complement-Adjunct Distinction in Valency Grammar. Linguistics 22:507–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somers, H. 1987. Valency and Case in Computational Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, E., U. Eckert, B. Roth, and J. Winter-Thielen. 1988. The Development of the Eurotra-D System of Semantic Relations. In E. Steiner, P. Schmidt and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds.), 40–104.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, E. and J. Winter-Thielen. 1988. On Problems of Focus in Eurotra. In Proceedings of coling-88, Budapest, 165–175.

  • Togeby, O. 1986. The Disambiguation Machinery in Eurotra Transfer. In A. Hartnack and H. Ruus (eds.), Nordisk Seminrar om Maskinoversaetelse, Copenhagen, 97–104.

  • Togeby, O. 1988. A proposal for an extended feature system, Copenhagen: Eurotra-DK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vauquois, B. 1975. La traduction automatique à Grenoble. Paris: Dunod.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilks, Y. 1972. Grammar, Meaning and the Machine Analysis of Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilks, Y. 1983. Machine Translation and the Artificial Intelligence Paradigm of Language Processes. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 19, Computers in Language Research 2:61–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E. 1981. On the Notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word.’ Linguistic Inquiry 12:245–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1986. An Empirically Based Approach Towards a System of Semantic Features. In Proceedings of coling-86, Bonn, 7–12.

  • Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1988. From Cognitive Grammar to the Generation of Semantic Interpretation in Machine Translation. in E. Steiner, P. Schmidt and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds.), 105–132.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Modern Languages, University of Salford, Salford, UK

    Jacques Durand

  2. CCL-UMIST, Manchester, UK

    Paul Bennett

  3. Gruppo DIMA, Torino, Italy

    Valerio Allegranza

  4. CSLC-KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Frank van Eynde

  5. Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, Colchester, UK

    Lee Humphreys

  6. IAI, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Paul Schmidt

  7. Inst. für angewandte Sprachwissenschaft, Univ. des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Erich Steiner

Authors
  1. Jacques Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valerio Allegranza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frank van Eynde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lee Humphreys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Erich Steiner
    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

Durand, J., Bennett, P., Allegranza, V. et al. The Eurotra linguistic specifications: An overview. Mach Translat 6, 103–147 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00417680

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00417680

Keywords

Search

Navigation