A survey of machine translation: its history, current status, and future prospects
Computational Linguistics - Special issues on machine translation
The translation method of Rosetta
Computers and Translation
Machine translation: past, present, future
Machine translation: past, present, future
Semantic-head-driven generation
Computational Linguistics
Machine translation: a view from the Lexicon
Machine translation: a view from the Lexicon
Automated translation at Grenoble University
Computational Linguistics - Special issues on machine translation
Restriction and correspondence-based translation
EACL '93 Proceedings of the sixth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
The organization of the Rosetta grammars
EACL '89 Proceedings of the fourth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Translation by structural correspondences
EACL '89 Proceedings of the fourth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Subgrammars, rule classes and control in the Rosetta translation system
EACL '87 Proceedings of the third conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Transfer in a multilingual MT system
ACL '84 Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 22nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics
A semantic-head-driven generation algorithm for unification-based formalisms
ACL '89 Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics
Head automata and bilingual tiling: translation with minimal representations
ACL '96 Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics
Using lexicalized tags for machine translation
COLING '90 Proceedings of the 13th conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 3
Synchronous tree-adjoining grammars
COLING '90 Proceedings of the 13th conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 3
The transfer phase of the Mu machine translation system
COLING '86 Proceedings of the 11th coference on Computational linguistics
Lexical-functional Transfer: a transfer framework in a machine translation system based on LFG
COLING '86 Proceedings of the 11th coference on Computational linguistics
The ,T framework in Eurotra: a theoretically committed notation for MT
COLING '86 Proceedings of the 11th coference on Computational linguistics
Idioms in the Rosetta machine translation system
COLING '86 Proceedings of the 11th coference on Computational linguistics
The E-Framework: a formalism for natural language processing
COLING '88 Proceedings of the 12th conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 1
CRITTER: a translation system for agricultural market reports
COLING '88 Proceedings of the 12th conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 1
Shake-and-bake machine translation
COLING '92 Proceedings of the 14th conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 2
COLING '92 Proceedings of the 14th conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 2
Extended dependency structures and their formal interpretation
COLING '96 Proceedings of the 16th conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 1
AMTA '98 Proceedings of the Third Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas on Machine Translation and the Information Soup
Chart-based transfer rule application in Machine Translation
COLING '00 Proceedings of the 18th conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 1
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
This paper presents a detailed study of Eurotra Machine Translationengines, namely the mainstream Eurotra software known as the E-Framework,and two “unofficial” spin-offs – the 〈C,A〉,T andRelaxed Compositionality translator notations – with regard to howthese systems handle “hard” cases, and in particular theirability to handle combinations of such problems. In the 〈C,A〉,Ttranslator notation, some cases of complex transfer are “wild”,meaning roughly that they interact badly when presented with other complexcases in the same sentence. The effect of this is that each combination of awild case and another complex case needs ad hoc treatment. The E-Frameworkis 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 taskof transfer. The Relaxed Compositionality translator notation is able tohandle each wild case (bar one exception) with a single rule even where itappears in the same sentence as other complex cases.