Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The theoretical basis of MiMo

  • Published:
Machine Translation

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to describe and motivate the leading ideas behind the MiMo notation, a formalism for transfer-based machine translation which is especially appropriate for intermediate representations based on Dependency Grammar. The most important of these ideas concern properties of the translation relation such as compositionality, reversibility, modularity, and autonomy of levels of description. The final section considers some issues relating to rule interaction.

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

  • Appelo, L., C. Fellinger and J. Landsbergen. 1987. Subgrammars, Rule Classes and Control in the Rosetta Translation System. Proceedings of the Third Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Copenhagen, 118–133.

  • Appelo, L. and F. de Jong. 1987. Synonymy and Translation. Philips Research M.S. 14.269, Eindhoven.

  • Arnol, D. 1986. Eurotra: A European Perspective on MT. Proceedings of the IEEE, 74.7: 979–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. 1989. Theoretical and Descriptive Issues in Machine Translation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Essex, Colchester.

  • Arnold, D., L. Jaspaert, R. Johnson, S. Krauwer, M. Rosner, L. des Tombe, G.B. Varile and S. Warwick. 1985. A Mu-1 View of the <C,A>, T Framework in Eurotra. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Colgate University, New York, 1–14.

  • Arnold, D., S. Krauwer, M. Rosner, L. des Tombe and G.B. Varile. 1986. The <C,A>,T> Framework in Eurotra: A Theoretically Committed Notation for MT. Proceedings of coling-86, Bonn, 297–303.

  • Arnold, D., S. Krauwer, L. Sadler and L. des Tombe. 1988. ‘Relaxed’ Compositionality in Machine Translation. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh; also published in Working Papers in Language Processing 5, Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, Colchester.

  • Arnold, D. and L. Sadler. 1988. (Non)-Compositionality and Translation. In J. Peckham (ed.), Recent Developments and Applications of Natural Language Understanding. London: Kogan Page, 23–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. and 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. and L. Sadler. Forthcoming. Some Formal Issues in Transfer. Machine Translation: Special Issue on Eurotra.

  • Arnold, D., and 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 

  • Bech, A., and A. Nygaard. 1988. The E-Framework: A Formalism for Natural Language Processing. Proceedings of coling-88, Budapest, 36–39.

  • Bennett, W.S., and J. Slocum. 1988. The LRC Machine Translation System. In J. Slocum (ed.), Machine Translation Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 111–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boitet, C. 1987. Research and Development on MT and Related Techniques at Grenoble University (geta). In M. King (ed.), Machine Translation Today. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 133–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell, J., and M. Tomita. 1987. Knowledge-Based Machine Translation: The CMU Approach. In S. Nirenburg (ed.), Machine Translation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 68–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell, J.G., R.E. Cullingford and A.V. Gershman. 1981. Steps Towards Knowledge-Based Machine Translation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 3: 376–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M.J. 1973. Logics and Languages. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullingford, R.E. and B.A. Onyshkevych. 1987. An Experiment in Lexicon Driven Machine Translation. In S. Nirenburg (ed.), Machine Translation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 278–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorr, B.J. 1987. Unitran: A Principle-Based Approach to Machine Translation. Technical Report 1000, MIT AI Lab., Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J.A. 1975. The Language of Thought. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J., M. Garrett, E. Walker and C. Parkes. 1980. Against Definitions. Cognition 8: 1–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, K., and S. Nirenburg, eds. Forthcoming. A Case Study in Knowledge-Based Machine Translation. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. (Cf. this journal, special issue on knowledge-based machine translation, Vol. 4, Nos. 1–2 (1989).)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays, David G. 1964. Dependency Theory: A Formalism and Some Observations. Language 40: 511–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, X.-M. 1986. A Bidirectional Chinese Grammar in an MT System. Memo, MCCS-86-52, Computing Research Laboratory, New Mexico State University.

  • Huang, X.-M. 1987. xtra: The Design and Implementation of a Fully Automatic Machine Translation System. Ph.D. thesis, University of Essex, Colchester.

  • Isabelle, P. 1987. Machine Translation at the taum Group. In M. King (ed.), Machine Translation Today. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 247–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isabelle, P. 1988. Reversible Logic Grammars for MT. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.

  • Isabelle, P., D. Dymetman and E. Macklovitch. 1988. critter: A Translation System for Agricultural Market Reports. Proceedings of coling-88, Budapest, 261–266.

  • Janssen, T.M.V. 1986. Foundations and Applications of Montague Grammar. Part 1: Philosophy, Framework, Computer Science. Amsterdam: Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. and J. Bresnan. 1982. Lexical Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation. In J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R., J. Maxwell and A. Zaenan. 1987. Functional Uncertainty. CSLI Monthly, Vol. 2, No. 4, Stanford.

  • Kaplan, R., K. Netter, J. Wedekind and A. Zaenan. 1989. Translation by Structural Correspondences. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Manchester, 272–81.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauwer, S., and L. des Tombe. 1984. Transfer in a Multilingual MT System. Proceedings of coling-84, Stanford, 464–467.

  • Landsbergen, J. 1987a. Montague Grammar and Machine Translation. In P. Whitelock, M.M. Wood, H.L. Somers, R. Johnson and P. Bennett (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications, London: Academic Press, 113–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landsbergen, J. 1987b. Isomorphic Grammars in the Rosetta Translation System. In M. King (ed.), Machine Translation Today. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 351–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leermakers, R., and J. Rous. 1986. The Translation Method of Rosetta. Computers and Translation [now Machine Translation] 1: 169–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legendre, G. 1986. Object Raising in French: A Unified Account. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 137–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maas, H.-D. 1987. The MT System susy. In M. King (ed), Machine Translation Today. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 209–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCord, M. C. 1989. Design of LMT: A Prolog-Based Machine Translation System. Computational Linguistics 15: 33–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mel'čuk, I. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morreal, J. 1976. The Non-Synonymy of kill and cause to die. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 516–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagao, M., and J. Tsujii. 1986. The Transfer Phase of the Mu Machine Translation System. Proceedings of coling-86, Bonn, 97–103.

  • Nagao, M., J. Nakamura. 1988. The Japanese Government Project for Machine Translation. In J. Slocum (ed.), Machine Translation Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 141–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nirenburg, S. (ed.) 1987. Machine Translation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nirenburg, S., V. Raskin and A.B. Tucker. 1987. The Structure of Interlingua in translator. In S. Nirenburg (ed.), Machine Translation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 90–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odijk, J. 1989. The Organisation of the Rosetta Grammars. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Manchester, 80–86.

  • Pereira, F.C.N., and D.H.D. Warren. 1980. Definite Clause Grammars for Language Analysis — a Survey of the Formalism and a Comparison with Augmented Transition Networks. Artificial Intelligence 13: 231–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulman, S.G. 1983. Word Meaning and Belief. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. 1975. The Meaning of Meaning. In K. Gunderson and G. Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Vol. 6. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; reprinted in H. Putnam, Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers: Vol. 2 (1975), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 215–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J.A. 1965. A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle. Journal of the ACM 12: 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, L., I. Crookston, D. Arnold and A. Way. 1990. LFG and Translation. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Linguistic Research Center, University of Texas at Austin.

  • Sampson, G. 1979. The Indivisibility of Words. Journal of Linguistics 15: 39–47.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Shibatani, M. 1976. The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shieber, S. M. 1986. An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siekmann, J.H. 1989. Unification Theory. Journal of Symbolic Computation 7: 207–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simcoe-Shelton, J. 1990. The MiMo French <-> English Demonstration System. Eurotra-Essex Internal Memoranda 17, Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, Colchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slocum, J. (ed.). 1988. Machine Translation Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesnière, L. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale, Paris: Klincksieck.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Noord, G. 1987. MiMo 3.7 User Manual, Department of Linguistics, University of Utrecht.

  • van Noord, G., J. Dorrepaal, D. Arnold, S. Krauwer, L. Sadler and L. des Tombe. 1989. An Approach to Sentence-Level Anaphora in Machine Translation. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Manchester, 299–307.

  • van der Eijk, P. 1988. Linguistic Analysis in the MiMo Translation System. Working Papers in Natural Language Processing 3, Taal Technologie, Utrecht University and K.U. Leuven.

  • Vauquois, B., and C. Boitet. 1988. Automated Translation at Grenoble University. In J. Slocum (ed.), Machine Translation Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanjing, J., and Simmons, R.F. 1986. Symmetric Rules for Translation of English and Chinese. Computers and Translation [now Machine Translation] 1: 153–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilks, Y.A. 1973. An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Machine Translation. In R.C. Schank and K.M. Colby (eds.) Computer Models of Thought and Language. San Francisco: Freeman & Co., 114–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilks, Y.A. 1975. A Preferential, Pattern Seeking Semantics for Natural Language Understanding. Artificial Intelligence 6: 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, W. 1975. What's in a Link: Foundations for Semantic Networks. In D.G. Bobrow and A. Collins (eds.), Representation and Understanding. New York: Academic Press, 35–82.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Language & Linguistics, University of Essex, Colchester, UK

    Doug Arnold & Louisa Sadler

Authors
  1. Doug Arnold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louisa Sadler
    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

Arnold, D., Sadler, L. The theoretical basis of MiMo. Machine Translation 5, 195–222 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00389818

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00389818

Keywords

Search

Navigation