Abstract
In developing a theory of MT, it is desirable to have a methodology just powerful enough to achieve the intended results without introducing unnecessary complexity. A formalism designed to embody the methodology, and its implementation in some computer language, should also reflect this characteristic. This notion of appropriate complexity underlies the philosophy behind the cat2 MT system, a powerful yet simple instantiation of the Eurotra MT methodology. This report describes the cat2 formalism, and compares it to the Eurotra Engineering Framework, as well as to other formalisms for linguistic analysis. It is stressed that with a minimal set of formal devices the cat2 formalism achieves a level of adequacy equivalent to if not superior to the official Eurotra system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abramson, H. 1984. Definite Clause Translation Grammars. In Proceedings of the 1984 International Symposium on Logic Programming, Silver Springs, Md., 233–240.
Allegranza, V. and A. Bech. 1991. A Treatment of Unbounded Dependencies in Eurotra with an Experimental Coindexation Tool. Machine Translation 6: 171–182 [this isue].
Arnold, D., L. Jaspaert, R. Johnson, S. Krauwer, M. Rosner, L. des Tombe, G.B. Varile and S. Warwick. 1985. A MU1 View of the <C,A> T Framework in Eurotra. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages, Hamilton, N.Y., 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. In Proceedings of coling-86, Bonn, 297–303.
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.
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.
Evans, R. and G. Gazdar. 1989. Inference in datr. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Manchester, 66–71.
Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G. Pullum and I. Sag. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hirsh, S. 1987. p-patr: A Compiler for Unification-based Grammars. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming, Vancouver, 63–74.
Karttunen, L. 1986. d-patr: A Development Environment for Unification-Based Grammars. CSLI Report No. CSLI-86-61, SRI, Stanford, Calif.
Kasper, R. 1987a. A Unification Method for Disjunctive Feature Descriptions. In Proceedings of acl-25, Stanford, 235–242.
Kasper, R. 1987b. Conditional Descriptions in Functional Unification Grammar. ISI Report IS/RR-87-191, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, Calif.
Kay, M. 1984. Functional Unification Grammar: A Formalism for Machine Translation. In Proceedings of coling-84, Stanford, 75–78.
Matsumoto, Y., H. Tanaka, H. Hirakawa, H. Miyoshi and H. Yasukawa. 1983. BUP: A Bottom-Up Parser Embedded in Prolog. New Generation Computing 1: 145–158.
Pereira, F. and S. Shieber. 1987. Prolog and Natural Language Analysis. CSLI Lecture Notes 10, Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Pereira, F. and 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.
Pollard, C. and I. Sag. 1987. Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 1. CSLI Lecture Notes 13, Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Sharp, R. 1988. cat2-Implementing a Formalism for Multi-Lingual MT. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Language, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Sharp, R. 1990. Modelling gb in the Cat2 Machine Translation System. Paper delivered at the Workshop on gb Parsing, June 15–16, University of Geneva.
Shieber, S. 1984. The Design of a Computer Language for Linguistic Information. In Proceedings of coling-84, Stanford, 362–366.
Shieber, S. 1986. An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes 4, Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
Steiner, E., U. Eckert, B. Roth and J. Winter-Thielen. 1988. The Development of the Eurotra-D System of Sematic Relations. In E. Steiner, P. Schmidt and C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (eds.), From Syntax to Semantics: Insights from Machine Translation, London: Frances Pinter, 40–104.
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.), From Syntax to Semantics: Insights from Machine Translation, London: Frances Pinter, 105–132.
Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1991. Handling Transfer of Determination in a Eurotra Environment. Machine Translation 6: 183–192 [this issue].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sharp, R. CAT2: An experimental eurotra alternative. Machine Translation 6, 215–228 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00397284
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00397284