File size: 56,443 Bytes
6fa4bc9 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 |
{
"paper_id": "1994",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T02:09:28.526606Z"
},
"title": "An Adaptation of Lexical Conceptual Structure to Multilingual Processing in an Existing Text Understanding System",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [
"Glover"
],
"last": "Stalls",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "Language Systems",
"institution": "",
"location": {
"region": "Inc"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Belvin",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "Language Systems",
"institution": "",
"location": {
"region": "Inc"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Alfredo",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Arnaiz",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "Language Systems",
"institution": "",
"location": {
"region": "Inc"
}
},
"email": "arnaiz@lsi.com"
},
{
"first": "Christine",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Montgomery",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "Language Systems",
"institution": "",
"location": {
"region": "Inc"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Stumberger",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "Language Systems",
"institution": "",
"location": {
"region": "Inc"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "The extension of an existing text understanding system to multilingual translation using an interlingual approach prompted the search for a language-independent means of expressing predicates and predicate relations. The approach adopted was Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS), as put forth by [2, 3] and [1]. LCS incorporates notions of event structure, argument relations, and core meaning into a concise language-independent formalism that preserves structure at the same time that it allows for divergences among languages. The task of installing LCS proved simple and straightforward, given the text understanding system's explicit representation of sentential content and capability of indexing the analyzed constituents of the sentence to the appropriate slots in the LCS.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "1994",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "The extension of an existing text understanding system to multilingual translation using an interlingual approach prompted the search for a language-independent means of expressing predicates and predicate relations. The approach adopted was Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS), as put forth by [2, 3] and [1]. LCS incorporates notions of event structure, argument relations, and core meaning into a concise language-independent formalism that preserves structure at the same time that it allows for divergences among languages. The task of installing LCS proved simple and straightforward, given the text understanding system's explicit representation of sentential content and capability of indexing the analyzed constituents of the sentence to the appropriate slots in the LCS.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Language Systems, Inc. (LSI)'s core automated text understanding technology has been applied over the last three years to multilingual processing in a voice-to-voice translation system that we are developing for the Air Force. Originally designed as an application-independent language analyzer, LSI's Data Base Generation (DBG) system is a flexible, modular system that produces a knowledge representation of the events and entities in a text, incorporating syntactic, semantic, discourse, and other relevant information. The DBG system has been adapted to a number of different applications, including data base update for space event reports [4] and for air activities messages [14] , message fusion for radiotelephone traffic [6] , data base generation for reports of terrorism in Latin America (MUC-3 and MUC-4) [5, 8] and for the transfer of microelectronics technology (MUC-5) [7] , and most recently, the project for which we have developed the multilingual processing capability that we are describing here, machine-aided voice translation [9, 10, 11 ].",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 645,
"end": 648,
"text": "[4]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 681,
"end": 685,
"text": "[14]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 730,
"end": 733,
"text": "[6]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 817,
"end": 820,
"text": "[5,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 821,
"end": 823,
"text": "8]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 884,
"end": 887,
"text": "[7]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 1049,
"end": 1052,
"text": "[9,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 1053,
"end": 1056,
"text": "10,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 1057,
"end": 1059,
"text": "11",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The Machine-Aided Voice Translation (MAVT) project, now in its second phase of prototype development, is being designed to assist English-speaking Air Force personnel in interacting with speakers of Spanish, Arabic, and Russian. The MAVT testbed consists of three subsystems: speech recognition, language processing, and speech generation. Like the voice-to-voice English \u2192 Spanish \u2192 English system developed in the first phase of the MAVT project, the system currently under development is a speaker-independent continuous speech translation system, processing queryresponse interactions in a military domain. As with the previous system, the language processing functions-understanding, translation, and generation-are performed by LSI's DBG natural language processing system.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Multilingual Processing and LSI's DBG System",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Much of the extension of the DBG system for the MAVT project has necessarily focused on multilingual capabilities. In the first phase of the project, the DBG system already had in place a multilingual syntactic parser that was used for Spanish and English. This parser will be used to parse Arabic and Russian as well. DBG produces, as output of the understanding phase of processing, a knowledge representation of the sentence. This knowledge representation is an applicationindependent data structure of related event and entity frames based on the predicates and arguments of the sentence and derived from an underlying frame-based concept hierarchy. These frames, called templates in the DBG system, represent the knowledge contained in a sentence. In translation, this structure serves as the end product of analysis of the source language (hereafter SL) sentence, and the basis for target language (TL) lexical selection and generation processing.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Multilingual Processing and LSI's DBG System",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The DBG knowledge representation thus functions as a kind of intermediate or interlingual (henceforth, IL) construct. A true IL approach does not not rely on direct transfer or direct links between languages but requires a language-independent representation of the data, which can then be used to translate the sentence into any language that the system can handle. The IL approach thus eliminates the need to develop a separate, direct interface between every potential source-target language pair because each language interfaces only with the language-independent IL representation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Multilingual Processing and LSI's DBG System",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "From the commencement of the MAVT project, LSI's approach has been interlingual in that it assumes that the selection of lexical items in the TL should be based on links to an intermediate structure, the concept hierarchy, rather than on direct or hard links between words in the source and target languages. Thus the words corresponding to the same basic meaning in each language are linked to common concept nodes. These links are present in each event and entity template in the knowledge representation. For some lexical categories, e.g., nouns, this works well. But where cross-category relations are important, as in verbs, which express predicate-argument relations, the lexical properties are much more complex. In a multilingual system, incorporating lexicalsemantic information for words associated with a given concept for all of the different languages would greatly increase the complexity of the hierarchy. The concept hierarchy primarily represents meaning relations between concepts of the same category rather than representing the unique properties of the meanings of the individual words associated with those concepts, or the meaning relations and structural requirements of the words in sentences. A great deal of additional syntactic and semantic checking would be needed to ensure the compatibility of a potential TL word with the meaning and structural requirements of the TL sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Multilingual Processing and LSI's DBG System",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The system we are developing includes a language-independent representation of verbal predicates, as well as prepositions and deverbal nouns. We do not attempt to give an IL representation for nouns, but rather than creating hard links among nouns in different languages, we link them to a point in the concept hierarchy. In this way, we can still translate nouns which do not have an exact equivalent in the TL by checking adjacent nodes in the hierarchy.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Requirements of an Interlingual Representation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "We have concentrated our interlingual effort on predicates for two reasons: 1) there are no welldeveloped theories of noun meaning which are feasible to implement (although see Pustejovsky [13] for a sketch of noun meaning which seems to hold promise for systems such as the one we envision) and 2) translation of predicates across multiple languages without the use of a well-defined ] component is cumbersome and full of pitfalls.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 189,
"end": 193,
"text": "[13]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Requirements of an Interlingual Representation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Several alternatives for the IL representation were considered: what we will call the 0-role approach, the event-structure approach, and the lexical conceptual structure approach. The first two do not come close enough to having the ability to uniquely identify a given verbal predicate.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Requirements of an Interlingual Representation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "For example, in a sentence like \"The infantry attacked the bunker\", the \u03b8-role approach would represent the relevant part of the lexical entry for \"attack\" as (Agent,Patient). In addition, the lexical entry would carry the core predicate relation \"attack\". Similarly, in \"John ate the apple\" the relevant part of the lexical entry would contain exactly the same thematic (\u03b8-) roles, as well as the core relation \"eat\". The problem with this is that there is no language-independent way to relate the core meanings of these verbs with their equivalents in other languages. In order to know, e.g., that \"attack\" corresponds to Spanish \"atacar\", there must be a hard link between the two verbs. One cannot rely on the \u03b8-roles alone, since there are many verbs which have (Agent,Patient) as their associated roles (we have only mentioned two). One might assume that somewhat better matches could be achieved by enriching the vocabulary of 0-role labels. This is a difficult, perhaps impossible task, since there is still no widely accepted proposal for how large this vocabulary should be, let alone what particular labels it should contain.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Requirements of an Interlingual Representation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "The event-structure approach also establishes well-defined classes of verbal predicates, based on event-semantic grounds. However, it again does not come close enough to uniquely identifying verbal predicates. Let us return to the example of \"attack\" and assume an event structure framework like that outlined in Pustejovsky [13] . Since this verb denotes an accomplishment type of event, a sentence like \"The infantry attacked the bunker\" would have a representation like the following: This event structure is paraphrasable as \"The infantry performed some action such that there was a change of state wherein the bunker's state previous to the action was non-attacked, and the bunker's state after the action was attacked\". This representation captures the fact the infantry was the agent in a deliberate act and the bunker underwent a change of state as a result; however, notice that it relies on the past participle (stative) form of the verb itself to express the core meaning. One should note that these proposals were not devised as a tool for machine translation; hence, our objections are not problems intrinsic to the theories themselves.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 325,
"end": 329,
"text": "[13]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Requirements of an Interlingual Representation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "In order to have a sufficiently rich IL representation, we need a way of integrating eventstructure features, \u03b8-role or argument structure features, and a vocabulary which expresses the core meaning of the predicates in a language-independent way. This is precisely the reason we settled on lexical conceptual structure (LCS) representations; that is, they integrate features of the first two approaches while providing a set of basic conceptual elements which can serve as languageindependent metalinguistic building blocks. The theory of LCS we employ is derived from Jackendoff [2, 3] and was first implemented as a component of a translation system by Dorr [1] . 1 Our system currently represents the sentence \"The infantry attacked the bunker\" with the partial LCS shown below (the general schema for a primitive predicate in the tree below is PREDI-CATEJield, which indicates that the primitive predicate PREDICATE is to be interpreted as applying in the semantic field \"_field\". The main LCS predicates are CAUSE, LET, DO, GO, STAY, BE, ORIENT, and GO-EXT and the field types are circumstantial, existential, identificational, locational, possessive, and temporal):",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 581,
"end": 584,
"text": "[2,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 585,
"end": 587,
"text": "3]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 661,
"end": 664,
"text": "[1]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 667,
"end": 668,
"text": "1",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Requirements of an Interlingual Representation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "( This representation is paraphrasable as \"There is an event in which the thing 'infantry' goes from some unspecified location toward a thing 'bunker' in a violent fashion\". The LCS encodes the argument structure (0-role content, selection and subcategorization), as well as the eventive nature of the verb, and the core meaning is sufficiently decomposed to facilitate transfer to other languages. There are, however, some limitations to LCS with regard to lexical selection. Meaning differences that can be captured by means of selectional features on the arguments (e.g., <projectile> in the LCS for \"fire\" in Section 4) or by simple manner modifiers (VIOLENTLY, above) are easily represented in the LCS. But an important aspect of the verb \"attack\" which is not represented in this structure is the negative effect on the object; otherwise, the event might just be a threat. This characteristic of the verb can be captured in a separate \"tier\", (Jackendoff's action tier) as follows: This simple predicate indicates \"affectedness\" with a negative result (the superscripted minus sign on the AFFECT predicate). The combined information of the \"thematic tier\" and Jackendoff's action tier would yield the richer representation necessary for the lexical selection process.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Requirements of an Interlingual Representation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "DBG is a modular system that analyzes text in progressive stages. The output of each stage of processing is a data structure that then serves as input to the following stage. In the DBG multilingual processing system, there are three stages of SL analysis of a sentence that precede the IL template representation; the IL representation is then followed by three stages of TL generation. The three stages of SL analysis are: a) lexical identification and morphological analysis; b) syntactic parsing; and c) semantic parsing. The three stages of TL generation mirror in part the SL analysis: they are x) lexical selection and semantic parsing; y) syntactic parsing; and z) morphological inflection.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorporation of LCS structures into the existing DBG system",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "At the heart of processing are the three intermediate translation stages: the SL semantic parse (c, above), the IL templates, and the TL semantic parse (x, above). It is into the data structures output by these modules that we have inserted the LCS. These data structures are essentially of the same type: sets of attribute-value pairs related to other pairs by means of indexing. This kind of structure allows the system to pass on actual sentence chunks, along with associated features of whatever type, e.g., morphological, semantic, pragmatic, in a homogeneous format.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorporation of LCS structures into the existing DBG system",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "For example, the sentence \"The tanks fired at the enemy\" is shown below in the translation phase of processing (SL semantic parse, IL templates, and TL semantic parse), with English as the SL and Spanish as the TL. Note that these structures are shown with the LCS (in DBG, as in Dorr [1] , CLCS is the \"composed LCS\", which contains the complete IL representation, including adjuncts; the SLCS (or \"satisfied SLCS\"), is an intermediate stage wherein the root LCS from the lexicon is instantiated with the arguments of the sentence being processed). The LCS in this case can be paraphrased as \"There was an event in which tanks caused projectiles to go toward the enemy.\"",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 285,
"end": 288,
"text": "[1]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorporation of LCS structures into the existing DBG system",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Because the LCS is a single construct, the LCS value for a given predicate is expressible as an attribute-value pair, so DBG can easily incorporate it in a meaningful way, indexing it to the appropriate predicates and arguments of the sentence. The LCS itself is coindexed with the predicate. The argument slots in the LCS provide hooks with which to link the LCS to its arguments elsewhere in the DBG data structure. As shown in (4-6), these slots are filled with the indexes to the appropriate arguments (or to the appropriate entity templates in the case of the IL representation). In the English and Spanish semantic parses, the SLCS's for the English verb \"fire\" and the Spanish verb \"disparar\" are indexed to the main predicate, which has the index number 1.1. In the IL templates, the CLCS for \"fire\" is part of the event template for \"fire\". The indexes for the arguments of the verb are inserted into the argument slots (1.2 and 1.3 in the semantic parses corresponding to the indexes for \"the tanks\" and \"the enemy\"; 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 indicating the appropriate entity templates in the IL representation). Additional features associated with the predicate and arguments are also coindexed with them, as is usual in the DBG system. For example, time, voice, aspect, modality, and polarity are features associated with events; number, sex, person, and definiteness are features of entities.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorporation of LCS structures into the existing DBG system",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Notice that the LCS is arranged as a set of predicates and arguments, following essentially the same form as a syntactic structure. Thus, CAUSE is a predicate of type Event, which takes as its first argument a Thing, and as its second argument an Event or State. The Event which appears in this example is a GO event, occurring in the locative field. The GO_loc predicate takes a Thing as its first argument, and a Path as its second argument. Finally the Path predicate TO takes a single Thing argument. Notice the feature <projectile> associated with the first argument of the GO_loc event. 2 This feature is linked to a point in the concept hierarchy. Had the sentence contained a direct object, the NP would have to be able to unify with this feature. The presence of this feature, though not overtly realized in the syntax, can aid in lexical selection.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 593,
"end": 594,
"text": "2",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorporation of LCS structures into the existing DBG system",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The importance of this last point should not be underestimated. Although LCSs allow for a much finer-grained distinction among predicates than the \u03b8-role or event-structure approaches, the LCS entries of a fairly substantial number of predicates will still not be unique unless these features are considered. In fact, the LCS for the verb \"fire\" is the same as for \"throw\", save for the feature <projectile/weapon> associated with the first argument of GO_loc.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorporation of LCS structures into the existing DBG system",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The incorporation of LCS into the translation data structures represents a major improvement over DBG's previous IL representation. The previous representation required putting into the event templates a diverse set of features, including sub categorization information, 0-roles, verbal class information, selectional restrictions, and links into the concept hierarchy. These features made up a kind of laundry list designed to restrict lexical selection in the TL to verbs that will convey the correct meaning and fit into an appropriate structure. Various options were available in case the exact specifications were not met.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorporation of LCS structures into the existing DBG system",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Because the LCS is a complex expression that actually encodes lexical-semantic structure, we do not need to recreate branching predicate-argument structures from scratch. A one-dimensional meaning representation, even with many qualifying features, is inadequate in this regard. With the LCS, we can match the predicate-argument structures of trees analyzed at the instantiated IL template stage with the specified predicate-argument structures of lexical items in the TL and at the same time more precisely define the lexical item. In the DBG system, the CLCS is not only used to match predicates in the TL for the purpose of lexical selection, but it also helps to drive the construction of the semantic parse of the TL sentence, which is the first stage in generation. Overall, the LCS encodes enough structure to allow for a relatively straightforward mapping to or from syntax, but is flexible enough so as not to force the source language's syntax onto the form of the target translation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorporation of LCS structures into the existing DBG system",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "One way of looking at the problem is as follows: the information required to do translation falls into two very broad categories: that which needs to be structured or ordered in a particular way, and that which does not. For example, \u03b8-roles or argument structure, no matter what one's position on argument structure, need at least some minimal ordering information, and, in many theories, need much more. On the other hand, the \u03a6-features associated with a given NP, e.g., number and gender, do not need to be ordered in any particular way.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorporation of LCS structures into the existing DBG system",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "As we have described above, the LCS supplies an efficient matrix into which the different parts of the DBG representation can be mapped in order to build a structure that can serve as the basis for generation. However, the LCS does not encode all of the information which must be considered when generating. For example, as Dorr [1, p.319] recognizes, tense and aspect information is crucial in translation but is not strictly speaking part of lexical-semantic knowledge. Discourse and pragmatic information are also critical to the analysis and translation of text, for example in resolving extrasentential reference. These features of the sentence, along with various other semantic, discourse, and pragmatic features, are carried along from the source language text analysis stage through to generation. At the target language semantic parse stage (the first stage of generation), DBG has access to all of these SL features of the text in addition to parameterized information about the TL. Therefore, these other features, in addition to the LCS, can be brought to bear on the composition of the TL structure.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 329,
"end": 339,
"text": "[1, p.319]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorporation of LCS structures into the existing DBG system",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "DBG was originally developed to analyze and extract information from text to create complex data records. It is able to make explicit the relations between constituents and to associate features with the precise constituents to which they apply. These capabilities are extremely valuable in machine translation and complement the more tightly-structured predicate-argument relations encoded within the LCS. We were therefore able to incorporate LCS into our existing DBG system with minimal stress to the system. In turn, LCS provided the missing link required to move beyond analysis into generation, thus transforming DBG into a genuine interlingual translation system.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "[l] defines a mapping of LCS positions into \u03b8-roles, and she addresses the classical problems of divergence in translation, demonstrating how LCS can help to resolve them.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This is a slight over-simplification, in that <projectile> is really treated as standing in a metonymic relation with <weapon>. See also the analysis in[12] of shoot and fire as complex events in which the weapon functions as intermediary.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Machine Translation: A View from the Lexicon",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Dorr",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "B.J. Dorr. Machine Translation: A View from the Lexicon. MIT Press, 1993.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Semantics and Cognition",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jackendoff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Jackendoff. Semantics and Cognition. MIT Press, 1983.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Semantic Structures",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jackendoff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Jackendoff. Semantic Structures. MIT Press, 1990.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Automated data base generation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Montgomery",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Glover",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kuhns",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Burge",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1984,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Montgomery, B. Glover, J. Kuhns, and J. Burge. Automated data base generation. Technical Report RADC-TR-84-146, Rome Air Development Center, 1984.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Description of the DBG system as used for MUC-3",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Montgomery",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Stalls",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stumberger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Belvin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Third Message Understanding Conference",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "171--177",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Montgomery, B.G. Stalls, R. Stumberger, and R. Belvin. Description of the DBG system as used for MUC-3. In Proceedings of the Third Message Understanding Conference, pages 171-177. DARPA, 1991.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Message fusion",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Montgomery",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Stalls",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stumberger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Belvin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Holmback",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Montgomery, B.G. Stalls, R. Stumberger, R. Belvin, and H. Holmback. Message fusion. Technical report, Ballistic Research Laboratory, 1989.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Description of the DBG system as used for MUC-5",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Montgomery",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Stalls",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stumberger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Belvin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hirsh",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Fifth Message Understanding Conference",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "121--135",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Montgomery, B.G. Stalls, R. Stumberger, R. Belvin, N. Li, and S. Hirsh. Description of the DBG system as used for MUC-5. In Proceedings of the Fifth Message Understanding Conference, pages 121-135. ARPA, 1993.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Description of the DBG system as used for MUC-4",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Montgomery",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Stalls",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stumberger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Belvin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hirsh",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Arnaiz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Fourth Message Understanding Conference",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "197--206",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Montgomery, B.G. Stalls, R. Stumberger, R. Belvin, N. Li, S. Hirsh, and A. Arnaiz. De- scription of the DBG system as used for MUC-4. In Proceedings of the Fourth Message Un- derstanding Conference, pages 197-206. DARPA, 1992.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Machine-aided voice translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Montgomery",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Stalls",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stumberger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Belvin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Arnaiz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 1992 Machine Translation Evaluation Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Montgomery, B.G. Stalls, R. Stumberger, N. Li, R. Belvin, and A. Arnaiz. Machine-aided voice translation. In Proceedings of the 1992 Machine Translation Evaluation Workshop, to appear.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Machine-aided voice translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Montgomery",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Stalls",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stumberger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Belvin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Arnaiz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shinn",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Decesare",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Farmer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Montgomery, B.G. Stalls, R. Stumberger, N. Li, R. Belvin, A. Arnaiz, P. Shinn, A. DeCe- sare, and R. Farmer. Machine-aided voice translation. Technical Report Contract No. F31602- 90-C-0058/Report No. LSI R93-01, Rome Laboratory/IRAA, 1992.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Machine-aided voice translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Montgomery",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Stalls",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Stumberger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Walter",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Belvin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Arnaiz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Information Management Collection Processing & Distribution, Dual-Use Technologies & Applications Conference",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "96--101",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Montgomery, B.G. Stalls, R.E. Stumberger, N. Li, S. Walter, R. Belvin, and A. Arnaiz. Machine-aided voice translation. In Information Management Collection Processing & Distri- bution, Dual-Use Technologies & Applications Conference, pages 96-101. IEEE, 1993.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "General lexical representation for an effect predicate",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation, Proceedings of a Workshop Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on the Lexicon",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Palmer. General lexical representation for an effect predicate. In Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation, Proceedings of a Workshop Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on the Lexicon. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1991.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "The generative lexicon",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pustejovsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "17",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Pustejovsky. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17(4), 1991.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Long range air data base generator",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Stalls",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stumberger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Montgomery",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "B.G. Stalls, R. Stumberger, and C. Montgomery. Long range air data base generator. Technical report, Rome Air Development Center, 1990.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "Event Structure for attack Transition Process State [act(Infantry) & \u2510 attacked(bunker)] [attacked(bunker)]"
},
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "Action Tier: [AFF\u00af ([infantry],[bunker])]"
}
}
}
} |