acl acl2010 acl2010-235 acl2010-235-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: Aarne Ranta ; Krasimir Angelov ; Thomas Hallgren
Abstract: This is a system demo for a set of tools for translating texts between multiple languages in real time with high quality. The translation works on restricted languages, and is based on semantic interlinguas. The underlying model is GF (Grammatical Framework), which is an open-source toolkit for multilingual grammar implementations. The demo will cover up to 20 parallel languages. Two related sets of tools are presented: grammarian’s tools helping to build translators for new domains and languages, and translator’s tools helping to translate documents. The grammarian’s tools are designed to make it easy to port the technique to new applications. The translator’s tools are essential in the restricted language context, enabling the author to remain in the fragments recognized by the system. The tools that are demonstrated will be ap- plied and developed further in the European project MOLTO (Multilingual On-Line Translation) which has started in March 2010 and runs for three years. 1 Translation Needs for the Web The best-known translation tools on the web are Google translate1 and Systran2. They are targeted to consumers of web documents: users who want to find out what a given document is about. For this purpose, browsing quality is sufficient, since the user has intelligence and good will, and understands that she uses the translation at her own risk. Since Google and Systran translations can be grammatically and semantically flawed, they don’t reach publication quality, and cannot hence be used by the producers of web documents. For instance, the provider of an e-commerce site cannot take the risk that the product descriptions or selling conditions have errors that change the original intentions. There are very few automatic translation systems actually in use for producers of information. As already 1www .google . com/t rans l e at 2www. systransoft . com noted by Bar-Hillel (1964), machine translation is one of those AI-complete tasks that involves a trade-off between coverage and precision, and the current mainstream systems opt for coverage. This is also what web users expect: they want to be able to throw just anything at the translation system and get something useful back. Precision-oriented approaches, the prime example of which is METEO (Chandioux 1977), have not been popular in recent years. However, from the producer’s point of view, large coverage is not essential: unlike the consumer’s tools, their input is predictable, and can be restricted to very specific domains, and to content that the producers themselves are creating in the first place. But even in such tasks, two severe problems remain: • • The development cost problem: a large amount oTfh ew dorekv eisl onpemedeendt f coors building tmra:n asl laatorgrse afomr new domains and new languages. The authoring problem: since the method does nTohte ew aourkth foorri nalgl input, etmhe: :asu tihnocer othfe eth me source toexest of translation may need special training to write in a way that can be translated at all. These two problems have probably been the main obstacles to making high-quality restricted language translation more wide-spread in tasks where it would otherwise be applicable. We address these problems by providing tools that help developers of translation systems on the one hand, and authors and translators—i.e. the users of the systems—on the other. In the MOLTO project (Multilingual On-Line Translation)3, we have the goal to improve both the development and use of restricted language translation by an order of magnitude, as compared with the state of the art. As for development costs, this means that a system for many languages and with adequate quality can be built in a matter of days rather than months. As for authoring, this means that content production does not require the use of manuals or involve trial and error, both of which can easily make the work ten times slower than normal writing. In the proposed system demo, we will show how some of the building blocks for MOLTO can already now be used in web-based translators, although on a 3 www.molto-project .eu 66 UppsalaP,r Sowceeeddenin,g 1s3 o Jfu tlhye 2 A0C1L0. 2 ?c 01200 S1y0s Atesmso Dcieamtioonns ftorart Cioonms,p puatagteiso 6n6a–l7 L1in,guistics Figure 1: A multilingual GF grammar with reversible mappings from a common abstract syntax to the 15 languages currently available in the GF Resource Grammar Library. smaller scale as regards languages and application domains. A running demo system is available at http : / / grammat i cal framework .org : 4 1 9 6. 2 2 Multilingual Grammars The translation tools are based on GF, Grammatical Framework4 (Ranta 2004). GF is a grammar formalism—that is, a mathematical model of natural language, equipped with a formal notation for writing grammars and a computer program implementing parsing and generation which are declaratively defined by grammars. Thus GF is comparable with formalism such as HPSG (Pollard and Sag 1994), LFG (Bresnan 1982) or TAG (Joshi 1985). The novel feature of GF is the notion of multilingual grammars, which describe several languages simultaneously by using a common representation called abstract syntax; see Figure 1. In a multilingual GF grammar, meaning-preserving translation is provided as a composition of parsing and generation via the abstract syntax, which works as an interlingua. This model of translation is different from approaches based on other comparable grammar formalisms, such as synchronous TAGs (Shieber and Schabes 1990), Pargram (Butt & al. 2002, based on LFG), LINGO Matrix (Bender and Flickinger 2005, based on HPSG), and CLE (Core Language Engine, Alshawi 1992). These approaches use transfer rules between individual languages, separate for each pair of languages. Being interlingua-based, GF translation scales up linearly to new languages without the quadratic blowup of transfer-based systems. In transfer-based sys- 4www.grammaticalframework.org tems, as many as n(n − 1) components (transfer functtieomnss), are naeneyde ads nto( cover a)l cl language pairs nisnf bero tfhu ndci-rections. In an interlingua-based system, 2n + 1components are enough: the interlingua itself, plus translations in both directions between each language and the interlingua. However, in GF, n + 1 components are sufficient, because the mappings from the abstract syntax to each language (the concrete syntaxes) are reversible, i.e. usable for both generation and parsing. Multilingual GF grammars can be seen as an implementation of Curry’s distinction between tectogrammatical and phenogrammatical structure (Curry 1961). In GF, the tectogrammatical structure is called abstract syntax, following standard computer science terminology. It is defined by using a logical framework (Harper & al. 1993), whose mathematical basis is in the type theory of Martin-L o¨f (1984). Two things can be noted about this architecture, both showing im- provements over state-of-the-art grammar-based translation methods. First, the translation interlingua (the abstract syntax) is a powerful logical formalism, able to express semantical structures such as context-dependencies and anaphora (Ranta 1994). In particular, dependent types make it more expressive than the type theory used in Montague grammar (Montague 1974) and employed in the Rosetta translation project (Rosetta 1998). Second, GF uses a framework for interlinguas, rather than one universal interlingua. This makes the interlingual approach more light-weight and feasible than in systems assuming one universal interlingua, such as Rosetta and UNL, Universal Networking Language5 . It also gives more precision to special-purpose translation: the interlingua of a GF translation system (i.e. the abstract syntax of a multilingual grammar) can encode precisely those structures and distinctions that are relevant for the task at hand. Thus an interlingua for mathematical proofs (Hallgren and Ranta 2000) is different from one for commands for operating an MP3 player (Perera and Ranta 2007). The expressive power of the logical framework is sufficient for both kinds of tasks. One important source of inspiration for GF was the WYSIWYM system (Power and Scott 1998), which used domain-specific interlinguas and produced excellent quality in multilingual generation. But the generation components were hard-coded in the program, instead of being defined declaratively as in GF, and they were not usable in the direction of parsing. 3 Grammars and Ontologies Parallel to the first development efforts of GF in the late 1990’s, another framework idea was emerging in web technology: XML, Extensible Mark-up Language, which unlike HTML is not a single mark-up language but a framework for creating custom mark-up lan5www .undl .org 67 guages. The analogy between GF and XML was seen from the beginning, and GF was designed as a formalism for multilingual rendering of semantic content (Dymetman and al. 2000). XML originated as a format for structuring documents and structured data serialization, but a couple ofits descendants, RDF(S) and OWL, developed its potential to formally express the semantics of data and content, serving as the fundaments of the emerging Semantic Web. Practically any meaning representation format can be converted into GF’s abstract syntax, which can then be mapped to different target languages. In particular the OWL language can be seen as a syntactic sugar for a subset of Martin-L o¨f’s type theory so it is trivial to embed it in GF’s abstract syntax. The translation problem defined in terms of an ontology is radically different from the problem of translating plain text from one language to another. Many of the projects in which GF has been used involve precisely this: a meaning representation formalized as GF abstract syntax. Some projects build on previously existing meaning representation and address mathematical proofs (Hallgren and Ranta 2000), software specifications (Beckert & al. 2007), and mathematical exercises (the European project WebALT6). Other projects start with semantic modelling work to build meaning representations from scratch, most notably ones for dialogue systems (Perera and Ranta 2007) in the European project TALK7. Yet another project, and one closest to web translation, is the multilingual Wiki system presented in (Meza Moreno and Bringert 2008). In this system, users can add and modify reviews of restaurants in three languages (English, Spanish, and Swedish). Any change made in any of the languages gets automatically translated to the other languages. To take an example, the OWL-to-GF mapping trans- lates OWL’s classes to GF’s categories and OWL’s properties to GF’s functions that return propositions. As a running example in this and the next section, we will use the class of integers and the two-place property of being divisible (“x is divisible by y”). The correspondences are as follows: Clas s (pp : intege r . . . ) m catm integer Ob j e ctP roperty ( pp :div domain (pp : int ege r ) range ( pp :integer ) ) m funm div : int eger -> 4 int ege r -> prop Grammar Engineer’s Tools In the GF setting, building a multilingual translation system is equivalent to building a multilingual GF 6EDC-22253, webalt .math .he l inki . fi s 7IST-507802, 2004–2006, www .t alk-pro j e ct .org grammar, which in turn consists of two kinds of components: • a language-independent abstract syntax, giving tahe l snegmuaangtei-ci nmdeopdeenl dveinat tw ahbisctrha ctrtan ssylnattiaoxn, gisi performed; • for each language, a concrete syntax mapping abfstorrac eta syntax turaegese ,t oa strings ien s tyhnatta language. While abstract syntax construction is an extra task compared to many other kinds of translation methods, it is technically relatively simple, and its cost is moreover amortized as the system is extended to new languages. Concrete syntax construction can be much more demanding in terms of programming skills and linguistic knowledge, due to the complexity of natural languages. This task is where GF claims perhaps the highest advantage over other approaches to special-purpose grammars. The two main assets are: • • Programming language support: GF is a modern fPuroncgtriaomnaml programming language, w isith a a powerful type system and module system supporting modular and collaborative programming and reuse of code. RGL, the GF Resource Grammar Library, implementing Fthe R bsoausicrc linguistic dre Ltaiiblsr orfy l iamn-guages: inflectional morphology and syntactic combination functions. The RGL covers fifteen languages at the moment, shown in Figure 1; see also Khegai 2006, El Dada and Ranta 2007, Angelov 2008, Ranta 2009a,b, and Enache et al. 2010. To give an example of what the library provides, let us first consider the inflectional morphology. It is presented as a set of lexicon-building functions such as, in English, mkV : St r -> V i.e. function mkV, which takes a string (St r) as its argument and returns a verb (V) as its value. The verb is, internally, an inflection table containing all forms of a verb. The function mkV derives all these forms from its argument string, which is the infinitive form. It predicts all regular variations: (mkV
Alshawi, H. (1992). The Core Language Engine. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press. Angelov, K. (2008). Type-Theoretical Bulgarian Grammar. In B. Nordstr o¨m and A. Ranta (Eds.), Advances in Natural Language Processing (GoTAL 2008), Volume 5221 of LNCS/LNAI, pp. 52– 64. URL http : / /www . springerl ink .com/ content / 9 7 8 -3 -5 4 0 -8 5 2 8 6-5 / . Angelov, K. (2009). Incremental Parsing with Parallel Multiple Context-Free Grammars. In Proceedings of EACL’09, Athens. Angelov, K. and A. Ranta (2009). Implementing Controlled Languages in GF. In Proceedings of CNL2009, Marettimo, LNCS. to appear. Bar-Hillel, Y. (1964). Language and Information. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Beckert, B., R. H ¨ahnle, and P. H. Schmitt (Eds.) (2007). Verification of Object-Oriented Software: The KeY Approach. LNCS 4334. Springer-Verlag. Bender, E. M. and D. Flickinger (2005). Rapid prototyping of scalable grammars: Towards modularity in extensions to a language-independent core. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing IJCNLP-05 (Posters/Demos), Jeju Island, Korea. URL http : / / faculty .washingt on . edu / ebende r /pape rs /module s 0 5 .pdf. Bresnan, J. (Ed.) (1982). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press. Bringert, B., K. Angelov, and A. Ranta (2009). Gram- matical Framework Web Service. In Proceedings of EACL’09, Athens. 70 Butt, M., H. Dyvik, T. H. King, H. Masuichi, and C. Rohrer (2002). The Parallel Grammar Project. In COLING 2002, Workshop on Grammar Engineering and Evaluation, pp. 1–7. URL http : / /www2 .parc . com/ i l groups / s / nltt /pargram/butt et al-col ing0 2 .pdf. Chandioux, J. (1976). ME´TE´O: un syst e`me op´ erationnel pour la traduction automatique des bulletins m ´et ´ereologiques destin´ es au grand public. META 21, 127–133. Curry, H. B. (1961). Some logical aspects of grammatical structure. In R. Jakobson (Ed.), Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects: Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium in Applied Mathematics, pp. 56–68. American Mathematical Society. Dada, A. E. and A. Ranta (2007). Implementing an Open Source Arabic Resource Grammar in GF. In M. Mughazy (Ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XX, pp. 209–232. John Benjamin’s. Dean, M. and G. Schreiber (2004). OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. URL http : / /www . w3 .org/ TR/ owl-re f / . Dymetman, M., V. Lux, and A. Ranta (2000). XML and multilingual document authoring: Convergent trends. In COLING, Saarbr¨ ucken, Germany, pp. 243–249. URL http : / /www . c s . chalme rs . s e / ∼aarne / art i cle s / co l ing2 0 0 0 .ps .gz . Enache, R., A. Ranta, and K. Angelov (2010). An Open-Source Computational Grammar for Romanian. In A. Gelbukh (Ed.), Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing-2010), Iasi, Romania, March 2010, LNCS, to appear. Fuchs, N. E., K. Kaljurand, and T. Kuhn (2008). Attempto Controlled English for Knowledge Representation. In C. Baroglio, P. A. Bonatti, J. Małuszy n´ski, M. Marchiori, A. Polleres, and S. Schaffert (Eds.), Reasoning Web, Fourth International Summer School 2008, Number 5224 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 104–124. Springer. Hallgren, T. and A. Ranta (2000). An extensible proof text editor. In M. Parigot and A. Voronkov (Eds.), LPAR-2000, Volume 1955 of LNCS/LNAI, pp. 70–84. Springer. URL http : / /www . c s . chalme rs . s e / ∼aarne / art i cle s / lpar2 0 0 0 .ps . gz . Harper, R., F. Honsell, and G. Plotkin (1993). A Framework for Defining Logics. JACM 40(1), 143– 184. Joshi, A. (1985). Tree-adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural Language Parsing, pp. 206–250. Cambridge University Press. Khegai, J. (2006). GF Parallel Resource Grammars and Russian. In Coling/ACL 2006, pp. 475–482. Khegai, J., B. Nordstr o¨m, and A. Ranta (2003). Multilingual Syntax Editing in GF. In A. Gelbukh (Ed.), Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing-2003), Mexico City, February 2003, Volume 2588 of LNCS, pp. 453–464. Springer-Verlag. URL http : / /www . c s . chalme rs . se / ∼aarne / art i cle s /mexi co .p s .gz . Martin-L o¨f, P. (1984). Napoli: Bibliopolis. Intuitionistic Type Theory. Meza Moreno, M. S. and B. Bringert (2008). Interactive Multilingual Web Applications with Grammarical Framework. In B. Nordstr o¨m and A. Ranta (Eds.), Advances in Natural Language Processing (GoTAL 2008), Volume 5221 of LNCS/LNAI, pp. 336–347. URL http : / /www . springerl ink . com/ content / 9 7 8 -3 -5 4 0 -8 5 2 8 6-5 / . Montague, R. (1974). Formal Philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Collected papers edited by Richmond Thomason. Perera, N. and A. Ranta (2007). Dialogue System Localization with the GF Resource Grammar Library. In SPEECHGRAM 2007: ACL Workshop on Grammar-Based Approaches to Spoken Language Processing, June 29, 2007, Prague. URL http : / /www . c s . chalme rs . se / ∼aarne / art i cle s /pe re ra-rant a .pdf. Pollard, C. and I. Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press. Power, R. and D. Scott (1998). Multilingual authoring using feedback texts. In COLING-ACL. Ranta, A. (1994). Type Theoretical Grammar. Oxford University Press. Ranta, A. (2004). Grammatical Framework: A Type-Theoretical Grammar Formalism. The Journal of Functional Programming 14(2), 145– 189. URL http : / /www . c s .chalmers . s e / ∼aarne / art i cle s / gf-j fp .p s . gz . Ranta, A. (2009a). Grammars as Software Libraries. In Y. Bertot, G. Huet, J.-J. L e´vy, and G. Plotkin (Eds.), From Semantics to Computer Science. Cambridge University Press. URL http : / /www . c s . chalme rs . se / ∼aarne / art i cle s / l ibrarie s -kahn .pdf. Ranta, A. (2009b). The GF Resource Grammar Library. In Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, Vol. 2. URL http : / / el anguage .net / j ournal s / index . php / l lt / art i i cle /viewF i / 2 1 / 1 8 . le 4 5 Rosetta, M. T. (1994). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Compositional Translation. Shieber, S. M. and Y. Schabes (1990). Synchronous tree-adjoining grammars. In COLING, pp. 253–258. 71