430 likes | 448 Views
Language Divergences and Solutions. Advanced Machine Translation Seminar Alison Alvarez. Overview. Introduction Morphology Primer Translation Mismatches Types Solutions Translation Divergences Types Solutions Different MT Systems Generation Heavy Machine Translation DUSTer.
E N D
Language Divergences and Solutions Advanced Machine Translation Seminar Alison Alvarez
Overview • Introduction • Morphology Primer • Translation Mismatches • Types • Solutions • Translation Divergences • Types • Solutions • Different MT Systems • Generation Heavy Machine Translation • DUSTer
Source ≠ Target • Languages don’t encode the same information in the same way • Makes MT complicated • Keeps all of us employed
Morphology in a Nutshell • Morphemes are word parts • Work +er • Iki +ta +ku +na +ku +na +ri +ma +shi +ta • Types of Morphemes • Derivational: makes new word • Inflectional: adds information to an existing word
Morphology in a Nutshell • Analytic/Isolating • little or no inflectional morphology, separate words • Vietnamese, Chinese • I was made to go • Synthetic • Lots of inflectional morphology • Fusional vs. Agglutinating • Romance Languages, Finnish, Japanese, Mapudungun • Ika (to go) +se (to make/let) +rare (passive) +ta (past tense) • He need +s (3rd person singular) it.
Translation Differences • Types • Translation Mismatches • Different information from source to target • Translation Divergences • Same information from source to target, but the meaning is distributed differently in each language
Translation Mismatches • “…the information that is conveyed is different in the source and target languages” • Types: • Lexical level • Typological level
Lexical Mismatches • A lexical item in one language may have more distinctions than in another Brother 弟 otouto Younger Brother 兄さん Ani-san Older Brother
Typological Mismatches • Mismatch between languages with different levels of grammaticalization • One language may be more structurally complex • Source marking, Obligatory Subject
Typological Mismatches • Source: Quechua vs. English • (they say) s/he was singing --> takisharansi • taki (sing) +sha (progressive) +ra (past) + n (3rd sg) +si (reportative) • Obligatory Arguments: English vs. Japanese • Kusuri wo Nonda --> (I, you, etc.) took medicine. • Makasemasu! -->(I’ll) leave (it) to (you)
Translation Mismatch Solutions • More information --> Less information (easy) • Less information --> More information (hard) • Context clues • Language Models • Generalization • Formal representations
Translation Divergences • “…the same information is conveyed in source and target texts” • Divergences are quite common • Occurs in about 1 out of every three sentences in the TREC El Norte Newspaper corpus (Spanish-English) • Sentences can have multiple kinds of divergences
Translation Divergence Types • Categorial Divergence • Conflational Divergence • Structural Divergence • Head Swapping Divergence • Thematic Divergence
Categorial Divergence • Translation that uses different parts of speech • Tener hambre (have hunger) --> be hungry • Noun --> adjective
Conflational Divergence • The translation of two words using a single word that combines their meaning • Can also be called a lexical gap • X stab Z --> X darpuñaladas a Z (X give stabs to Z) • glastuinbouw --> cultivation under glass
Structural Divergence • A difference in the realization of incorporated arguments • PP to Object • X entrar en Y (X enter in Y) --> X enter Y • X ask for a referendum --> X pedir un referendum (ask-for a referendum)
Head Swapping Divergence • Involves the demotion of a head verb and the promotion of a modifier verb to head position S NP VP N V PP I ran into the room. S NP VP N V PP VP Yo entro en el cuarto corriendo
Thematic Divergence • This divergence occurs when sentence arguments switch argument roles from one language to another • X gustar a Y (X please to Y) --> Y like X
Divergence Solutions and Statistical/EBMT Systems • Not really addressed explicitly in SMT • Covered in EBMT only if it is covered extensively in the data
Divergence Solutions and Transfer Systems • Hand-written transfer rules • Automatic extraction of transfer rules from bi-texts • Problematic with multiple divergences
Divergence Solutions and Interlingua Systems • Mel’čuk’s Deep Syntactic Structure • Jackendoff’s Lexical Semantic Structure • Both require “explicit symmetric knowledge” from both source and target language • Expensive
Divergence Solutions and Interlingua Systems John swam across a river [event CAUSE JOHN [event GO JOHN [path ACROSS JOHN [position AT JOHN RIVER]]] [manner SWIM+INGLY]] Juan cruza el río nadando
Generation-Heavy MT • Built to address language divergences • Designed for source-poor/target-rich translation • Non-Interlingual • Non-Transfer • Uses symbolic overgeneration to account for different translation divergences
Generation-Heavy MT • Source language • syntactic parser • translation lexicon • Target language • lexical semantics, categorial variations & subcategorization frames for overgeneration • Statistical language model
Analysis Stage • Independent of Target Language • Creates a deep syntactic dependency • Only argument structure, top-level conceptual nodes & thematic-role information • Should normalize over syntactic & morphological phenomena
Translation Stage • Converts SL lexemes to TL lexemes • Maintains dependency structure
Analysis/Translation Stage GIVE (v) [cause go] I agent STAB (n) theme JOHN goal
Generation Stage • Lexical & Structural Selection • Conversion to a thematic dependency • Uses syntactic-thematic linking map • “loose” linking • Structural expansion • Addresses conflation & head-swapped divergences • Turn thematic dependency to TL syntactic dependency • Addresses categorial divergence
Generation Stage • Linearization Step • Creates a word lattice to encode different possible realizations • Implemented using oxyGen engine • Sentences ranked & extracted • Nitrogen’s statistical extractor
GHMT Results • 4 of 5 Spanish-English divergences “can be generated using structural expansion & categorial variations” • The remaining 1 out of 5 needed more world knowledge or idiom handling • SL syntactic parser can still be hard to come by
Divergences and DUSTer • Helps to overcome divergences for word alignment & improve coder agreement • Changes an English sentence structure to resemble another language • More accurate alignment and projection of dependency trees without training on dependency tree data
DUSTer • Motivation for the development of automatic correction of divergences • “Every Language Pair has translation divergences that are easy to recognize” • “Knowing what they are and how to accommodate them provides the basis for refined word level alignment” • “Refined word-level” alignment results in improved projection of structural information from English to another language
DUSTer • Bi-text parsed on English side only • “Linguistically Motivated” & common search terms • Conducted on Spanish & Arabic (and later Chinese & Hindi) • Uses all of the divergences mentioned before, plus a “light verb” divergence • Try put to trying poner a prueba
DUSTer Rule Development Methods • Identify canonical transformations for each divergence type • Categorize English sentences into divergence type or “none” • Apply appropriate transformations • Humans align E E’ foreign language
DUSTer Rules # "kill" => "LightVB kill(N)" (LightVB = light verb) # Presumably, this will work for "kill" => "give death to” # "borrow" => "take lent (thing) to” # "hurt" => "make harm to” # "fear" => "have fear of” # "desire" => "have interest in” # "rest" => "have repose on” # "envy" => "have envy of” type1.B.X [English{2 1 3} Spanish{2 1 3 4 5} ] [ Verb<1,i,CatVar:V_N> [ Noun<2,j,Subj> ] [ Noun<3,k,Obj> ] ] <--> [ LightVB<1,Verb>[ Noun<2,j,Subj> ] [ Noun<3,i,Obj> ] [ Oblique<4,Pred,Prep> [ Noun<5,k,PObj> ] ] ]
Conclusion • Divergences are common • They are not handled well by most MT systems • GHMT can account for divergences, but still needs development • DUSTer can handle divergences through structure transformations, but requires a great deal of linguistic knowledge
The End • Questions?
References Dorr, Bonnie J., "Machine Translation Divergences: A Formal Description and Proposed Solution," Computational Linguistics, 20:4, pp. 597--633, 1994. Dorr, Bonnie J. and Nizar Habash, "Interlingua Approximation: A Generation-Heavy Approach", In Proceedings of Workshop on Interlingua Reliability, Fifth Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, AMTA-2002,Tiburon, CA, pp. 1--6, 2002 Dorr, Bonnie J., Clare R. Voss, Eric Peterson, and Michael Kiker, "Concept Based Lexical Selection," Proceedings of the AAAI-94 fall symposium on Knowledge Representation for Natural Language Processing in Implemented Systems, New Orleans, LA, pp. 21--30, 1994. Dorr, Bonnie J., Lisa Pearl, Rebecca Hwa, and Nizar Habash, "DUSTer: A Method for Unraveling Cross-Language Divergences for Statistical Word-Level Alignment," Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, AMTA-2002,Tiburon, CA, pp. 31--43, 2002. Habash, Nizar and Bonnie J. Dorr, "Handling Translation Divergences: Combining Statistical and Symbolic Techniques in Generation-Heavy Machine Translation", In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, AMTA-2002,Tiburon, CA, pp. 84--93, 2002. Haspelmath, Martin. Understanding Morphology. Oxford Univeristy Press, 2002. Kameyama, Megumi and Ryo Ochitani, Stanley Peters “Resolving Translation Mismatches With Information Flow” Annual Meeting of the Assocation of Computational Linguistics, 1991