This paper discusses some basic notions involved in designing, developing, and implementing the Intermediary Language (IL) for Machine Translation applied to a set of languages. The stages for the design of the IL would include the independent analysis and synthesis of each language in its own terms. Then each could be mapped once into the IL dictionary and grammar, creating the IL text. From the IL text the transfer routine would synthesize the target text for a particular language. It is assumed that the IL text would have algebraic representation of the variables to be instantiated in the target language on the basis of the IL text information. The IL should contain all the information occurring in the set of languages plus such generalizations as might be justified on the basis of inductive implications and/or deductively oriented postulates to be verified by adding new languages for testing the capacity of the IL.
Given five languages spoken by more than a hundred million people, if N equals 5 for the pairwise translation (say, into English), N2−N, we get 20 programs, and for the IL translation 2N+1, we can manage with eleven programs, yielding a significant gain.
The IL metalanguage, ideally, should have the capacity to function as an algebraic representation of both paradigmatic units (the selection axis) and their relationships (the contiguity axis). Both should be correlated with the extralinguistic fragments in terms of determiners, quantifiers, and classifiers. The structure of the IL grammar contains four components: dictionary, context-free information providing the nonterminal dictionary (i.e., classification), parser/synthesizer, and the initial string.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
ALPAC. 1966.Language and Machines: Computers in Translation and Linguistics. Report by the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee, Division of Behavioral Sciences, National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council Publication 1416. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.
Bruderer, Herbert E., ed. 1982.Automatische Sprachübersetzung:263–298. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Empson, William. 1961.Seven Types of Ambiguity. Harmondsworth (First ed. 1930).
Halliday, M.A.K. “Categories of the Theory of Grammar,”Word 17:241–92.
King, M. 1980.Eurotra: A European System for Machine Translation. University of Geneva, Switzerland: ISSCO.
Kunze, J. 1975. “Abhängigkeitsgrammatik,”Studia Grammatica. XII, Berlin.
Lawson, Veronica, ed. 1981.Practical Experience of Machine Translation. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
Marchuk, Yu. N. 1983.Problemy Mashinnogo Perevoda:17–28. Nauka.
Nirenburg, Sergei, Victor Raskin and Allen B. Tucker. 1985. “Interlingua Design for Translator,”Proceedings of the Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation of Natural Languages:224–244. Hamilton, N.Y.: Colgate University.
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947.Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York.
Russell, Bertrand. 1940.An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth. London.
Strawson, P.F. 1952.Introduction to Logical Theory. London.
Tesniére, Lucien. 1959.Éléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
Tucker, Allen B., Jr. 1984. “A Perspective on Machine Translation: Theory and Practice.”Communications of the ACM 27,4:322–329.
Wierzbickna A. 1972.Semantic Primitives Frankfurt: Athenäum.
Winograd, Terry. 1983.Language as a Cognitive Process:22,358,399. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Woods, W. 1970. “Transition Network Grammars for Natural Language Analysis.”Communications of the ACM 13,10:591–606.
Zarechnak, M. 1979. “The History of Machine Translation.”Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 11:3–87.
About this article
Cite this article
Zarechnak, M. The intermediary language for multilanguage translation. Computers and Translation 1, 83–91 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00936468
- Artificial Intelligence
- Computational Linguistic
- Machine Translation
- Significant Gain
- Text Information