| { |
| "paper_id": "C65-1024", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:12:27.037176Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Petr", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Sgall", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": {}, |
| "email": "malostransk@n.23" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "The notions of generation, production, synthesis etc. are analyzed, with the conclusion, that the description of a natural language should have ~ a creative and a trans", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "C65-1024", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "The notions of generation, production, synthesis etc. are analyzed, with the conclusion, that the description of a natural language should have ~ a creative and a trans", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "ductive part. As a system meeting the principal known conditions, a sequence of pushdown store transducers, interpreted as a stra-t~f~cational language descrlption~is proposed. b) the grammar automatically ascribes to each generated sentence a structural d~scription, not contradictory to the intuitive evidence of native speakers~ if the same sentence is generated by the grammar in ~ different ways, ~ different structural descriptions a~e ascribed to it~ c) the grammar is a description of the mechanism the user of the language has internalized and uses in the process of language co~2.unication (as a speaker, hearer etc.).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "There are, of course, other aims or conditions laid upon generative grammars, e.g. those concerning degrees of grmmmati ~ calness of sentences. But our main point here concerns the three conditions cited; we assume that these a~e actually three different conditions, in particular that ~ and ~ are not identlca~ being implied by ~, so that a grammar can exist, which satisfies the conditions A and ~, but not ~.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "I~2 If we examine the new version of transformational descript-i~n~from that point of view, we see that there are difficulties concerning the ccndition ~. Of course, we are now applying the conditions not only to the grammar, but to the whole description, including its semantic component. ~e are not certain, however, that the mutual relations of the thyee components of this description have been characterized quite correctly. There is one creative component, (A), whose output is interpreted by Sgall 5 both (B), i.e. semantics, and (C); but then -in my opinion - (A) ig the basis (including lexical rules), and the transformational and phonological parts 0elong to (C). Whether this is the case or not, the formulation of the new shape of the transformational description is a further and important step in overcoming the onesidedness of descriptivism. An adequate basis for fulfilling the conditions g and ~ may be considered to have been reached in ~his way.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 568, |
| "end": 571, |
| "text": "(A)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "But our question remains: can this system really be considered to describe the mechanism used in speech communication? J.J.Katz writes (/5/, p.4; similarly in /6/): \"The whole process may be pictured as follows: the speaker, for reasons that are biographically relevant but linguistically not, chooses a message he wants to convey to the hearer .... This message is translated into syntactic form by the selection of a syntactic structure whose semantic interpretation is this message~' Of course, the question, why a particular message has been chosen, is not a linguistic one. But if the mechanism used by the speaker to translate the message into syntactic form were to be described as a device for translating, not just for selection, this other description would be preferable, as to that point.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The generative description is neutral to the speaker and to the hearer, i.e. to the production and understandlng of sentences. But in a sense the generation is nearer to the production, just as the recognition procedure is nearer to the understanding of sentences. That is, the sentence appears as an output string in the generative description and in the process of production, whereas in the recognition routine and in the process of understanding it appears as an input string. N.C~omsky introduced the distinction of the competence and the performance of language users;~ the methodological importance of", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "1.3", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "this distinction is undeniable. But it is not evident whether the generative grammar is the same as the description of the competence of both speaker and hearer; it is not clear whether a recognition grammar belongs to the realm of performance (Cfo Hays /4Tp.8/) , or to the realm of competence, also (cf~ categorical and other grammars, formulated as recognition grammars, e.g. /I/, but not intended as models of the hearer's activity).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall 4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "One sees, of course, that the actual programs for random generation of sentences /17,9/ are not models of the speaker's activity, either. But that is not due, perhaps, to their being related to generative grammars.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall 4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "So our questions are: Has a description of the user's coz~petence to be neutral with regard to the speaker and the hea~er? (Or, better: Are all the differences between the speaker's and the he~rer's activity due only to their performance, are there no differences which should be respected in a description of their competence, of the mechanism they have internalized?) And, further:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall 4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If the generative description is neutral in this respect, is the recognition description also neutral? -~f we assume that the set of grammatical ~entences is a recursive one, then why should we prefer ~eneration as the form af the description of lanA~age, and not recognition? 2.1. The mechanism internalized by the user of a language enables him (I) to choose a message as such, (II) to formulate this message, i.e. to translate it from its \"semantic\" form to one of the corresponding phonetic forms, (IIl) to \"interpret\" , or understand a sentence, i.e. to translate it f~om its phonetic form to an~ of the corresponding \"semantic\" forms, (IV) to choose the most appropriate form, while translating in either direction.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall 4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The parts (I) and (IV) cannot be fully described by linguistic Sgall 5 means alone. As to parts (II) and (III), we see that they are essentially translating procedures. They may include some blocking or checking sub parts, but we should try to describe at least their main parts as tr~msducers or in some similar way (or, alternatively, to show that this is impossible).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 317, |
| "end": 336, |
| "text": "(or, alternatively,", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall 4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The vast and heterogeneous field presystematically called 4 semantics should be analyzed from such a point of view; there are elements in it which belong to the \"transductive\" part of the mechanism and are purely linguistic;~ the relations between levels or strata of the l~n~uage system can be described as \"semantic\" relations (relations of\"representation\", with the so-called \"assymetrical2 dualism\", i.e. generally manyvj-toz many relations /~,I~. On the other hand, there are othe~ quite distinct, \"semantic\" problems, concerning the manner of choice of a message itself, and \\ of these only some are intrinsically linguistic (e.g. questions concerning anal~contradiction).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall 4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2.2 Even if the mechanism briefly outlined above could be integrally described, it ~ould be a description of the competence, not of the perfd~mance of a user of language. It would not describe, particularly, the relations connected with restrictions of memory and other faculties of individual speakers, nor v~rious possible short-cuts used during the process of speech. It would hardly be possible to de~cyibe, by linguistic means, the conditions under by which a construction is being built upVthe speaker during the act of speech, and the conditions under which it is delivered as a whole by the memory~ only extreme eases, where there is only the latter~ possibility, are distinguished explicitly by the grammar; the former constructions are, e.g. \"analytical\" forms of newly coined or accepted words formed \"by analogy\"; at the other extreme are idioms, \"irregular\" forms and other \"exceptions\", which have to be listed Sgall 6 by the grammar. In most cases, there are both possibilities, and it is not one of the purposes of linguistics to say whether (or, under what conditions) the spe~ker chooses the first or the second.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 1058, |
| "end": 1062, |
| "text": "(or,", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall 4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We can say, then, that the distinction between competence and performance is independent from that between speaker and hea~er.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall 4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If the description contains some part(s) used only by the speaker, and others used only by the hearer, it does not follow that it is no longer a description only of their competence. This sjstem should not be more elaborate than necessary, but there are some known conditions it has to fulfil. As to weak generative power , it has to generate not only the sets of strings gene-2ated by a context-free phrase structure grammar, but also at least set of all strings of the form xa_~x, where ~ is a symbol o~he the output vocabulary and ~ is any string of such symbols not containing ~; cf., in a somewhat different formulation, /12/. As to strong generative power, the system has to ascribe not only taxonomical structural descriptions, i.e. there must be a possibility of having The output of this translator would be x ax, whenever xa__.xx war its input string. So the first condition of 3.1. is fulfilled. It should be noted that we are not u~3ing the word \"translate\" in the technical sense used by R.J.Evey; the input language of our translator contains the set of the strings xax\" as its proper sub~.~et.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall 4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "There is still a possibility that, at least for some languages, a description would be adequate where the input language of each translator is the same as the output language of its predecessor in the sequence of machines. Th@ weak generative power of such a system would then equal that of a context-free phrase structure l~mguage (cf./13/, theorem 2:6.6).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall 4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As to the socond condition, concerning stror~ generative power, our system, as a stratificational one, shares the main property of transformational description and cannot be held to be taxonomic.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall 4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "There ~re three levels or strata (not to speak of phonology amd phonetics; but the question of the nmmber of strata is an empirical one and it is possible that typologically different languages do not coincide in this respect; we are working v~ith inflected languages, such as Czech or ~ussian): the tectogrammatical or \"semantic\" level (Lo) , the phenogrammatical level (surface structure, L1) , and the morpholo ical level (L2). The sequence of representations of a sentence on each of these levels, s member of L~ LIXL 2 ~ulfilling the condition that each of its elements is derivable by the transducer system (from its predecessor in the sequence, if Shore is any), is a structural description of that sentence. A complete derivational history is not needed here, because the symbols useful for the structural description appear in the terminal strings of the transducers, so that these strings (or some of them, as a sequence of two transducers is generally needed to translate the sentence f~m one level to a~other)themselves serve as the", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall 4", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "representations of sentences at the corresponding level.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall I0", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "So, not a unique description of the ss~actic structure is ascribed to a sentence (with no homonymy) but, rather, two distinct descriptions (elements of L 0 and L1, respectively), whose mutual relation can be compared with that of Chomsky's deep struc- Another remark concerns the confronYation of the tectogrammatical levels of two language% necessarily made by a translator.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall I0", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "An ideal case of translation would be the full coizcidence of both these levels. Generallyj the translator, if he is to translate correG~ly, is supposed to use (as a part of the mechanism internalized) some routine converting strings of the tecto&Tammatical level of the input language to those of the output language. This part of the mechanism is not as yet described by our system, as we consider one language only, i.e. a translator translating from his mother tongue to the some l~nguage. But elaboration of this part of the system is needed, and is directly relevant to Machine Translation as well as to general linguistic theory.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall I0", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "3.4. The transducers have to fulfil certain special conditions, so that the existence not only of an inverse machine ~bir each of them but also of a recognition routine for the whole system is ensured as well. These conditions, which we shall not present here in full, are parallel to the absence of deletion rules in a phrase structure grammar under similar circumstances. We can say, informally, that no symbol re~d in the input is deleted by the rules of a transducer, except in cases where that symbol can be determined uniquely by the resulting output. Free deletions are confined to transduction from the morphonological to the phonological level, or from the phonological to the phonetic level. At those stages, the existence of a recognition routine is given by the fact that the corresponding transducers are finite state#.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall I0", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The system can serve then, in its transductive part, as a ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Sgall I0", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "IO-NSF of M.I.T., Laboratory of Electronics", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": 1963, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Report No. IO-NSF of M.I.T., Laboratory of Electronics, Cambridge, Mass., 1963", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "Dependency Theory: A Formalism and Some Observations, I/emorandum ~,~-4087/P2", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "/", |
| "middle": [ |
| "D G" |
| ], |
| "last": "Hays", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1964, |
| "venue": "The i~and Corp., Sta. l~onica", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "/4/ D.G.Hays, Dependency Theory: A Formalism and Some Observations, I/emorandum ~,~-4087/P2, The i~and Corp., Sta. l~onica, 1964", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "The Semantic Component of a Linguistic Description (mimeogT. for the Conference on Structtu'al Linguistics", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "/", |
| "middle": [ |
| "J J" |
| ], |
| "last": "Katz", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1964, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "/5/ J.J.Katz, The Semantic Component of a Linguistic Description (mimeogT. for the Conference on Structtu'al Linguistics, Magdeburg, 1964)", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "~re Defen@e of i~lenta]ism", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "/", |
| "middle": [ |
| "J J" |
| ], |
| "last": "Katz", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1964, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "/ J.J.Katz, In ~re Defen@e of i~lenta]ism, Language~ 1964", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "An Inte~grated Theory of Linguistic '~ I.T. Descriptions", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "/", |
| "middle": [ |
| "J J" |
| ], |
| "last": "Katz -P.~i", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1964, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "26", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "/ J.J.Katz -P.~i.Postal, An Inte~grated Theory of Linguistic '~ I.T. Descriptions, ~eSearch ~onograph No. 26, ~,,. 1964", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "The Ser:emic Approach to Semantics", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "/", |
| "middle": [ |
| "S ~" |
| ], |
| "last": "", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "~", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lamb", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1964, |
| "venue": "Ame \"~. Anthropologist", |
| "volume": "66", |
| "issue": "3", |
| "pages": "57--78", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "/8/ S.~,~.Lamb, The Ser:emic Approach to Semantics, Ame \"~. Anthropologist 66, No. 3, P.2, 1964, 57-78", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Autoratic Gene1\"ation of Natural-Langua&e Sentences, re~d at the ~olloquium \"Foundations of I~[athematics", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": 1962, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "/9/ i~.B.Lees, Autoratic Gene1\"ation of Natural-Langua&e Sentences, re~d at the ~olloquium \"Foundations of I~[athematics...\" Tihany, 1962 (in press)", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "Anal~sis by Synthesis of Sentences in the Light of Recent Developments in the Theory of Gran~ar (re d at the ~olloquium on Algebraic Lingui~tics amd }~", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [ |
| "H" |
| ], |
| "last": "/I0/ G", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "/I0/ G.H.2~latthews, Anal~sis by Synthesis of Sentences in the Light of Recent Developments in the Theory of Gran~ar (re d at the ~olloquium on Algebraic Lingui~tics amd }~[T, Prague", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "Automatic Syntactic Analysis and the Pushdown St~m~ Structure of Language and Its Mathematical Aspects", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "/", |
| "middle": [ |
| "A G" |
| ], |
| "last": "Oet~nger", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1961, |
| "venue": "Proc. of the ~ymp. in Appl. Math", |
| "volume": "12", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "104--129", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "/ll/ A.G.Oet~nger, Automatic Syntactic Analysis and the Pushdown St~m~ Structure of Language and Its Mathematical Aspects, Proc. of the ~ymp. in Appl. Math. 12, 1961, 104- -129", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "Constituent Structure", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "/", |
| "middle": [ |
| "P M" |
| ], |
| "last": "", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "/12/ P.M.Postal, Constituent Structure, Indiana Univ., Bloomington (=IJAL 30/1, Fart III), 1964", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "Osnovy ob~e~;~o i ma~innogo perevoda", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [ |
| "J" |
| ], |
| "last": "V /13/ I.I.~evzin -V", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Xozencvejg", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1964, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "V /13/ I.I.~evzin -V.J.Xozencvejg, Osnovy ob~e~;~o i ma~innogo perevo- da, ~ioscow 1964", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "Zur Frage der Ebenen im Sprachsystem, Trsvaux lingulstiques de Prague I", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "/", |
| "middle": [ |
| "P" |
| ], |
| "last": "S~ali", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1964, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "95--106", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "/ P.S~alI, Zur Frage der Ebenen im Sprachsystem, Trsvaux linguls- tiques de Prague I, 1964, 95-106", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "/15/ P.Sgall, ~eneratlve ~eschreibung und die Ebenen des Sprach-s~,stems (re t~d at the Conf. on Struc~ Linz", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": 1964, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "/15/ P.Sgall, ~eneratlve ~eschreibung und die Ebenen des Sprach- s~,stems (re t~d at the Conf. on Struc~ Linz., Magdeburg, 1964)", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF14": { |
| "ref_id": "b14", |
| "title": "/16/ roSg~ll, Ein mehrstufiges generatives System (read at the ~olloquium on Al~ebr. Ling. and MT", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": 1964, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "/16/ roSg~ll, Ein mehrstufiges generatives System (read at the ~olloquium on Al~ebr. Ling. and MT, Prague, 1964)", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF15": { |
| "ref_id": "b15", |
| "title": "Random Gene2ation of English Sentences", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "/", |
| "middle": [ |
| "V E" |
| ], |
| "last": "Yngve", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1962, |
| "venue": "Proc. 1961 Intern. ~on~r. on ~achine Translation of Languages and Applied l~Ig", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "/ V.E.Yngve, Random Gene2ation of English Sentences, in Proc. 1961 Intern. ~on~r. on ~achine Translation of Languages and Applied l~Ig. Analysis, Teddington (1962)", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "text": "the works of N. ~homsky, P.M.Postal, J.J.Katz and others there are formulated three zeneral aims of generative grammar: a) the grammar generatesf all and only the grammatical sentences of the doscribed languase, in the senBe of a mathem,~tical enumeration of the set of grammatical sentences;", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "text": "2.3. If I understand correctly the words of J.J.Katz, cited in 1.2, then he defines the message as a unit of the semantic level (the message is a semantic interpretation of a sentoid). Enumeration of all possible messages (of a language) is a necessary part (or prerequisite, perhaps) of a description of a language, and it is,of course, preferable that the mechanism of this enumeration should ascribe structural descriptions to the generated messages (see in 1.1). But it is not elear whether the transformational description really can serve as such an enumeration. If so (e.g. if the semantic component does not, as a filter, block an infinite number of sentoids), then it would be possible to reverse the semantic component in some way (to discover its inverse machine), and use this inverted procedure as the description of the mechanism the speaker uses while translating the message to its syntactic form.If there is no such possibility, then the semantic component in its present form is not satisfactory, either.On th~ other hand, it is not necessary, in a linguistic description, to ~enerate the set of messages by a system which could serve as a model of the mechanism internalized by the users of a language (1.1.~). Bearing in m~nd, that the description of the complicated relations between the semantic and phonetic levels, and not the selection of the message, belongs to the classical aims of linguistics, we can model not the .:~echanism used by the speaker and theSgall 7\u2022 hearer, but %~used by the translator, who has to discover the~K\" meaning(s) pertaining to a certain phonetic string and vice versa,I but not to choose the meaning itself. (But cf.3.3.)~ Of course, we have to distinguish here between cases where translation proceeds only as an operation on texts, without using other than linguistics knowledge and knowledge obtained from the translated text itself, and cases, where the translator has to obtain from external sources information not contained in the text but by the grammar of the output lan~uag (in cases as \"king John's son\" tran~l~ted to German \"ein Sohn des K6nigs J.\" or \"der Sohn. \" of./13/) We are concerned here only with transla-\"\u2022 3 \u2022 tion in the narrow sense;, the mechanism descrioed does not enable the translator to select one of the possibilities in the cases where such external information is necessary. 3.1\u2022 Viewed\u00b1 in this way, the generative system should have~,h twQ parts: a purely generative one, serving to enumerate possible messages, or meanings of messages, and another \"transductive\" part, describing the tr~nslation of messages from one level to another.The message can be composed, of course, of many sentences, but, as is usual today, we take no account of the difference and speak of sentences onl~ in the Sequel.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF2": { |
| "text": "just for sentences, but for several levels of sentence structure, such as the deep structure and the surface structure. 3.2. One possible system meeting these conditions is a sequence of pushdown store transducers /11;3/, interpreted as a stratificational description /8;14/. Its first, generative and recursire part would be a context-free phrase structure grammar or a sys-T~r~ ~]r tem .... ~.ly equivalent to it, enumerating the \"sentence meanings \"~ in such a way that the output string itself serves as the description of the sentence structure at this level. This string is t~mslated then by an other pushdown store transducer 6r other~a~ transducers)to the level of \"surface stA'ucture\" (a l&nearized tree version Of the dependency mx~ of the sentence), and further to the morphological level. For a ~of such a system, see /15; 16/.We can formulate the first part of this system so as to generate all strings of the form xa_._xx\" and only them (where ~\" is the reflection of ~), and the second part can consist of the following rules (symbolized here as done by Evey, with some simplification; denotes any symbol of the input alphabet other than ~ ):", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF3": { |
| "text": "ture and surface structure. In cases such as questions, grammatically conditioned change of word order apparently disturbing the constituent structure of the ~entence, nominalizations etc., the rules of our system are to a great extent parallel to those of the tr~nsformational description. But cases such as the passive or lexical synonyL~ and honlonymy are handled in our system in such a % way that the representation of the sentence at the tecto~rammatical level is unique for the synonymous expressions (and distinct, of course, for the homonymous ones).The third level of our system, the morphological, includes categories of \"rectlon\" and concord, not included in the \"syntactic\" levels.3.3. The recursive component of our system, w~th the initial symbol ~ and the gradual derivation of the terminal string first by rules of expansion and then by rules of selection, does not _ _ ~, stated in 2.3 , it is not necessa-Wulfil condition c o,? 1.I. But, ~ \u2022 ry that a linguistic description should contain a description of the mecl~nism used by the speaker in that part of his activity. Rossibly this gap can be filled in the future by reformulation of the gene-ration routine. There are other difficulties in this component, concerning the condition ~. The main point here is the formulation of context restrictions relevant to the selection of terminal symbols; we think that it is possible to define various partitions on the vocabulary of this component, so that we can work with rule schemata Sgall 11not only as with a conventional simplification of notatien~ but also as with an intrinsic part of the system;~ the weak equivalence with a context-free phrase structure grammar should not be lost by this.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "FIGREF4": { |
| "text": "part of the translator's competence, as well as a basis for translation al~orithmus. As to the actual performance, as well as the actual algorithms, here various digressions from the process defined by the transducer system can be found, as well as restrictions due to the finite memory etc. A hearer performing (mostly in an unconscious way, probably) the process of understanding a sentence, does not have to follow the rules of the abpve mentioned inverse machines punctually. He can use various shortcuts or trial-and-error methods, checking the results (cf.Matthews, /I0/). But t~at may also be true for the speaker, as far as we know. 3.5. With regard to terminology, it is possible to distinguish several pairs of notions concerning routines of both kinds: we arrive at the conclusion that the connection bwtween the theory of grammar and the purposes of Machine Translation is an intrinsic one. It is of importance to practical research (where research on MT, using the findings of the theory of grammar and algebraic linguistics, makes possible through study of its empirical Sgall IS questions and testing of its working hypotheses). Moreover, the relation~ship between the theory and the purposes of tr~Lnslation has a bearing on the understanding of the theoretical co~epts themselves. And the importance of this a~pect Will increase, probably, as theory proceeds from the study of individual l~nguages to the ~escription of language universals and other relations between natural lsngu~%es, and to the description of language in R.J.Evey, The Theory and Applications of Pushdown Store ~%achines, Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation~", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
