Współczesne trendy w lingwistyce komputerowej a problem automatycznego tłumaczenia języka arabskiego

Main Article Content

Jerzy Łacina


The aim of this paper is to present some problems concerning the machine translation of Arabic in the context of the chosen NLP theories and their evolution. First attempts of electronic machine translations in Europe started only a little more than fifty years ago. It is enough time to perceive some aspects of the evolution? Although a lot of the concepts are still valid, the situation in A.D. 2012 is quite different than even twelve years ago. We still see useful old works of N. Chomsky, D. Cohen, but CFG seems to be supported with some new theories which also have got some disadvantages. Some interesting problems occur in the process of automatic translation when the number of grammatical cases is smaller in the source language than that in the output language.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Łacina, J. (2012). Współczesne trendy w lingwistyce komputerowej a problem automatycznego tłumaczenia języka arabskiego. Investigationes Linguisticae, 26, 39-58.


  1. Abbès, Ramzi, Joseph Dichy, Mohamed Hassoun. 2004. „The Architecture of a Standard Arabic lexical database: some figures, ratios and categories from the DIINAR.1 source program”. Semitic '04: Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Arabic Script-based Languages, ss.. 15-22 .
  2. Alshawi, Hiyan, Srinivas Bangalore, Shona Douglas .2000. „Learning Dependency Translation Models as Collections of Finite-State Head Transducers”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 26, N. 1. ss. 45-60.
  3. Brennan, Susan, Marilyn Walker-Friedman, and Carl Pollard. 1987. „A centering approach to pronouns.” Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ss. 155–162, Stanford, California.
  4. Brown, Peter F., John Cocke, Stephen A. Della Pietra, Vincent J. Della Pietra, Fredrick Jelinek, Robert L. Mercer, and Paul Roossin. 1988. „A statistical approach to language translation”. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, ss. 71–76, Budapest, Hungary.
  5. Chomsky, Noam. 1959. „On certain formal properties of grammars”. Information and Control, 2:137–167.
  6. Chomsky, Noam.1982. Zagadnienia teorii składni.Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk-Łódź: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich Wydawnictwo.
  7. Clark, Alexander , Chris Fox. Shalom Lappin (ed) .2010. The Handbook of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  8. Cohen, David. 1961. „Essai d'une analyse automatique de l'arabe”. T.A. informations. Repr: D. Cohen, Études de linguistique sémitique et arabe, Paris, Mouton, 1970.
  9. Cohen, Shay B, Noah A, Smith. 2012. „Empirical Risk Minimization for Probabilistic Grammars: Sample Complexity and Hardness of Learning”.
  10. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 38, N. 3. pp. 479-526
  11. Dębowski, Łukasz 2001. Tagowanie i dezambiguacja morfosyntaktyczna. Przegląd metod i oprogramowania. Warszawa.
  12. Dichy, Joseph. 1997. „Pour une lexicomatique de l’arabe : l’unité lexicale simple et l’inventaire fini des spécificateurs du domaine du mot”. Meta 42, juin 1997, Québec, Presses de l’Université de Montréal: 291-306.
  13. Dorr, Bonnie. 1997. „Large-scale dictionary construction for foreign language tutoring and interlingual machine translation”. Machine Translation, 12(4):1–55.
  14. Edmonds, Philip, Graeme Hirst .2002. „Near-Synonymy and Lexical Choice”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 28, N. 2. ss. 105-144.
  15. Engelfriet, J., E. Lilin, and A. Maletti. 2009. „Extended multi bottom–up tree transducers”. Acta Informatica, 46(8):561–590.
  16. Engelfriet, J., E. Lilin, and A. Maletti. „Composition and Decomposition of Extended Multi Bottom-Up Tree Transducers”.Acta Informatica–manuscript:
  17. Gildea, Daniel. 2012. „On the String Translations Produced by Multi Bottom–Up Tree Transducers”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 38, N. 3. pp. 673-693
  18. Goodman, Nelson. 1952. „On likeness of meaning”. L. Linsky, editor, Semantics and the Philosophy of Language. University of Illinois Press, ss. 67–74.
  19. Grosz, Barbara, Aravind Joshi, and Scott Weinstein. 1983. „Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse”. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ss. 44–50, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  20. Grosz, Barbara and Candace Sidner. 1986. „Attentions, intentions and the structure of discourse”. Computational Linguistics, Vol 12. N. 3. ss. 175–204.
  21. Hobbs, Jerry R. 1978. „Resolving pronoun references”. Lingua, 44:311–338.
  22. Hutchins, W. John .2012. „Victor H. Yngve”. Computational Linguistics (Obituary). Volume 38, Number 3. ss. 461-467.
  23. Korzycki, Michał. 2008. Transducer skończenie stanowy jako narzędzie rozpoznawania form tekstowych wyrazów polskich - rozprawa doktorska napisana pod kierunkiem profesora Wiesława Lubaszewskiego. Kraków, 2008
  24. Léon, Jacqueline. 1998. “Les débuts de la traduction automatique en France (1959-1968): à contretemps?”. Modèles Linguistiques. T. XIX, fascicule 2 ss.55-86.
  25. Lapata, Maria .2002. „The Disambiguation of Nominalizations”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 28, N. 3. ss. 357-388.
  26. Łacina, Jerzy. 2002. „Rola ogranicznika w automatycznym tłumaczeniu arabskiego tekstu koranicznego na język polski” w: Adnan Abbas (ed) Palestyna dawniej i dziś - Palestine Past and Present - materiały interdyscyplinarnej Konferencji Naukowej, zorganizowanej w Poznaniu 19-20 listopada 2001.Instytut Orientalistyczny Uniwersytet im. A. Mickiewicza . Poznań.
  27. Mann, William C. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1986. „Relational propositions in discourse”. Discourse Processes, 9(1):57–90, January-March.
  28. Marchand, Yannick, Robert I. Damper .2000. „A Multistrategy Approach to Improving Pronunciation by Analogy”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 26, N. 2. ss. 195-219.
  29. Marcu, Daniel .2000. „The Rhetorical Parsing of Unrestricted Texts: A Surfacebased Approach”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 26, N. 3. ss. 395-448.
  30. Melamed, Dan .2000. „Models of Translational Equivalence among Words”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 26, N. 2. ss. 221-249.
  31. Merlo, Paola, Eva Esteve Ferrer .2006. „The Notion of Argument in Prepositional Phrase Attachment”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 32, N. 3. ss. 341-377.
  32. Mikheev, Andrei .2002. „Periods, Capitalized Words, etc”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 28, N. 3. ss. 289-318.
  33. Nederhof, Mark-Jan .2000. „Practical Experiments with Regular Approximation of Context-Free Languages”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 26, N. 1. pp. 18-44.
  34. Palomar, Manuel, Antonio Ferrandez, Lidia Moreno, Patricio Martinez-Barco, Jesus Peral, Maximiliano Saiz-Noeda, Rafael Munoz .2001. „An Algorithm for Anaphora Resolution in Spanish Texts”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 27, N. 4. ss. 545-567.
  35. Pineda, Luis, Gabriela Garza .2000. „A Model for Multimodal Reference Resolution”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 26, N. 2. ss. 139-193.
  36. Pulman, Stephen G. .2000. „Bidirectional Contextual Resolution”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 26, N. 4. ss. 497-537.
  37. Quine, W. V. O. 1951. „Two dogmas of empiricism”. Philosophical Review, 60:20–43.
  38. Rubinoff, Robert .2000. „Integrating Text Planning and Linguistic Choice Without Abandoning Modularity: The IGEN Generator”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 26, N. 2. ss. 108-138.
  39. Siegel, Eric V., Kathleen R. McKeown .2000. „Learning Methods to Combine Linguistic Indicators: Improving Aspectual Classification and Revealing Linguistic Insights”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 26, N. 4. ss. 595-628.
  40. Stevenson, Mark, Yorick Wilks .2001. „The Interaction of Knowledge Sources in Word Sense Disambiguation”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 27, N. 3. ss. 321- 349.
  41. Stolcke, Andreas, Klaus Ries, Noah Coccaro, Elizabeth Shriberg, Rebecca Bates, Daniel Jurafsky, Paul Taylor, Rachel Martin, Carol Van Ess-Dykema, Marie Meteer .2000. „Dialogue Act Modeling for Automatic Tagging and Recognition of Conversational Speech”. Computational Linguistics, Vol. 26, N. 3. ss. 339-373.
  42. Weaver, W. 1949. “The Mathematics of Communication”, Scientific American, 181. ss. 11-15.
  43. Wille, Rudolf. 1982. „Restructuring lattice theory: an approach based on hierarchies of concept”. I. Rival, editor, Ordered Sets. Reidel, Dordecht/Boston, ss. 445–470.
  44. Yarowsky, David. 1992. „Word-sense disambiguation using statistical models of Roget’s categories trained on large corpora”. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-92), ss. 454– 460, Nantes.
  45. Yngve, Victor.1955. „Syntax and the problem of multiple meaning”. William N. Locke and A. Donald Booth, editors, Machine Translation of Languages: Fourteen Essays. Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Wiley, Cambridge, MA, and New York, ss. 208–226.
  46. Zrigui, Mounir. 2007. „Traitement automatique de la langue arabe”. Unitéé de recherche RIADI, faculté de Sciences de des Monastir, Tunisi.