Discourse-Related Language Contrasts in English-Croatian Human and Machine Translation

We present an analysis of a number of coreference phenomena in English-Croatian human and machine translations. The aim is to shed light on the differences in the way these structurally different languages make use of discourse information and provide insights for discourse-aware machine translation system development. The phenomena are automatically identified in parallel data using annotation produced by parsers and word alignment tools, enabling us to pinpoint patterns of interest in both languages. We make the analysis more fine-grained by including three corpora pertaining to three different registers. In a second step, we create a test set with the challenging linguistic constructions and use it to evaluate the performance of three MT systems. We show that both SMT and NMT systems struggle with handling these discourse phenomena, even though NMT tends to perform somewhat better than SMT. By providing an overview of patterns frequently occurring in actual language use, as well as by pointing out the weaknesses of current MT systems that commonly mistranslate them, we hope to contribute to the effort of resolving the issue of discourse phenomena in MT applications.

[1]  Jörg Tiedemann,et al.  Parallel Data, Tools and Interfaces in OPUS , 2012, LREC.

[2]  Andreas Eisele,et al.  DGT-TM: A freely available Translation Memory in 22 languages , 2012, LREC.

[3]  Sara Stymne,et al.  On the practice of error analysis for machine translation evaluation , 2012, LREC.

[4]  Sara Stymne,et al.  Blast: A Tool for Error Analysis of Machine Translation Output , 2011, ACL.

[5]  Marcello Federico,et al.  Modelling pronominal anaphora in statistical machine translation , 2010, IWSLT.

[6]  Jörg Tiedemann,et al.  Efficient Word Alignment with Markov Chain Monte Carlo , 2016, Prague Bull. Math. Linguistics.

[7]  Juliane House,et al.  Connectivity in translation: Transitions from orality to literacy , 2004 .

[8]  Andy Way,et al.  Exploiting Cross-Sentence Context for Neural Machine Translation , 2017, EMNLP.

[9]  Preslav Nakov,et al.  Pronoun-Focused MT and Cross-Lingual Pronoun Prediction: Findings of the 2015 DiscoMT Shared Task on Pronoun Translation , 2015, DiscoMT@EMNLP.

[10]  Veronika Laippala,et al.  Universal Dependencies 1.4 , 2015 .

[11]  Rico Sennrich,et al.  Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Units , 2015, ACL.

[12]  Lukasz Kaiser,et al.  Attention is All you Need , 2017, NIPS.

[13]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Effective Approaches to Attention-based Neural Machine Translation , 2015, EMNLP.

[14]  François Yvon,et al.  Evaluating the morphological competence of Machine Translation Systems , 2017, WMT.

[15]  Jörg Tiedemann,et al.  News from OPUS — A collection of multilingual parallel corpora with tools and interfaces , 2009 .

[16]  Antonio Toral,et al.  Fine-Grained Human Evaluation of Neural Versus Phrase-Based Machine Translation , 2017, Prague Bull. Math. Linguistics.

[17]  Philipp Koehn,et al.  Findings of the 2017 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT17) , 2017, WMT.

[18]  Philipp Koehn,et al.  Moses: Open Source Toolkit for Statistical Machine Translation , 2007, ACL.

[19]  Liane Guillou,et al.  PROTEST: A Test Suite for Evaluating Pronouns in Machine Translation , 2016, LREC.

[20]  Rico Sennrich,et al.  Context-Aware Neural Machine Translation Learns Anaphora Resolution , 2018, ACL.

[21]  Bonnie Webber,et al.  Implicitation of Discourse Connectives in (Machine) Translation , 2013, DiscoMT@ACL.

[22]  Alexander M. Rush,et al.  OpenNMT: Open-Source Toolkit for Neural Machine Translation , 2017, ACL.

[23]  Jörg Tiedemann,et al.  ParCor 1.0: A Parallel Pronoun-Coreference Corpus to Support Statistical MT , 2014, LREC.

[24]  Liane Guillou,et al.  Improving Pronoun Translation for Statistical Machine Translation , 2012, EACL.

[25]  Milan Straka,et al.  Tokenizing, POS Tagging, Lemmatizing and Parsing UD 2.0 with UDPipe , 2017, CoNLL.

[26]  Lucia Specia,et al.  A Quantitative Analysis of Discourse Phenomena in Machine Translation , 2015 .

[27]  Rico Sennrich,et al.  Evaluating Discourse Phenomena in Neural Machine Translation , 2017, NAACL.

[28]  Philipp Koehn,et al.  Aiding Pronoun Translation with Co-Reference Resolution , 2010, WMT@ACL.

[29]  K. Kunz,et al.  Cross-linguistic analysis of discourse variation across registers , 2015 .

[30]  Salim Roukos,et al.  Bleu: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation , 2002, ACL.

[31]  Christian Hardmeier,et al.  Discovery of Discourse-Related Language Contrasts through Alignment Discrepancies in English-German Translation , 2017, DiscoMT@EMNLP.

[32]  Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski Chapter 6 Cohesion and translation variation : Corpus-based analysis of translation varieties , 2017 .

[33]  Rico Sennrich,et al.  How Grammatical is Character-level Neural Machine Translation? Assessing MT Quality with Contrastive Translation Pairs , 2016, EACL.

[34]  Bálint Péter Furkó Perspectives on the Translation of Discourse Markers: A Case Study of the Translation of Reformulation Markers from English into Hungarian , 2015 .

[35]  Stefanie Dipper,et al.  Abstract pronominal anaphors and label nouns in German and English: selected case studies and quantitative investigations , 2012 .

[36]  J. House,et al.  Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation , 1996 .

[37]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  Statistical Phrase-Based Translation , 2003, NAACL.

[38]  Orhan Firat,et al.  Does Neural Machine Translation Benefit from Larger Context? , 2017, ArXiv.

[39]  Victoria Arranz,et al.  Guiding automatic MT evaluation by means of linguistic features , 2016, Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit..