<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="wilks-1994-notes">
    <titleInfo>
        <title>Some notes on the state of the art: Where are we now in MT: what works and what doesn’t?</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Yorick</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Wilks</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <originInfo>
        <dateIssued>1994-nov 12-14</dateIssued>
    </originInfo>
    <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
    <relatedItem type="host">
        <titleInfo>
            <title>Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Machine Translation: Ten years on</title>
        </titleInfo>
        <originInfo>
            <place>
                <placeTerm type="text">Cranfield University, UK</placeTerm>
            </place>
        </originInfo>
        <genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
    </relatedItem>
    <abstract>The paper examines briefly the impact of the “statistical turn” in machine translation (MT) R&amp;D in the last decade, and particularly the way in which it has made large scale language resources (lexicons, text corpora etc.) more important than ever before and reinforced the role of evaluation in the development of the field. But resources mean, almost by definition, co-operation between groups and, in the case of MT, specifically co-operation between language groups and states. The paper then considers what alternatives there are now for MT R&amp;D. One is to continue with interlingual methods of translation, even though those are not normally thought of as close to statistical methods. The reason is that statistical methods, taken alone, have almost certainly reached a ceiling in terms of the proportion of sentences and linguistic phenomena they can translate successfully. Interlingual methods remain popular within large electronics companies in Japan, and in a large US Government funded project (PANGLOSS). The question then discussed is what role there can be for interlinguas and interlingual methods in co-operation in MT across linguistic and national boundaries. The paper then turns to evaluation and asks whether, across national and continental boundaries, it can become a co-operative or a “hegemonic” enterprise. Finally the paper turns to resources themselves and asks why co-operation on resources is proving so hard, even though there are bright spots of real co-operation.</abstract>
    <identifier type="citekey">wilks-1994-notes</identifier>
    <location>
        <url>https://aclanthology.org/1994.bcs-1.2</url>
    </location>
    <part>
        <date>1994-nov 12-14</date>
    </part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>

%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Some notes on the state of the art: Where are we now in MT: what works and what doesn’t?
%A Wilks, Yorick
%S Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Machine Translation: Ten years on
%D 1994
%8 nov 12 14
%C Cranfield University, UK
%F wilks-1994-notes
%X The paper examines briefly the impact of the “statistical turn” in machine translation (MT) R&D in the last decade, and particularly the way in which it has made large scale language resources (lexicons, text corpora etc.) more important than ever before and reinforced the role of evaluation in the development of the field. But resources mean, almost by definition, co-operation between groups and, in the case of MT, specifically co-operation between language groups and states. The paper then considers what alternatives there are now for MT R&D. One is to continue with interlingual methods of translation, even though those are not normally thought of as close to statistical methods. The reason is that statistical methods, taken alone, have almost certainly reached a ceiling in terms of the proportion of sentences and linguistic phenomena they can translate successfully. Interlingual methods remain popular within large electronics companies in Japan, and in a large US Government funded project (PANGLOSS). The question then discussed is what role there can be for interlinguas and interlingual methods in co-operation in MT across linguistic and national boundaries. The paper then turns to evaluation and asks whether, across national and continental boundaries, it can become a co-operative or a “hegemonic” enterprise. Finally the paper turns to resources themselves and asks why co-operation on resources is proving so hard, even though there are bright spots of real co-operation.
%U https://aclanthology.org/1994.bcs-1.2

Markdown (Informal)

[Some notes on the state of the art: Where are we now in MT: what works and what doesn’t?](https://aclanthology.org/1994.bcs-1.2) (Wilks, BCS 1994)

• Some notes on the state of the art: Where are we now in MT: what works and what doesn’t? (Wilks, BCS 1994)

ACL

• Yorick Wilks. 1994. Some notes on the state of the art: Where are we now in MT: what works and what doesn’t?. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Machine Translation: Ten years on, Cranfield University, UK.