<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="dichy-farghaly-2003-roots">
    <titleInfo>
        <title>Roots &amp; patterns vs. stems plus grammar-lexis specifications: on what basis should a multilingual database centred on Arabic be built?</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Joseph</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Dichy</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Ali</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Farghaly</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <originInfo>
        <dateIssued>2003-sep 23-27</dateIssued>
    </originInfo>
    <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
    <relatedItem type="host">
        <titleInfo>
            <title>Workshop on Machine Translation for Semitic languages: issues and approaches</title>
        </titleInfo>
        <originInfo>
            <place>
                <placeTerm type="text">New Orleans, USA</placeTerm>
            </place>
        </originInfo>
        <genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
    </relatedItem>
    <abstract>Machine translation engines draw on various types of databases. This paper is concerned with Arabic as a source or target language, and focuses on lexical databases. The non-concatenative nature of Arabic morphology, the complex structure of Arabic word-forms, and the general use of vowel-free writing present a real challenge to NLP developers. We show here how and why a stem-grounded lexical database, the items of which are associated with grammar-lexis specifications – as opposed to a root-&amp;-pattern database –, is motivated both linguistically and with regards to efficiency, economy and modularity. Arguments in favour of databases relying on stems associated with grammar-lexis specifications (such as DIINAR.1 or the Arabic dB under development at SYSTRAN), rather than on roots and patterns, are the following: (a) The latter include huge numbers of rule-generated word-forms, which do not actually appear in the language. (b) Rule-generated lemmas – as opposed to existing ones – are widely under-specified with regards to grammar-lexis relations. (c) In a Semitic language such as Arabic, the mapping of grammar-lexis specifications that need to be associated with every lexical entry of the database is decisive. (d) These specifications can only be included in a stem-based dB. Points (a) to (d) are crucial and in the context of machine translation involving Arabic.</abstract>
    <identifier type="citekey">dichy-farghaly-2003-roots</identifier>
    <location>
        <url>https://aclanthology.org/2003.mtsummit-semit.5</url>
    </location>
    <part>
        <date>2003-sep 23-27</date>
    </part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>

%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Roots & patterns vs. stems plus grammar-lexis specifications: on what basis should a multilingual database centred on Arabic be built?
%A Dichy, Joseph
%A Farghaly, Ali
%S Workshop on Machine Translation for Semitic languages: issues and approaches
%D 2003
%8 sep 23 27
%C New Orleans, USA
%F dichy-farghaly-2003-roots
%X Machine translation engines draw on various types of databases. This paper is concerned with Arabic as a source or target language, and focuses on lexical databases. The non-concatenative nature of Arabic morphology, the complex structure of Arabic word-forms, and the general use of vowel-free writing present a real challenge to NLP developers. We show here how and why a stem-grounded lexical database, the items of which are associated with grammar-lexis specifications – as opposed to a root-&-pattern database –, is motivated both linguistically and with regards to efficiency, economy and modularity. Arguments in favour of databases relying on stems associated with grammar-lexis specifications (such as DIINAR.1 or the Arabic dB under development at SYSTRAN), rather than on roots and patterns, are the following: (a) The latter include huge numbers of rule-generated word-forms, which do not actually appear in the language. (b) Rule-generated lemmas – as opposed to existing ones – are widely under-specified with regards to grammar-lexis relations. (c) In a Semitic language such as Arabic, the mapping of grammar-lexis specifications that need to be associated with every lexical entry of the database is decisive. (d) These specifications can only be included in a stem-based dB. Points (a) to (d) are crucial and in the context of machine translation involving Arabic.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2003.mtsummit-semit.5

Markdown (Informal)

[Roots & patterns vs. stems plus grammar-lexis specifications: on what basis should a multilingual database centred on Arabic be built?](https://aclanthology.org/2003.mtsummit-semit.5) (Dichy & Farghaly, MTSummit 2003)

• Roots & patterns vs. stems plus grammar-lexis specifications: on what basis should a multilingual database centred on Arabic be built? (Dichy & Farghaly, MTSummit 2003)

ACL

• Joseph Dichy and Ali Farghaly. 2003. Roots & patterns vs. stems plus grammar-lexis specifications: on what basis should a multilingual database centred on Arabic be built?. In Workshop on Machine Translation for Semitic languages: issues and approaches, New Orleans, USA.