A PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF AMBIGUOUS TEXT AND ITS TRANSLATION INTO OTHER LANGUAGES WITH USING A SYSTEM OF COORDINATED DICTIONARIES

© Panich Iuli

Contact to the author: iuli-panich@yandex.ru

Annotation. A preliminary identification is based on supplementing the polysemantic words and word-combinations by components of dictionary entries that the author chooses in the basic explanatory dictionary of the source language. The universality consists in subsequent machine translation into other languages using bilingual dictionaries coordinated with a basic explanatory dictionary. The process of preliminary identification takes into account not only the wide range of meanings of polysemantic words, but also the ambiguity or incompleteness in the expression of actions and states, where in one language such features as gender and number, character of action and state, etc., are determined only by the context, while in another language they may be reflected in concrete grammatical forms.

It is possible to read the Russian version also: http://sciteclibrary.ru/rus/catalog/pages/9402.html

__________________________________________________________________

The presuppositions. Some principles of universal semantic coding and of construction of system of the co-ordinated dictionaries are earlier published in works of the author [17,18].

In given article the approach to identification of the ambiguities of morphological and syntactic character is expanded. Also some positions, concerning compact representation of semantic additions to polysemantic words and word-combinations are specified.

As a rule, polysemantic words and expressions inevitably exist in source texts. Translation of these words and expressions depends on the context. Analysis of the sense and form of a wide context is impractical with traditional machine translation programs.

Many source texts published in the world require translation into other languages. Among these are articles in national scientific magazines, descriptions of inventions published in the regional funds of patents etc. All are of interest for users speaking other languages.

Therefore, the source text which can be potentially translated into many target languages should contain certain

additions which, in a universal form, would indicate polysemantic words’ and expressions’ actual semantic meanings.

Such additions should also reflect the grammatical (morphological and syntactic) features of the wider context. During translating into target languages these additions allow to choose the corresponding grammatical forms of words or words' groups and also to choose syntactic links between words.

Such semantic additions eliminate both the polysemy of the source language, and the mutual ambiguity arising during translation; it will allow to receive correct over the sense and over the form the machine translation into any target language.

Some rather abstract methods of semantic coding of source text are known [1-3, 3*].

One of the early methods, based on semantic analysis of polysemantic words and their semantic coding, is described in US Patent 5,285,386 “Machine translation apparatus having means for translating polysemous words using dominated codes”.

This method of semantic analysis is universal in that it does not depend on the target language of the translation.

Some codes of "philosophical" nature are offered, for example:

S0 belongs to "character/nature"

S02 belongs to "weather" in "nature"

S028 belongs to "wind" in "weather"

S028a belongs to "pressure" in "wind" ….

The offered hierarchical system of the codes has too abstract character, i.e. it is far from the real problems of translation of expressions and word-combinations with their various usage and complex syntactic structures.

Elements of semantic coding of similar abstract character are offered in US Patent 5,523,946 “Compact encoding of multi-lingual translation dictionaries”.

Each word is a file containing information codes pertinent to some base abstract language; this information is based on the concepts of type - part of speech, gender, number, punctuation mark, area of meaning of a given word (for example, a field of knowledge, actions, …).

Finally, there is the Universal Networking Language project (UNL) [3,3*], which has being in development for a long time.

The text on UNL is universal words with additional symbols of type:

icl (inclusion),

aoj a thing which is in a state or has an attribute … etc.

Codes of attributes are added to a universal word and they specify variants of use:

category of tense @future,… / modality @obligation, … / character of expression @emphasis, @focus, …, @begin-soon, @begin-just… @progress… @complete, @state, @repeat … @generic, @indef … etc.

The sentence “The dog caught a wild cat” will have following UNL-representation:

[S] agt(catch(icl>#event).@past.@pred.@entry, dog(icl>animal).@def)
obj(catch(icl>#event).@past.@pred.@entry, cat(icl>animal).@indef)
mod(cat(icl>animal).@indef,wild(icl>#state, ant>domestic)) [/S]

As already noted above, the analysis of sense and the form of a wide context is practically impracticable by means of programs of machine translation. In UNL this problem, at least, doubles, namely (see the scheme): the UNL is based on double machine translation - (I) from the source language into an artificial language and (II) from an artificial language into target language. The double machine translation stipulated in system UNL will lead to inevitable summation of mistakes in transfer of sense of the text and to mutual influence of ambiguities, arising on each of stages; in other words, the mistakes arising at the first stage, can generate a circuit of mistakes at the second stage.

On the first stage the author can make the interactive changes directly in the text of an artificial language by means of operations of the direct translations and the reversed translations (Author / Editor); but for this purpose the author should know professionally this language, i.e. should be able to indicate the real deviations which have arisen between the source text and its reversed translation by means of combinations of symbols.

Probably, the universal language UNL can be used for transfer of the sufficiently short and monosemantic, unequivocal texts.

To sum up: one can assume that the abstract methods based on artificial codes allow to solve a problem of universality, but they do not contain the elements allowing to raise accuracy of machine translation.

Proceeding from the general reasons, a source polysemy (or a source ambiguity) leading to wrong interpretations of words and word-combinations should be eliminated prior to the beginning of machine translation.

The information necessary for a very precise semantic coding of the source texts is already present in the existing explanatory dictionaries and bilingual dictionaries. The detailed presentation of semantic meanings in an explanatory dictionary characterizes the internal polysemy of the source language.

The illustrative examples (below we use the short designation: ill.e.(s)), included in the dictionaries, are important in that they reflect the various forms of usage of word and word-combinations; the translations of the specified examples in the bilingual dictionaries reflect the mutual ambiguities of the source and target languages [16, 16*].

The basic idea is to use the elements of the explanatory dictionary of the source language instead of some artificial codes; these elements can naturally reflect the sense of a wide context.

An author would need to carefully examine the meaning of a given word in its context, compare that to the available dictionary entries, and, then, key in the actual meaning of the word, or a corresponding illustrative example, as a supplement to the word, thus insuring a proper translation into target languages.

In other words, this is a preliminary identification of semantic meanings, forms of use, etc., by means of an explanatory dictionary of the source language.

The question is how to transform the various elements of dictionary entries, including the aforementioned ill.e.(s), into universal semantic codes. In other words, the problem is how to coordinate these elements with the translations contained in the bilingual dictionaries. To resolve this problem we propose a system consisting of a basic explanatory dictionary of the source, native language, which we shall call further a Coordinated Explanatory Dictionary (c.e.d.), and a set of special dictionaries of source language - target languages, which we shall call further the Coordinated Bilingual Dictionaries (c.b.d.).

The following elements of each c.b.d. shall exactly match the c.e.d.:

- the vocabulary of source language, a sequence of the vocabulary entries,

- the sequences of semantic meanings, each identified by the same digital, alphabetic and symbolic designations; this also concerns the particular and closely related sub-meanings of each semantic meaning,
- the ill.e.(s) reflecting different word usage at concrete semantic meaning,

- all expressions, their semantic meanings and their own illustrative examples,

- all grammar/usage commentaries on the headword, derivative words, compound words, etc.

The specialized and thematic sections of the dictionaries shall similarly match (LingvoUniversal, LingvoEconomy, LingvoScience, LingvoPolytechnical…).

For illustration let us present some fragments of the coordinated dictionary entries:

The c.e.d. thus combines the function of an explanatory dictionary with those of a translation dictionary. That is, the c.e.d. must reflect those elements of the source language, which have special meaning at least in one of the target languages belonging the system of coordinated dictionaries of this source language. Really, if ambiguities of one type do not depend on target language, then the ambiguities of other type will arise only in translating into the certain language.

Thus, together with the multitude of semantic and grammatical features of the source language, the c.e.d. should reflect the translation - specific features of all target languages.

Therefore, the entries should be “maximally differentiated”, i.e. they should simultaneously reflect both the intra-language polysemy and the mutual ambiguity, namely:

- the c.e.d. entries should contain the non-phraseological expressions having the especial translation (the non-word-for-word translation) at least into one of the target languages out;

- the c.e.d. entries should reflect the meanings of morphological nature, due to the presence in any of the target languages of separate grammatical forms, which are absent in the source language; the c.e.d. entries should also reflect the meanings of syntactic nature, for example those indicating possible syntactical links, clarifying syntactical ambiguities in the source language, etc. With this purpose, the differentiated (morphological, syntactic) meanings are entered into dictionary entries in the form of the special (additional) section that follows those semantic word meanings to which this section is general. These sections have a symbolic designation (morph_m) (an abbreviation of morphological meanings) and (syntax_m) (from words syntax, meanings).

The following example reflects a polysemy of pronoun you and also reflects the coordination of entries when in one of the languages semantic word meanings are defined by a context, however in other languages these meanings have the separate grammatical forms:

In the given example the pronoun you replaces the person or group of persons of masculine gender or feminine gender (what depends on sense of the text). In translation into Russian a pronoun you correspond two forms - ты, вы. At last, in translation into a Hebrew a pronoun you corresponds to four forms expressing a masculine gender and a feminine gender both in a singular and in plural:

How we see, the specified features of target languages are reflected in English c.e.d. where the meaning of a pronoun you is presented in the form of four private meanings (a)…(d) - it takes into account the specified features of two target languages – Russian and Hebrew.

An expanded fragment of coordinated entries showing the differentiated nature of dictionary entries is presented below:

The coordinated sections separated by different colors:

As follows from the table, the sections of illustrative examples and of the non-phraseological word-combinations are coordinated and as much as possible expanded; the use of elements of these sections at semantic coding allows to take into account the features of the use of words. differentiated

Some explanations, concerning the section of differentiated (grammatical) meanings, will be presented below.

Let's give the some examples of preliminary identification of a polysemantic word. Let us assume that the author analyzes the source phrase containing a verb took:

- in the one case the author comes to conclusion, that in a context the matter concerns a moving someone to a other place. The author marks the ill. example which has the form of the use closest to the source text take 1 … She takes her… The author comes also to conclusion, that in a context the matter concerns an action of imperfective aspect or perfective aspect; therefore the author marks the differentiated (grammatical) meaning (morph_m)… (a) or (b). The service program automatically transfers these meanings to the text in the form of following semantic addition to a verb (on the right: the verb’s translation into Russian, taking into account the ill. example’s translation):

… took{take v 1 carry sb/sth or accompany sb from one place to another: She takes her children to school by car (morph_m) Inf., Indef. T. (a) (imper-ve) or (b) (per-ve)} … отвозил,-а,-и or от|вёз,-везла,-везли

- in the other case the author comes to conclusion, that in a context the matter concerns a human character. The author marks the ill. example closest to the source text take 1 … Her energy …:

… took{take v 1 carry sb/sth or accompany sb from one place to another: Her energy and talent took her to the top of her profession} … сопровождал,-а,-и

- at last in the third case the author comes to conclusion, that in a context it is a question of one person who should hold someone. The author marks the ill. example closest to the source text take 2 … Would you mind taking …:

… took{take v 2 get or lay hold of with the hands, arms, etc: Would you mind taking the baby for a moment} … подержал,-а,-и

Each of elements has the certain number in a corresponding section of coordinated entries. It allows to apply the compact form of semantic additions to a word. This form contains the some positions in which the serial numbers of the elements noted by the author are specified (the serial numbers are counted up automatically with the service program), for example:

xxx{headword v /LU/01/04/ / / / / /1(a)/}, xxx{headword n /LS /07/ /08/}, xxx{headword /LE/ / / /03/ /04/ /1(b)/}

Dictionary sections are here too designated:

LU – LingvoUniversal, LE – LimgvoEconomy, LS - LingvoScience, LPT - LingvoPolytechnical…

The compact form of semantic additions to a word is presented on the next scheme:

The concrete program of translation uses these designations and numbers for search of noted element in the coordinated bilingual dictionary.

The structure of systems of coordinated dictionaries is presented on Fig.1.

As it has noted been above, the entries should be “maximally differentiated”.

The account of the all types of the ambiguities somewhat expands volume of dictionary entries. In this connection a system of coordinated dictionaries of given source language may consist of several subsystems of the coordinated dictionaries - for related groups of target languages (Fig. 2). In the some cases, the subsystem can include only two languages - source and target; it means, that the bilingual dictionary, only one in this subsystem, should be coordinated with an explanatory dictionary.

The coordinated dictionary entries are in details described below.

Let's explain in more detail the sense of mentioned special (additional) sectionсs.

1. The differentiated (morphological) meanings.

We are concerned here with words, which can express in combination with context the different grammatical attributes (i.e. the meanings having grammatical nature), but they have no corresponding grammatical forms in the source language. However in the some target languages there are the separate grammatical forms of a word and / or connected words for the expressing these meanings.

These groups of words may include the following:

1) personal and reflexive pronouns, which, in a given source language, have no separate forms to denote the person of masculine or feminine gender / the person or a group of persons / a group of persons of masculine or feminine gender / the person or an inanimate object, and also possessive pronouns, which, in a given source language, have no separate forms to indicate the gender and / or grammatical number of the belonging object, or the separate forms specifying a gender of the person to which it belongs (i.e. when the meaning depends on who or what is being described in context); at the same time those or other target languages can have the pronouns (and / or words, contextually associated with them) which have the concrete grammatical forms to express above mentioned attributes.

Let’s illustrate this with other characteristic example of the possessive pronoun-noun yours. This pronoun does not have any other grammatical forms, but in a combination with a context may express:

- masculine / feminine / neuter gender of belonging object or plural of this object; this must be taken into account when translating into Russian, where one of next pronouns may correspond, depending on a context, to the pronoun yours: тво|й, -я, -ё, -и …;

- a person or a group of persons to whom the belonging is expressed; this, too, must be taken into account when translating into Russian, where one of next pronouns may correspond, depending on a context, to the pronoun yours: тво|й, -я, -ё, -и; ваш, -а, -е, -и; 

- masculine / feminine gender of person or persons to whom the belonging is expressed; this must be taken into account when translating into Hebrew, where one of next pronouns may correspond, depending on a context, to the pronoun yours:

The described polysemy of the pronoun yours, having a grammatical nature, is reflected in the following dictionary entry:

As we see, in Hebrew the dependence of personal pronouns on the gender and number of the subject is even greater than in Russian or English.

2) verbs, participles, verbal adverbs, which in the source language have no separate forms unambiguously expressing the character of an action and /or a state, reached as a result of the action (i.e. it is possible to judge the character of the action and / or the state only from context); at the same time, the specific grammatical forms of some verbs, participles and verbal adverbs are used in some target languages to express the shades of the meanings of the actions and / or the states required by the source text; below are some characteristic examples of grammatical meanings in English and Russian:

a) in Russian a verb, in context, may express one of the following meanings, which correspond to a specific grammatical form in English ([12], p. 113-162):

The following table shows differentiated (morphological) meanings in a coordinated dictionary entry of the verb заканчивать:

b) in English a verb, in context, may express one of the following meanings to which at Russian the separate grammatical forms conform ([12]):

Examples of differentiated (morphological) meanings are presented below in a coordinated dictionary entry of the verb to ask:

3) the some nouns which in the source language have no forms of a singular and a plural, while in translation to those or other target languages they acquire, depending on a context, separate forms of a singular and a plural.

In the all cases, mentioned above, the author should carefully examine the context so as to add to the word the actual differentiated (morphological) meaning - it will provide a true translation into target languages.

2. The differentiated (syntactic) meanings.

The meanings which express possible syntactic links of a given word with other words in a sentence are also presented in the dictionary entries.

The specified syntactic links characterize some of the predicative relations (regarding a predicate) and non-predicative syntactic relations (attributive, objective, adverbial).

Use of the differentiated (syntactic) meanings in semantic coding allows to exclude syntactic errors in machine translation of such source sentences that have syntactic ambiguity or syntactical incompleteness; in particular:

- such source sentences in which the predicate expresses the action or state relative to remote object which is separated from a predicate by other adverbial modifiers and/or by attributes in which there are own nouns;

- such source sentences that contain remote or isolated explanatory appendices (attributive, adverbial), which, in turn, contain their own additions. Examples of such appendices may be: isolated attributes removed from an object (a noun, a pronoun), isolated adverbial modifiers, removed from a predicate (as opposed to uniform members of a sentence which are in identical syntactic attitudes with one member of sentence, they act as one syntactic function and are united with each other by enumeration or by means of coordinative conjunctions [12*]).

For example, in Russian the syntactic relations are often based on the fact that words – an removed, isolated attributes (adjectives, participles) of some contextual word - have grammatical characteristics reflecting the gender and / or grammatical number of the word being defined (it concerns also the additional attributive sentences and nominal parts of compound predicates etc.); meanwhile, the translations of these words into target languages may not have the specified attributes , i.e. the syntactical relations entirely depend on word order.

Such differences in languages may lead to syntactical ambiguity or incompleteness of the translated phrases.

Known programs of machine translation in many cases distort the meanings in translating phrases containing syntactically complex forms.

The differentiated (syntactic) meanings are presented in the dictionary entries in the form of separate sections (syntax_m) that follow those semantic word meanings to which they are general. These sections may deal with syntactic links of the following types of words:

- a verb expressing the action or state relative to remote object – relative to the some contextual word (c.w.);

- an adjective which may be a removed, isolated attribute/ apposition (its part) to some c.w.;

- an adjectival participle, which may be part of a participial phrase, acting the part of the removed, isolated attribute/ apposition to some c.w.;

- a verbal adverb which may be part of a dangling participle acting the part of the removed, isolated adverbial modifier to the c.w. expressing the action.

The following designations are hereinafter accepted in the sections of differentiated (syntactic) meanings: c.w.* / к.с.* - the concrete contextual word which the author should mark in the source text (in all cases, concerning the identification of syntactic links of words).

Some characteristic examples of dictionary entries are presented below:

All that’s required is for the author to carefully examine the context and to include, in addition to the given word, the actual differentiated (syntactic) meaning, and to mark the proper contextual word / контекстное слово (c.w.*/ к.с.*). During translation this will guarantee true syntactic link between words.

An expanded example of coordinated dictionary entries of the verb to take was presented above.

The following describes the sequences of operations of preliminary identification and translation.

This process is performed on the computer of the author of the source text, using a service program containing the coordinated explanatory dictionary of the source language.

The author analyzes the source text and marks the next word, using a particular font in those cases where, in the opinion of the author, (or, sometimes, of the service program), a given word possesses at least one of following characteristics:

a) the given word is polysemous word; its combination with the neighbouring words does not provide enough information for selecting the semantic meaning closest to the source text;

b) its grammatical form, together with connected words, does not reflect a particular nuance/shade of actual sense of the source text, though in translation into those or other target languages the given word and /or the connected words may have specific grammatical forms; their choice strictly depends on the context (as seen in the above examples of the differentiated (morphological) meanings);

c) it may, the given word, together with its some neighbouring words, represents a word-combination. In order to translate such word-combination it is necessary to search the known word-combinations related to the given word. It is also possible that there are lexical or structural differences, which, although do not influence the allegorical meaning of a word-combination, but complicate or do impossible a machine search. For example:

- some attributes or adverbial modifiers may have been wedged into the word-combination, giving it a more specific meaning as a whole,

- or parenthetical words may have been added,

- variable components may have been added at the beginning or at the end of the word-combination,

- those either other own words or their sequence have been changed, etc. [4];

in this connection, it is necessary to define which words belong to the word-combination, to find the borders inside the phrase, to define the key word and, at last, to choose the meaning corresponding to the context;

d) it may, the given word, together with some neighbouring words, represents a polysemous word-combination;

e) it may, the given word has several closely-related semantic meanings which may have the inadequate translations or translations with inadequate forms of the use (with respect to the general orientation of the source text or the character of actions and circumstances).

In many cases the correct translation of a part of a phrase, or the whole phrase, may only be achievable by selecting the most suitable ill.e. Use of this ill.e. may, in the subsequent translation of the source phrase into the target languages, allow to select the correct variant of the translation of the given word, as well as properly reflect the specifics of the use of the word, and also to reflect features of use of a word, for example, features of the syntactic structure specific to phrases of similar type in this target language, or feature of verbal forms, etc.

f) it may, the given word, together with some neighbouring words, may contain the removed / separated apposition (attributive, adverbial), which may inside have their own additions.

Further the service program finds in c.e.d. the dictionary entry corresponding to the word which was marked by author; then author fixes meaning of this word, comparing the source text with those or other elements of dictionary entry; for this purpose he carries out following operations:

a) in case the given word together with the neighboring words coincides with one of word-combinations of phraseological character (set expression, idiom, in English language it can be as well a phrasal verb) or corresponds to the structural formula characterizing lexical variability, the author marks one of the next elements of dictionary entry :

- the concrete word-combination,

- or the structural formula,

- or the concrete semantic meaning, closest to the source text,

- or the ill.e. in which the using of the word-combination coincides with the source text, corresponds to character of the described actions and the adverbial modifiers.

The author also marks the specified elements when there are a lexical or structural distinctions between a word-combination in the source text and in the dictionary entry.

Then author by means of the service program places as the addition to the given word: the headword, the word-combination or its structural formula, the its semantic meaning or the ill.e. at this semantic meaning.

Author also marks in the source text by special (bold) font the given word and other words which are a part of the word-combination (except for the wedged words), and, besides, by means of special boundary symbols designates the left and right bounds of the word-combination in the given sentence (for example, by angular brackets);

b) but in case the given word does not belong to any of a phraseological word-combinations (set expressions, idioms), author marks the concrete semantic meaning of the word, closest to the source text, on condition that the grammatical features characterizing changeable forms and forms of the government in other words, do not contradict the source text (it is a question of the following grammatical features: form of verb's using - in Imperfective or in Perfective; form of verb's government, including the prepositions, declensional endings; form of noun's using- attributive, predicative, etc.);

c) if the given word together with the neighboring words coincides with one of non-phraseological word-combinations at this meaning of word, author marks this word-combination; then author marks these words in the source text by a special font and boundary symbols, as it is described above;

d) if the given word not figures in one of these word-combinations, but in the group of the ill.e.(s) at this meaning of word it is possible to find the concrete ill.e. with the analogous using of the word and with the analogous character of the described actions and adverbial modifiers, author marks this ill.e.;

e) if in the dictionary entry there is a section of the differentiated (morphological) meanings (morph_m), author may mark the meaning corresponding to a gender and/or a number, a person or an inanimate object, a character of action or a state, etc., etc.; in case it is necessary to identify the concrete pronoun, author also marks c.w. which replace this pronoun; in case for pronoun's identification it is necessary to know a c.w. which replaces this pronoun the author marks this c.w.;

f) at last, if in the dictionary entry there is a section of the differentiated (syntactic) meanings (syntax_m), author may mark the meaning specifying that this word is a part of attribute or adverbial modifier isolated / removed from c.w. with which it is connected syntactically, and marks this c.w.;

g) in some cases author marks the concrete ill.e. in the dictionary entry of one of the neighboring words connected with the given word, provided that the specified ill.e. corresponds to the semantic meaning and all grammatical features mentioned above.

Then the service program transfers into the source text the headword and those elements which are marked in the dictionary entry, placing all in the form of the semantic addition to the given word.

In case the c.w. was marked, the service program places this c.w. in the semantic addition (or the service program counts up an ordinal number of this word in the given sentence and places this number in the semantic addition).

If some group of the contextual words was marked, the service program places this group of words in the addition.

Then author marks in the source text the next word possessing one of described above features, etc. – up to the end of the text.

In the end, the received coded text is ready to translation into other languages.

The scheme reflecting the process of preliminary identification is presented on Fig.3.

The additional block is marked on Fig.3 by more dark colour. The following operations carry out by means of this block:

- the service program automatically analyzes the text and supplements some words by symbols containing the question mark, namely, by symbol (morth?) pointing out what the given word, probably, has the ambiguous grammatical (morphological) form, and by symbol (syntax?) pointing out what the given word, a word-combination, probably, has the ambiguous grammatical form supposing a syntactic link with the different parts of sentence;

- having found the symbol (morth?) the author analyses in the dictionary entry the section of differentiated (morphological) meanings and marks the meaning corresponding to sense of a context; the service program automatically transfers the marked meaning in the semantic addition to the given word;

- having found the symbol (syntax?) the author analyses in the given sentence and marks the c.w. syntactic related with the given word; in addition, the author analyses in the dictionary entry the section of the differentiated (syntactic) meanings and marks the meaning corresponding to sense of a context, for example: the separated/ removed attribute (adverbial modifier, object); the service program automatically transfers in the semantic addition the marked syntactic meaning and the marked c.w. (the serial number of this c.w.).

The service program possesses a some other enterprising functions, for example, indicates to the author on the discrepancy of the use of a word or a word-combination in the source text and in the marked element of an dictionary entry, and also indicates the words missed in process of the analysis of the source text, but which, probably, possess an one or another ambiguity.

The scheme reflecting the process of preliminary identification is presented on Fig.3.

The process of translation is in progress in a computer of a reader by the machine translation program, which includes the basic program containing own traditional bilingual dictionary and the special subprogram containing the coordinated bilingual dictionary (c.b.d.) described above.

The basic program analyzes the text a word by word and, in case the next in turn word does not contain a semantic addition, this program carries out the translation with using own traditional bilingual dictionary;

but in case the next in turn word contains a semantic addition, the mentioned special subprogram finds in the c.b.d. the translation of this word or the word-combination, taking into account the semantic addition, namely:

- if the semantic addition to the given word contains the ill.e. characterizing the use of a word, the subprogram finds in the c.b.d. the translation of this ill.e., makes the comparative analysis of the source text and of the text of translated ill.e., chooses the translation of the word in the text of ill.e. and transfers the received translation to the basic program;

- if the semantic addition to the given word contains the word-combination, the subprogram finds in c.b.d. its translation and transfers the received translation to the basic program as a translation of all group of the words which were marked in a source phrase by mentioned boundary symbols and a special font; the wedged words, non-marked by the special font, the subprogram translates as attributes, adverbial modifiers, the parenthetical words;

- if the semantic addition to the given word contains the structural formula of word-combination characterizing lexical variability of a word-combination in the source language, the subprogram finds translation in c.b.d., translates the mentioned above group of the words, taking into account the structural formula, and transfers the received translation to the basic program;

- if the semantic addition to the given word contains ill.e. characterizing the use of the word-combination, the subprogram finds in the c.b.d. the translation of this ill.e., makes the comparative analysis of the source text and of the text of translated ill.e., chooses the translation of the word-combination in the text of ill.e. and transfers the received translation to the basic program;

- if in semantic addition to the given word the differentiated (morphological) meaning is specified, the subprogram carries out translating of this word and other words connected with him, in the following way:

- if the given word is a personal, possessive, reflexive pronoun, the subprogram carries out the translating of a part of phrase (i.e. the translating of the given pronoun and the words connected with it) with the account of the meaning/ c.w. which is specified in the semantic addition, namely:

the meaning concerning the gender and /or number, the person or an inanimate object,

or the c.w. replacing the given personal or reflexive pronoun,

or the c.w. instead of which is used the given possessive pronoun-noun;

- if the given word is verb, the subprogram carries out the translating of a part of phrase connected with this verb with the account of the meaning which is specified in the semantic addition, namely, the meaning concerning the action or the state, reached as a result of action, etc., etc.;

- if the semantic addition to the given word contains the differentiated (syntactical) meaning specifying that the word is the removed / isolated attribute to c.w. (or adverbial modifier to c.w. expressing action) in the given sentence which is specified in the addition, and then carries out translating of the given word and other words in a syntactical link with this c.w.;

in generally case, the subroutine transforms character of the sentence’s components so that to provide in the translated text a direct syntactical link between the given word and the c.w..

The special subroutine transfers each of the received translations to the basic program, including the grammatical information characterizing the use of translation in target language; then the basic program carries out the grammatical and syntactic coordination of the got translation of a part of a phrase with translation of text as a single whole.

Thus the machine translation of the encoded source text is carried out.

The scheme reflecting the process of translation into this or that target language is presented on Fig. 4.

1. The source phrase contains a polysemantic word: To clear up the cause of trouble.

The author has marked in the native English c.e.d. one of two meanings of word-combination clear sth up (the choice depends on the context’s sense); analogously author has marked one of many meanings of the word trouble (the dictionary entries are presented below). The service program has transferred to the source text the meanings marked by the author; then the author has marked the borders of a word-combination and has allocated its by a bold font.

As a result, the following variants of the coded text and their machine translations, for example, into Russian are received (for brevity, the variants of semantic meanings are separated from each other by a symbol /):

2. The source phrase contains a word-combination with the variable lexical components: We’d better find out how the land lies before taking any action…

The author has marked in the dictionary entry land n the word-combination see, etc. how the land lies, in which different verbs may be used; then the author has allocated by a bold font the words conterminous with an idiom, including a verb find out:

As we see, the usual program of MT has not found out a word-combination in the given text (because of variable lexical elements) and executed the word-by-word translation.

3. The source phrases contain a polysemantic set expressions (them explanations are borrowed from [4]):

This construction can give way. My brother has heard this news and began to give way. If it is in reality a heart attack, his good mood can give way.

The author has marked in the native English c.e.d. the set expression give way and has marked the following elements of dictionary entry:

- in the first sentence the matter concerns a state of construction, therefore author has marked the ill.e. The bridge gave ~ under the weight of the lorry;

- in the second - a state of spirit of the person, therefore author has marked the meaning … give ~ make concessions;

- at last, in the third - a state of health of the person, therefore author has marked the ill.e. His health gave ~

As a result, the following coded text and its machine translation is received:

From comparison follows, that the usual program of MT has executed the word-by-word translation of the all sentences.
 

4. The source phrase contains a polysemantic possessive pronoun-noun mine (for brevity, the different variants of phrase are separated from each other by a symbol //):

It is your pistol // your rifle // your gun? I was surprised by this question and I have answered: yes, it’s mine.

The author has defined that the pronoun mine (ours, yours)  may express depending on the context the belonging of a person of male gender or of feminine gender either the belonging of an inanimate object or the belonging of an animal of indefinite gender or the belonging of the same, what are enumerated, but in plural number (the dictionary entry is presented below); the choice of the concrete form of a pronoun depends on a gender and / or number of the contextual noun replaced by the given pronoun.

If the pronoun expresses the belonging of an inanimate object or an animal of indefinite gender, then the gender in target language may does not coincide with a gender in the source language.

In these cases it is always necessary to mark in the source text a contextual noun.

The author has marked in the native English c.e.d. this or another meaning of pronoun mine and the contextual noun (c.w.) replaced by pronoun.

As a result, the following variants of coded text and their machine translations, for example, into Russian are received:

As we see, these translations of pronouns correspond to the gender of the contextual nouns which they replace.

For comparison, the translation using the usual program of MT:

As we see, these translations of pronouns don't correspond to the gender of the contextual nouns which they replace.

5. The source phrases contain the polysemantic verbal forms in English:

The author has defined that in the first sentence the matter concerns a state reached as a result of actions, in the second and in the third sentences the matter concerns actions, since in the end of these sentences is pointed out an interval of time … during several hours (the dictionary entry is presented below).

Further, author has come to conclusion that in a context of the second sentence a matter concerns the action of an Imperfective and in a context of the third sentence a matter concerns the action of a Perfective.

The author, on the basis of the executed analysis, has marked in section of the differentiated (morphological) meanings the different forms of a Passive Voice.

As a result, the following coded texts and their machine translations into Russian are received:

As we see, the actual sense of a context is not reflected in the translations executed without taking into account semantic additions.

6. The phrases possessing a syntactic ambiguity / syntactic incompleteness.

At last, let’s explain this, using the characteristic examples which concern the mentioned differentiated (syntactic) meanings [12*].

a) The source text (Russian): Всё это была лишь идея, основанная на анализе исторических событий, опережающая время.

Author has defined that the word опережающая is a part of the removed, separated attribute to c.w. идея; on the basis of it the author has marked in c.e.d. a corresponding syntactic meaning of the word опережающая, and also has marked the c.w. идея.

As a result the following coded text is received:

The special subprogram has found out, that the word опережающая is a part of an independent part of the sentence - the isolated participal phrase. On the basis of it the subprogram has transformed the sentence, namely, transformed the isolated participial phrase in the second autonomous sentence with the formal compound predicate это была (i.e. it was) and with the c.w. идея (i.e. idea) and its attribute опережающая (i.e. anticipatory).

As a result, the following machine translation into English is received:

Thus the direct syntactic link between words идея and опережающая (idea and anticipatory) is provided.

For comparison, the machine translation using the usual program of MT:

As we see, the syntactic links had become ambiguous as the participle anticipatory has no characteristics of a gender and number and may be related both to word experiences and to word idea.

As already noted above, the following designations in the sections of differentiated (syntactic) meanings are accepted:

c.w.* / к.с.* - the concrete contextual word which the author should marked in the source text.

b) The source text: The syntactic links characterize the some predicative (i.e. relating to a predicate) and non-predicative (i.e. including attributive, adverbial) syntactic relations.

The service program has supplemented some words by symbols (syntax?). Author has defined:

- the words predicative, non-predicative, attributive, adverbial are separated attributes to the word relations(018),

- the word relating is separated apposition to the word predicative(07),

- the word including is separated apposition to the word non-predicative(013).

The syntactic links in the given phrase are graphically presented on the Fig. 5.

Author has marked the differentiated (syntactic) meanings of the words predicative, non-, relate, include, attributive, adverbial (see Table), and also has marked the corresponding contextual words.

As a result, the following coded text is received:

Thus the direct syntactic links between the all attributes/ appositions and the contextual words are provided.

For comparison, the machine translation using the usual program of MT:

As we see, if the machine translation is executed without taking into account semantic additions, the syntactic links between words are disturbed, namely: the all attributes/ appositions are torn off from the word отношения.

Some considerations of general character. As it has been noted above, the service program possesses a some other enterprising functions, for example, indicates to the author on the discrepancy of the use of a word or a word-combination in the source text and in the marked element of an dictionary entry, and also indicates the words missed in process of the analysis of the source text, but which, probably, possess an one or another ambiguity (see Fig.3).

A some increase of accuracy of preliminare identification of the source text can be reached by means of the direct and the reverse translation of the coded text into the concrete target language. The author compares the initial source text and reverse text and makes changes to some earlier made semantic additions and/or makes semantic additions to other words / to word-combinations (see Fig. 6).

The source text can have a wide spectrum of meanings (seeming) as a signal containing a multitude of additional frequencies. The preliminary identification is a filter allowing to shorten this spectrum.

The preliminary identification does not depend into which target language the translation will be potentially carried out. The fragment of a dictionary entry executes function of a code indicating an exact way from marked element to a headword in c.e.d., and from a headword to a translation of this element in any of the c.b.d(s).

As it has been noted above, the each of semantic additions can be presented as well in more compact form - in the form of the serial numbers of the elements of the coordinated dictionary entries.

 Creation of systems of the coordinated dictionaries demands efforts of linguists, but is not connected with the decision of any transcendental problems.

Rules of preliminary identification can be stated in the form of instructions which are no more complex, than a well-known grammatical and syntactical rules, and also the rules of an using the dictionary.

The coded source texts (descriptions of inventions, scientific articles, etc.) at their publication in the electronic form can contain the "invisible" semantic additions; it concerns also personal documents (the vitas etc.).

1. US Patent 5,285,386 Machine translation apparatus having means for translating polysemous words using
dominated codes.
2. US Patent 5,845,306 Context based system for accessing dictionary entries.
3. Universal Networking Language (UNL) Specifications. Version 2005.  Universal Networking Digital Language Foundation, www.undl.org/unlsys/unl/unl2005/  
3*. UNL home page http://www.unl.ias.unu.edu/ 
Explanatory Dictionaries:
5. Большой толковый словарь русского языка  (2000), НОРИНТ, С.-Петербург 
6. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of current English (1989), Oxford University Press
7. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of current  English (1995), Clarendon Press Oxford
14. Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache (1998), Neubearbeitung
11**. The Concise Sapphire Dictionary, Editor in Chief: Eitan Avneyon,  (1997), Israel
Bilingual Dictionaries:
8. Oxford Russian Dictionary, Russian-English, English-Russian (2000), Oxford University Press
9.  Рымашевская Э.Л., Немецко-русский и русско-немецкий словарь // Русский язык, М.:1990.
9* Langenscheidts Taschenwörterbuch Russisch (Russisch - Deutsch, Deutsch – Russisch), Langenscheidt                                       
10. Смирницкий А.И. и др. (2002) Большой русско-английский словарь, Русский язык, М. / Comprehensive Russian –English Dictionary, A. I. Smirnitsky (2002), Russky Yazyk Publishers, Moscow
11. Русско – Ивритский словарь под редакцией Подольского Б. (1992), Русский язык, М.   
11***. The Сomplete Hebrew – English Dictionary by Reuben Alcalay,  Massada Publishing Co. Ramat-Gan-Jerusalem
15. Мюллер В.К. (2000) Англо – русский словарь, Золотой век, Диамант, С.-П. / English – Russian Dictionary, V.K. Müller (2000), “Zolotoi Vek”, “Diamant” St.-Petersburg
The others sources:

4. Кунин А. В. (1967), Англо-русский фразеологический словарь,  Советская энциклопедия, М.,  1233 – 1264
13. Циммерман М., Веденеева К. (1999) Русско – английский научно – технический словарь переводчика, Наука, М.  / Mikhail Zimmerman, Claudia Vedeneeva (1999), Russian - English Translators Dictionary (A Guide to Scientific and Technical Usage), John Wiley & Sons, 50, 340, 509
11*. Склонение предлогов и др. частей речи с помощью местоименных суффиксов (1992), Дфус Эфи, Израиль, Т.-А.  
12. Качалова К. Н., Израилевич Е. Е. (1999), Практическая грамматика английского языка, ЮНВЕСТ ЛИСТ, М., 72-76, 113-162, 166-184, 214-216, § 131, 279-287, 439-445
12* Современный русский язык, под ред. Д.Е. Розенталя (1979), Часть 2, Синтаксис. М., Высшая школа, 123-135
16. И.М. Богуславский, Л.Л. Иомдин, А.В. Лазурский, Л.Г. Митюшин, А.С. Бердичевский  (2005): Интерактивное разрешение неоднозначности различных типов в машинном переводе, труды конференции Диалог 2005, Секция Разрешение неоднозначностей http://www.dialog-21.ru

16*. Интерактивное разрешение лексической и синтаксической неоднозначности в системах автоматической обработки естественного языка. Лазурский А.В., Бердичевский А.С. ., Крейдлин Л.Г., МитюшинЛ.Г. ., Сизов В.Г. Институт проблем передачи информации РАН, http://company.yandex.ru/grant/2005/01_Lazursky_102921.pdf
17. Панич Ю.В. Универсальное смысловое кодирование исходного текста и его перевод с использованием системы согласованных словарей (I,II), http://www.elektron2000.com 2007.

18. Panich Iuli. The expanded system of coordinated dictionaries and its using for universal semantic coding and translation of the polysemous source text, (also the Russian version: Расширенная система согласованных словарей и её применение для смыслового кодирования и перевода многозначного исходного текста), http://www.translationdirectoty.com 2008.

Back