Cover not available
Part of
Multiword Units in Machine Translation and Translation Technology
Edited by Ruslan Mitkov, Johanna Monti, Gloria Corpas Pastor and Violeta Seretan
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 341] 2018
► pp. 147–162

Dutch compound splitting for bilingual terminology extraction

As compounds pose a problem for applications that rely on precise word alignments, we developed a state-of-the-art compound splitter for Dutch that makes use of corpus frequency information and linguistic knowledge. Domain-adaptation techniques are used to combine large out-of-domain and dynamically compiled in-domain frequency lists.

As compounds are not always translated compositionally, we developed a novel methodology for word alignment. We train the word alignment models twice: a first time on the original data set and a second time on the data set in which the compounds are split into their component parts.

Experiments show that the compound splitter combined with the novel word alignment technique considerably improves bilingual terminology extraction results.

Keywords: compound splitting, bilingual terminology extraction, word alignment, multiword units, translation, Dutch
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Dutch compound splitter
    • 2.1Domain adaptation
    • 2.2Data Sets and Experiments
  • 3.Impact on word alignment
    • 3.1Data sets and experiments
  • 4.Impact on terminology extraction
    • 4.1Experiments
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.341.07mac
References
Baayen, R. H., R. Piepenbrock, & van Rijn, H.
(1993) The CELEX lexical database on CD-ROM. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Brown, P. F., Della Pietra, V. J., Della Pietra, S. A., & Mercer R. L.
(1993) “The Mathematics of Statistical Machine Translation: Parameter Estimation”. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 263–311.Google Scholar
Frantzi, K., & Ananiadou. S.
(1999) The C-value / NC-value domain independent method for multiword term extraction. Journal of Natural Language Processing, 6(3), 145–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fritzinger, F., & Fraser, A.
(2010) How to avoid burning ducks: combining linguistic analysis and corpus statistics for German compound processing. In Proceedings of the ACL 2010 Joint Fifth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation and MetricsMATR. 224–234. Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Kageura, K., & Umino, B.
(1996) Methods of automatic term recognition. A review. Terminology, 3(2), 259–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koehn, P., Axelrod, A., Birch Mayne, A., Callison-Burch, C., Osborne, M., & Talbot, D.
(2005) Edinburgh system description for the 2005 IWSLT speech translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation: Evaluation Campaign on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2005). Pittsburgh, PA, USA.Google Scholar
Koehn, P., Hoang, H., Birch, A., Callison-Burch, C., Federico, M., Bertoldi, N. et al.
(2007) Moses: Open Source Toolkit for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the ACL 2007 Demo and Poster Sessions. 177–180. Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
Koehn, P., & Knight, K.
(2003) Empirical methods for compound splitting. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 2003). 187–193. Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Lefever, E., Macken, L., & Hoste, V.
(2009) Language-independent bilingual terminology extraction from a multilingual parallel corpus. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL). 496–504. Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
Macken, L., De Clercq, O., & Paulussen, H.
(2011) “Dutch Parallel Corpus: a Balanced Copyright-Cleared Parallel Corpus”. Meta, 56(2), 374–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macken, L., Lefever, E., & Hoste, V.
(2013) TExSIS. Bilingual terminology extraction from parallel corpora using chunk-based alignment. Terminology, 19(1), 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Och, F. J., & Ney, H.
(2003) A systematic comparison of various statistical alignment models. Computational Linguistics, 29(1), 19–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parra Escartín, C.
(2014) Chasing the Perfect Splitter: A Comparison of Different Compound Splitting Tools. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14). 3340–3347. Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
Réveil, B., & Martens, J.-P.
(2008) Reducing speech recognition time and memory use by means of compound (de-)composition. In Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Circuits, Systems and Signal Processing (ProRISC 2008). 348–352. Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Stymne, S., & Holmqvist, M.
(2008) Processing of Swedish compounds for phrase-based statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 12th annual conference of the European Association for Machine Translation (EAMT 2008). 182–191. Hamburg, Germany.Google Scholar