Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The following table compares the number of languages which the following machine translation programs can translate between. (Moses and Moses for Mere Mortals allow you to train translation models for any language pair, though collections of translated texts (parallel corpus) need to be provided by the user.
Example-based machine translation (EBMT) is a method of machine translation often characterized by its use of a bilingual corpus with parallel texts as its main knowledge base at run-time. It is essentially a translation by analogy and can be viewed as an implementation of a case-based reasoning approach to machine learning .
He estimates that the theory and practice of English-language translation had been dominated by submission, by fluent domestication. He strictly criticized the translators who in order to minimize the foreignness of the target text reduce the foreign cultural norms to target-language cultural values.
An example of a word-based translation system is the freely available GIZA++ package , which includes the training program for IBM models and HMM model and Model 6. [7] The word-based translation is not widely used today; phrase-based systems are more common. Most phrase-based systems are still using GIZA++ to align the corpus [citation needed].
For example, it might be trained just for Japanese-English and Korean-English translation, but can perform Japanese-Korean translation. The system appears to have learned to produce a language-independent intermediate representation of language (an "interlingua"), which allows it to perform zero-shot translation by converting from and to the ...
A demonstration was made in 1954 on the APEXC machine at Birkbeck College (University of London) of a rudimentary translation of English into French. Several papers on the topic were published at the time, and even articles in popular journals (for example an article by Cleave and Zacharov in the September 1955 issue of Wireless World).
In translation and semantics, dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are seen as the main approaches to translation that prioritize either the meaning or literal structure of the source text respectively. The distinction was originally articulated by Eugene Nida in the context of Bible translation.
This is basically dictionary translation; the source language lemma (perhaps with sense information) is looked up in a bilingual dictionary and the translation is chosen. Structural transfer. While the previous stages deal with words, this stage deals with larger constituents, for example phrases and chunks. Typical features of this stage ...