Towards Personal MT: 
general design, dialogue structure, potential role of speech 
Clwistian BOITET 
GETA, IMAG Institute 
CIdJF & CNRS) 
BP 53X, 38041 Grenoble Cedex, France 
Abstract 
Personal MT (PMT) is a new concept in dialogue- 
based MT (DBMT) , which we are currently studying 
and prototyping in the LIDIA project Ideally, a PMT 
system should run on PCs and be usable by everybody. 
To get his/her text translated into one or several 
languages, the writer would accept to cooperate with the 
system in order to standardize and clarify his/her 
document. There are many interesting aspects in the 
design of such a system. The paper briefly presents 
some of them (HyperText, distributed architecture, 
guided language, hybrid transfer/interlingua, the goes on 
to study in more detail the structure of the dialogue with 
the writer and the place of speech synthesis \[1\]. 
Keywords 
Personal Machine Translation, dialogue-based 
Machine Translation, Man-Machine Dialogue, 
Ambiguity Resolution, Speech Synthesis. 
Introduction 
A first classification of MAT (Machine Aided 
Translation) systems is by user. "Classical" MAT 
systems are for the watcher, for the revisor (post-editor), 
or for the translator. A new concept is that of "personal 
MT", or MAT for the writer. 
MT for the watcher appeared in the sixties. Its 
purpose is to provide informative rough translations of 
large amounts of unrestricted texts for the end user. 
MT for the revisor appeared in the seventies. It aims 
at producing raw translations good enough to be revised 
by professionals in a cost-effective way. This implies 
that the system needs to be specialized tor a certain 
sublanguage. For a system to be cost-effective, it is 
generally agreed that at least 20000 pages must be 
handled (e.g. 10000 pages/year for at least 2 years). 
Leaving "heavy MT", not adapted to small volumes 
of heterogeneous texts, several firms have developed 
MAT systems for translators, in the form of tools (e.g. 
Mercury-Termex~), or of integrated environments (e.g. 
Alps TSSrU). 
The concept of MT for the author (writer/speaker) 
has recently crystallized, building on previous studies on 
interactive MT, text critiquing and dialog structures \[5, 
6, 7, 9, 12\]. Its aim is to provide high quality 
translation/interpretation services to end users with no 
knowledge of the target languages or linguistics. 
A sccond classification of MAT systems is by the 
types of knowledge felt to be central to their 
flmctioning. Linguistic Based MT uses : 
core knowledge about the language ; 
specific knowledge about the corpus (domain, 
typology) ; 
intrinsic semantics (a term coined by J.P. Desclds 
to cover all information formally marked in a 
natural language, but which refers to its 
interpretation, such as semantic features or 
relations : concreteness, location, cause, 
instrument... ) ; 
but not : 
extrinsic semantics (static knowledge de~ribing 
the domain(s) of the text, e.g. in terms of facts 
and rules) ; 
situational semantics (describing the dynmnic 
situations and their actors) ; 
pragmatics (overt or covert intentions in the 
communicative context). 
Knowledge-Based MT uses extralinguistic knowledge 
on top of linguistic knowledge. Finally, Dialogue-Based 
MT insists on extracting knowledge from a human (tile 
author or a specialist). These options are not exclusive, 
however. In KBMT~89 \[7\], for example, ambiguities 
persisting after using linguistic and extralinguistic 
knowledge are solved through a dialogue with the writer 
initiated by the "augmentor". In ATR's Machine 
Interpretation project, the dialogues center around a well- 
defined task (organization of international conferences), 
but may also concern extraneous matters (cultural 
events, health problems...). This feature, added to the 
enormous ambiguity inherent in speech input, will 
likely force such systems to be dialogue-baseA as well as 
knowledge-based \[5\]. Ii1 Personal MT, we may rely on 
some core extralinguistic knowledge base, but not on 
any detailed expertise, because the domains and types of 
text should be unrestricted. Hence, Personal MT must be 
primarily dialogue-based. 
A third classification of MAT systems is by their 
internal organization (direct/transfer/interlingua, use of 
classical or specialized languages, procedurality 
/ declarativeness...) through which so-called 
"generations" have been distinguished. This level of 
detail will not be too relevant in this paper. 
30 1 
\]\[, A project in Personal MT 
ILo G(~als 
MDIA (Large Internationalization of the Documents 
by Interacting with their Authors) aims at studying the 
theoretical and methodological issues of the PMT 
approach, to be experimented on by first building a 
small prototype, and more generally at promoting this 
concept within the MT community. 
We are trying to develop an architecture which would 
be suitable for very large applications, to be upscaled 
later with industrial partners if results are promising 
enough. For example, we don't intend to incorporate 
more than a few hundred or flmusand words in the 
prototype's (LIDIAol) dictionaries, although we try to 
develop robust indexing schemes and to imt)lcment the 
lexical data base in a way which would allow supporling 
on the order of 1 to lOMwords in 10 languages. The 
same goes for the grammars. 
Even in a prototype, however, ttle sh'ucture of the 
dialogue with the author must be studied with care, and 
offers interesting possibilities. Clearly, the writer should 
be allowed to write freely, and to decide for himself 
when and on which part of his document to start any 
ldnd of interaction. But changes in the text should be 
controlled so that not all changes would torce the system 
to start the interaction anew. 
From a linguistic point of view, it is extremely 
exciting to see, at last, a possibility to experiment with 
Zemb's theme/rheme/pheme "statutory" ,articulation of 
propositions \[13\], and/or Prague's topic/focus 
opposition, which are claimed to be of utmost 
importance for translation : both are almost impossible 
to compute automatically, because the tests are very 
often expressed in terms of possible transformations in a 
given discourse context. But, in PMT, we may ask the 
author. 
2. Outline 
The prototype system for LIDIA-1 is constrained as 
follows. 
Translation from French into Russian, German 
and English (inversing previous systems), with 
other target languages being studied in 
cooperative frameworks ; 
Small corpus from the Ariane-G5 user interface 
(containing some on-line documentation), in 
HyperCard form ; 
Distributed computer architecture : writer 
workstation on a Macintosh (Plus or SE), MT 
server on a mini (IBM-4361) ; 
- Guided Language approach, as opposed to Free 
Text or Controlled Language ; 
Linguistic architecture : hybrid 
Trans fer/lnterlingua. 
11yperText 
The choice of HyperCard reflects the fact that 
Hypertexts are becoming the favorite supports for 
technical documentation. It also relics on tile 
assumption that writers will more readily agree to 
participating in a dialogue if the tool they are using is 
very interactive than if they use a more classical text 
processor, t:inally, there are some linguistic advantages. 
First, the textual parts are clearly isolated in fields, 
and not cluttered with images, formulas, tabs, markups, 
etc. Scripts should not be. translated -- if they generate 
messages, these must be taken from normal fields, and 
not directly generated (linguistic requirements may lead 
to better programming practices!). 
Second, the textual parts may be typed, thus greatly 
facilitating analysis. For example, a given field may 
contain only titles, another only menu items, another 
only sentences without the initial subject (which is 
often contained in another field), etc. A distinct 
possibility is to define microlanguages as types of very 
short textual fragments (less than 2 or 3 lines, to be 
concrete), and to define sublanguages as structured 
collections of microlanguages for longer textual 
fragments. 
Distributed architecture 
The idea to use a distributed architecture has both a 
practical and theoretical basis. First, we want to use the 
Ariane-G5 system, a comprehensive generator of MT 
systems developed over many years \[11\]. Although 
some micros can support this system (PC~AT/370, 
PS2/7437), their user-friendliness and availability are no 
match to those of the Mac. 
Second, looking at some other experiences (Alps, 
Weidner), we have concluded that some parts of 
sophisticated natural language processing can not be 
performed in real time on small and cheap machines 
without oversimplifying the linguistic parts and 
degrading quality down to near uselessness. Rather, it 
should be possible to perform the "heavy" parts in an 
asynchronous but still user-friendly way, as IBM 
researchers have done for the Critique system \[9\]. 
Of course, this idea could be implemented on a 
single machine running under a multitasking operating 
system, if such a system were available on the most 
popular micros, and provided tile heavy linguistic 
computations don't take hours. 
Guided Language 
The "guided language approach" is a middle road 
between free and controlled text. The key to quality in 
MT, as in other areas of AI, is to restrict the domain in 
an acceptable way. 
2 
31 
By "controlled language", we understand a subset of 
natural language restricted in such a way that 
ambiguities disappear. That is the approach of the 
TITUS system : no text is accepted unless it completely 
conforms to one predefined sublanguage. While this 
technique works very well in a very restricted domain, 
with professionals producing the texts (technical 
abstracts in textile, in this case), it seems impossible to 
generalize it to open-ended uses involving the general 
public. 
What seems possible is to define a collection of 
microlanguages or sublanguages, to associate one with 
each unit of translation, and to induce the writer/speaker 
to conform to it, or else to choose another one. 
Hybrid Transfer/lnterlingua 
By "hybrid Transfer/Interlingua", we mean that the 
interface structures produced by analysis are multilevel 
structures of the source language, in the sense of 
Vauquois \[4, 11, see also 2, 3\], where some parts are 
universal (logico-semantic relations, semantic features, 
abstract time, discourse type...), while others are 
language-specific (morphosyntactic class, gender, 
number, lexical elements, syntactic functions...). In 
PMT, because of the necessity of lexical clarification, 
we should go one step further toward interlingua by 
relating the "word senses" of the vocabularies of all the 
languages considered in the system and making them 
independent objects in the lexical data base. 
II. Structure of the dialogue with the 
writer 
. Interactions concerning typology, 
terminology and style 
Hence, the first interaction planned in LIDIA 
concerns typology : given a stack, the system will first 
constn~ct a "shadow" file. For each textual field, it will 
ask its typology (microlanguage for very small texts, 
sublanguages for others), and attach it to the 
corresponding shadow record. In the case of "incomplete" 
texts, where for example the subject of the first sentence 
is to be taken from another field (as in tables containing 
command names and their explanations), it will ask how 
to construct a complete text for translation, and attach 
the corresponding rule to the shadow record. 
The second level of interaction concerns spelling. 
Any spellchecker will do. However, it would be best to 
use a lemmatizer relying on the lexical database of the 
system, as the user must be allowed to enter new words 
and will expect a coherent behavior of the entire system. 
Level three concerns terminology. The lexical 
database should contain thesaurus relations, indicating 
among other things the preferred term among a cluster of 
(quasi-)synonyms (e.g. plane/aircraft/ship/plane). Which 
term is preferred often depends on local decisions : it 
should be easy to change it for a particular stack, 
without of course duplicating the thesaurus. Note that 
the lexical database should contain a great variety of 
terms, even incorrect or dubious, whereas terminological 
databases are usually restricted to normalized or 
recommended terms. In PMT, we only want to guide the 
author : if s/he prefers to use a non standard term, that 
should be allowed. 
Level four concerns style, understood in a simply 
quantitative way (average length of sentences, fi:equency 
of complex conjuncts/disjuncts, rare verbal forms, 
specific words like dont in French, relative frequency of 
nouns/articles, etc.). From the experience of CRITIQUE 
\[9\], it seems that such methods, which work in real 
time, may be very useful as a first step to guide towards 
the predetermined text types (micro- or sub-languages). 
2. Interactions concerning syntax, 
semantics and pragmatics 
Until now, the system has worked directly with the 
text as written by the author. For the remaining types of 
interaction, it will work on a transcription contained in 
the shadow record, as well as with some intermediate 
forms of processing stored in associated records of the 
shadow file. This forces to lock the original textual field 
(unless the author decides to change it and accepts to 
start again from level two). 
Level five concerns the fixed forms. It is quite usual, 
especially in technical documentation, that some groups 
of words take a fixed meaning in certain contexts, with 
specific, non-compositional translations. For example, 
"Save as" as a menu item Saue as ... is translated in 
French as £nregislrer sous.., and not ~ts "Sauver 
comme", which would be correct for other uses. As a 
menu item, this group functions as a proper noun, not 
as a verbal phrase. The writer should be asked whether a 
given occurrence of each such group is to be treated as 
fixed or not. In the first case, an adequate transcription 
should be generated in the shadow record 
C&FXD_Save as", for example). Certain elements 
(such as menu items) should be automatically proposed 
for insertion in the list. 
Level six concerns lexical clarification. First, 
polysemies are to be solved by asking the writer. For 
example, the word "dipl6me" is not ambiguous in 
French. However, if translating from French into 
English, 2 possibilities should be given : "diplfme non 
terminal" ("diploma") or "dipltme terminal" ("degree"). 
Some polysemies are source language specific, some 
depend on the target languages. We want to treat them in 
a uniform way, by maintaining in the lexical database 
the collection of all "word senses" Cacceptions", not 
really concepts of an ontology as in KBMT-89), linked 
by disambiguating questions/definitions to the 
words/terms of the languages supported by the system. 
Lexical ellipses can also be treated at that level. This 
problem is particularly annoying in MT. Suppose a text 
is about a space ship containing a "centrale 61ectrique" 
("electric plant") and a "centrale inertielle" ("illcrtial 
guidance system"). The complete form is often replaced 
by the elided one : "centrale". Although it is vital to 
32 3 
disambiguate for translating correctly (by the 
corresponding elided forms: "plant"/"system"), no 
automatic solution is known. A given occurrence may 
be an elision or not. If yes, it is even more difficult to 
look for a candidate to the complete form in a hypertext 
than in a usual text. 
At level seven, the unit of translation (the content of 
the shadow field) has been submitted to a first step of 
automatic analysis, which returns a surface structure 
showing ambiguities of bracketing (PP attachment, 
scope of coordiuation...). The questions to tim writer 
should not be asked in linguistic terms. The idea is to 
rephrase the input text itself, that is, to present the 
alternatives in suggestive ways (on screen, or using 
speech synthesis- see below). 
Some other ambiguities, for instance on reference 
(unresolved anaphora) or syntactic functions ("Which 
firm manages this office ?" --where is the subject ?) 
might be detected at this stage. They may be left for the 
next step to solve (actually, this is a general strategy), 
or solved interactively at that point. In our view, that 
would best be done by producing paraphrases \[Zajac 
1988\], or by "template resolution" \[6\]. 
At level eight, the disambiguated surface structure 
has been .;ubnfitted to the deep analysis phase, which 
returns a multilevel structure (decorated lree encoding 
several levels of linguistic interpretation, universal as 
well as language specific). Some ambiguities may 
appear during this phase, and be coded in the structure, 
such as ambiguities on semantic relations (deep cases), 
deep acmalisation (time, aspect...), discourse type (a 
French infinitive sentence may be an order or not, ik~r 
example), or theme/theme distinction. Template or 
paraphrase resolution will be used to disambignate, as 
no rephrasing of the text can often suffice (e.g. : "the 
conquest of the Barbarians"). 
A suggestion of \[6\] was to delay all interactions 
until transfer. The view taken here is rather to solve as 
soon as possible all the ambiguities which can not be 
solved automatically later, or only with much difficulty. 
For example, word sense disambiguation takes place 
quite early in the above scheme, and that may give class 
disambiguation for free. 
A more flexible scheme would be to ask about word 
senses eariy only if each lemma of the considered 
wordlkm~ has more t|:an one acceptkm, if ~mt, the 
system could wait until after surface a,m.lysis, which 
reduce~ almost all morphosyntactic ambi;!,t.'.ities. A 
variation wonkl be to disambigtmte word senses only 
after sur/ime analysis has been don(;. A prototype should 
allow ext~e~irnenth~g wilh vaious strategies. 
~i\[o ~?~ace and q~.~a~.~y of speeck~ 
Speect~ synthesis has a pJacc no~ only h~ the 
translation oJ gpoker~ dialogue';, bni aiso i:i~ iiie 
transtati(m of written texts. We acma!\[y ~hink ira 
introdtlcti(m iii Personal MT col~ld bc very holpfill i~ 
enhancing ergonomy and allowing for more natural 
disambiguation strategies. 
1. Speech synthesis and Personal MT 
Speech synthesis and MT in general 
Speech synthesis of translations may be useful for 
all kinds of MAT. In MT for the watcher, people could 
access Japanese technical and scientific textual databases, 
for example, through rough English MT not only over 
computer networks, as is cm'rently done in Sweden \[10\], 
but also via the telephone. To produce spoken 
translations could be even more useful in the case of 
rapidly changing information (political events, weather 
bulletins, etc. disseminated to a large public through 
computer or telephone networks). 
In the case of professional translation (MAT for the 
revisor or for the translator), the main area today is the 
translation of large technical documents. With the advent 
of wide!y available hypermedia techniques, these 
documents are starting to contain not only text and 
images, but also sound, used for instmme to stress some 
important warning messages. 
Personal MT could be used for translating technical 
documents as well as all kinds of written material not 
relying on creative use of language (ioe. poetry). It could 
also be used for communication within multilingual 
teams working together and linked by a network, or by 
phone. Finally, it could be used for the multilingual 
dissemination of information created onoline by a 
monolingual operator (sports events, fairs...) and made 
accessible in written form (electronic boards, minitel) as 
well as in spoken form (loudspeakers, radio, telephone), 
whence the need for speech synthesis. 
Hence, spoken output does not imply spoken input, 
and should be considered for all kinds of machine aided 
translation. As complete linguistic structures of the 
translations are created during the MT process, speech 
synthesis should be of better quality than current text-to- 
speech techniqocs can provide. This does not apply to 
MAT for the translator, however (although the 
translator, being a specialist, could perhaps be asked to 
insert marks concerning prosody, rhythm and pauses, 
analogous with formatting ma'kups). 
Speech synthesis of dialogue utterances 
.l)ia\]ogue tltterancos COflCertt the3 (;ol~lnunicatiol~ 
between the system and the user, the transtati(m process 
(reformulatior~, clarification), and the translati(m system 
((',g. interrogation or modificatiou of iis lexical 
database). 
i~ Telephone lnterpretatio~~ of dialogues, all dialogue 
utterai~ces ,m.~st obviously be in spoke~ form, ike 
writmn R~rm being made available only if the pho~c is 
coupled to a scrce~. I~ translatkm of writtm~ materiai, i~ 
could be attractive to i:~co~porate speech synthesis i~? the 
dialogue itself, as an e.nhancemc~t to its visual form, tb.., 
tilt'; £allle oQ~;oitolnic loasolL'~ as ahoy(;, anti t)(,X;~lngc 
spoken alternatives might be intrinsically more 
suggestive than written ones in order to resolve 
ambiguities ~ pauses and melody may help to delimit 
groups and pinpoint their dependencies, while phrasal 
stress may give useful indications on the theme/rheme 
division. 
In the case of non-dialogue-based systems, there are 
only fixed messages, and on-line speech synthesis is not 
really necessary, because the acoustic codings can be 
precomputed. In the case of dialogue-based Machine 
Translation, however, an important part of the dialogue 
concerns variable elements, such as the translated texts 
or the dictionaries, where definitions or disambiguating 
questions could be inserted. 
Speech in PMT : 
synthesis of input, texts or reverse translations 
Speech synthesis of input seems to be required when 
producing a document in several languages, with some 
spoken parts. It would be strange that the source 
language documentation not have the spoken parts, or 
that the author be forced to read them aloud. In the latter 
case, a space problem would also arise, because speech 
synthesis can produce an acoustic coding (later fed to a 
voice synthesis chip) much more compact than any 
representation of the acoustic signal itself. 
The concept of reverse translation could be very 
useful in PMT. The idea is to give to the author, who is 
presumed not to know the target language(s), some 
control over the translations. In human translation or 
interpretation, it often happens that the writer or speaker 
asks "what has been translated". By analogy, a PMT 
system should be able to translate in reverse. 
Technically, it would do so by starting from the deep 
structure of the target text, and not from the target text 
itself, in order not to introduce spurious ambiguities 
(although having both possibilities could possibly help 
in detecting accidental ambiguities created in the target 
language). 
Note that speech synthesis of reverse translations 
might be ergonomically attractive, even if no spoken 
form is required for the final results (translations or 
input texts), because screens tend to become cluttered 
with too much information, and because reading the 
screen in detail quickly becomes tiring. 
2. The need for very high quality 
speech synthesis in DBMT 
It has been surprisingly difficult for researchers in 
speech synthesis to argue convincingly about the need 
for very high quality. Current text to speech systems are 
quite cheap and seem acceptable to laymen. Of course, it 
is tiring to listen to them for long periods, but in 
common applications, such as telephone enquiry, 
interactions are short, or of fixed nature (time-of-day 
service), in which case synthesis can proceed from 
prerecorded fragments. 
DBMT, as envisaged above, seems to offer a context 
in which very high quality could and should be demanded 
of speech synthesis. 
Ergonomy 
First, the writer/speaker would be in frequent 
interaction with the system, even if each interaction is 
short. The overall quality of speech synthesisdepends on 
three factors : 
voice synthesis (production of the signal from the 
acoustic coding) ; 
linguistic analysis (word class recognition, 
decomposition into groups), for correct 
pronunciation of individual words, or contextual 
treatment (liaisons in French) ; 
pragmatic analysis (communicative intent : 
speech act, theme/rheme division...), for pauses, 
rhythm and prosody. 
We will consider the first factor to be fixed, and work 
on the linguistic and pragmatic aspects. 
Of course, certain parts of the dialogue could be 
prerecorded, namely the messages concerning the 
interaction with the system itself. However, users might 
rather prefer a uniform quality of speech synthesis. In 
that case, these messages might be stored in the same 
acoustic coding format as the texts produced under 
linguistic control. 
Ambiguity resolution by rephrasing 
We have seen two main ways of disambiguating 
structural ambig~tities ha DBMT, namely rephrasing and 
paraphrasing. Rephrasing means to present the original 
text in different ways. Suppose we want to disambiguate 
the famous sentence "tie saw a girl in the park with a 
telescope" by presenting the alternatives on a screen. We 
might get something like : 
1- Hesaw 
2- Hesaw 
3- Hes~v 
4- He saw 
5- He saw 
the girl 
in the park 
with a telescope 
the girl 
in the park 
with a telescope 
the girl 
in the park 
with a telescope 
the girl 
in the park 
with a telescope 
the girl 
in the park 
with a lelescope ~ 
5 34 
If the disambiguation happens orally, the spoken 
forms should be presented in the same register as in the 
original (here, affirmative), but very clearly 
distinguished, so that a human could reconstruct the 
forms above. The availability of complete linguistic 
structures is necessary, but not sufficient, because 
understandability is not enough : distinguishability is a 
new ~Zxluirement for speech synthesis. 
Other types of linguistic interactions 
In disambiguation by paraphrasing or template 
generation (generation of abbreviated paraphrases, as it 
were), questions should be generated, with their locus 
clearly indicated by stress and prosody. For instance : 
Ls" t~e girl or the parIc with a telescope ? 
In the same manner, speech quality is very important 
if word sense dismnbiguation is done orally. Since some 
new words or new senses of existing words may be added 
by the user, the disambiguation processes should apply 
to their definitions in the same way as they do to the 
texts/ulterances to be translated. 
All pr~eding remarks are of course even more valid 
in the case of oral input, where speech is the primary 
means of interaction, and the quality of the signal is 
mducect by the mmsmission channel. 
Co~ch~sion 
The concept of Personal MT crysrtfllizes many kteas 
from previous systems and research (text--critiquing, 
interactive MT, dialogue-based MT, Machine 
Interpretation of spoken dialogues, controlled 
languages...). However, the perspective of interacting 
with the author, not requirexl to have any knowledge of 
the target language(s), linguistics, or translation, puts 
things in an original framework. 
While the development of systems of this nature 
poses old problems in a new way, and offers interesting 
new possibilities to the developers, their acceptability 
and usefulness will perhaps result more from their 
ergonomy than from their intrinsic linguistic quality, 
how necessary it may be. 
Promotion of the National Languages is becomi~g 
q~fite important nowadays, but, apmt of efforts to teach a 
few for~zigl~ langt~ages, no technical .~;olul:io~~ ires y(:t 
been proposed to help people write i~a mei~ ow~ 
lauguage and communicate with oilier people in ihcir 
own lang~ages. Personal MT could bc such a solution. 
Wc strongly hope that many researcher'; wilt ~.~.ac 
interest i~ this new field el MT. 
Although speech s'ynthcsi,a of the ii~pui or outpt~t 
texts had been considereci fin ihc mili~i dcsigr~ o_~ the 
project, and thought to be ~tsefu~ i~i ,~)li~oc paris, i~ was 
J.I. Tsujii who pointed to me how interesting it would 
be to use it in ambiguity resolution, provided we can 
reach the necessary quality. I am also grateful to 
J.Ph. Guilbaud, E. Blanc, and M. Embar for reviewing 
earlier drafts of this paper. While their help was very 
valuable for improving both content and form, the 
remaining deficiencies am of course mine. 

References 

\[1\] BOITffF Ch. (1989) Motivations and architecture of 
the LIDIA project. 
Prec. MTS--89, Munich, 16--18 Aug. 1989, 5p. 

\[2\] BOITET Ch. (1988d) PROS and CONS of the pivot and 
transfer approaches in multiIingual Machine Translation. 
New Directions in MT. BSO cent, Budapest, 13 p. 

1311 BOITET Ch. (1988c) ltybrid Pivots using re-.structures 
for multilinguaI 7'ran.sfer-Based MT Systems. Jail. lr~st, of 
Electr., Inf. & Comm. Eng., Jtrae 1988, NI~C88-3, 1"7 ~ .22. 

\[4\] BOITET Ch. (1988b) Bernard VAUQUOIS' 
Contribution to the Theory and Practice of building MT 
Systems : a historical persTJective. 
2nd Int. Conf. on Theor. & Meth. Issues ha MT. CMT, 
CMU, Pittsburgli, June 1988, 18 p. 

\[5\] BOITET Ch. (1988a) Representation and 
Computation of Units of Translation for Machine 
tn~erpretation of Spoken Texts. 
TR-I--0035, ATR, Osaka, 41 p. Also Computers & Artificial 
Intelligence 8/6, 505.--546, 1989. 

\[611 CHANDLER B., ItOLDEN N., HORSFALL tl., 
POLLARD E., McGEE WOOD M. (1987) N-Tran Final 
Report. Atvey Project CCIdUMIST Report 87/9, 
Manchester, 30 p, 

17\] NIRENBURG & aL (1989) KBMT..89 Pr4ect Report. 
CMT, CMI_J~ Pittsburgh, 286 p. 

\[8\] PECCOUD 1::. (1988) The Aims of fl~e French Nationat 
Project of Computer-Aided Translation. In : International 
Fo~um on Information and Documentation. 113/1, 1 I--i 3. 

\[9\] RICHARDSON S. D. (1985) Enharmed Text Critiquing 
using a Natural Language Parser : the CRITIQUE system. 
1BM Research Report RC 11332, Yorktown Heights. 

\[10\] SIGI)RDSON J. & GRENI'EX R. (19871)MT ofon..line 
searches in Japanese Data Bases. RPI, Lund Univ., 124 p. 

\[ 11\] VAUQUOIS B. (1988) BERNARI) VAUQUOIS et la 
TAO, vhagt-cillq ans de Traduction Automatique, 
A NA\[,ECFES. BERNARD VAUQUOIS and MT, lwcmy, live 
ye~rs of M'F. Ass. Champollion & GETA, Grenoble, 700 p. 

I J 2\] ZAJAC R. (1988) imeractive ?)'anslatiot:~ : o ~e;.v 
a!~pro~ch. Prec. COLIN(;-88, Budapest, At~g. !%tL 

I ~!.1\] ZEMB .L M. (1982) l,,~; occurre~ces i~hdmatiqz~es, 
rh/.ma~iques e~ thdmatiques des archilexO.mes modau~. !~ 'q_,~ 
notkm sdmaa!.ico.logiqne de modalit6", (/niv. de Metz & 
Klincksieck, l~echc.rchc's linguistiques V!It, 75~.t 16. 
