skip to main content
short-paper

Translating Morphologically Rich Indian Languages under Zero-Resource Conditions

Authors Info & Claims
Published:13 October 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This work presents an in-depth analysis of machine translations of morphologically-rich Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages under zero-resource conditions. It focuses on Zero-Shot Systems for these languages and leverages transfer-learning by exploiting target-side monolingual corpora and parallel translations from other languages. These systems are compared with direct translations using the BLEU and TER metrics. Further, Zero-Shot Systems are used as pre-trained models for fine-tuning with real human-generated data taken in different proportions that range from 100 sentences to the entire training set. Performances of the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages are compared with a focus on their morphological complexity. The systems with a Dravidian source language performed much better and reached very near to the level of direct translations. This is observed likely due to morphological richness and complexity in the language, which in turn provided more room for transfer-learning in this case. A comparative analysis based on language families has been done. These systems were fine-tuned further, which in turn outperformed direct translations with just 500 parallel sentences for a Dravidian source language. However, systems with an Indo-Aryan source language showed similar performance after getting fine-tuned with 10,000 sentences.

References

  1. Ruchit Agrawal, Mihir Shekhar, and Dipti Misra. 2017. Integrating knowledge encoded by linguistic phenomena of indian languages with neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mining Intelligence and Knowledge Exploration. Springer, 287--296.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR'15), San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Yonatan Belinkov, Nadir Durrani, Fahim Dalvi, Hassan Sajjad, and James Glass. 2017. What do neural machine translation models learn about morphology?. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 861--872. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-1080Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Christian Bentz, Tatyana Ruzsics, Alexander Koplenig, and Tanja Samardzic. 2016. A comparison between morphological complexity measures: Typological data vs. language corpora. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Linguistic Complexity (cl4lc’16). 142--153.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Himanshu Choudhary, Aditya Kumar Pathak, Rajiv Ratan Saha, and Ponnurangam Kumaraguru. 2018. Neural machine translation for english-tamil. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Machine Translation: Shared Task Papers. 770--775.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jonathan H. Clark, Chris Dyer, Alon Lavie, and Noah A. Smith. 2011. Better hypothesis testing for statistical machine translation: Controlling for optimizer instability. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Short Papers--Volume 2. Association for Computational Linguistics, 176--181.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Fahim Dalvi, Nadir Durrani, Hassan Sajjad, Yonatan Belinkov, and Stephan Vogel. 2017. Understanding and improving morphological learning in the neural machine translation decoder. In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, Taipei, Taiwan, 142--151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Sandipan Dandapat and Christian Federmann. 2018. Iterative data augmentation for neural machine translation: A low resource case study for english-telugu. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation. European Association for Machine Translation, 287--292.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Thanh-Le Ha, Jan Niehues, and Alexander Waibel. 2016. Toward multilingual neural machine translation with universal encoder and decoder. Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:1611.04798 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Girish Nath Jha. 2012. The TDIL program and the Indian language corpora initiative. In Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Melvin Johnson, Mike Schuster, Quoc V. Le, Maxim Krikun, Yonghui Wu, Zhifeng Chen, Nikhil Thorat, Fernanda Viégas, Martin Wattenberg, Greg Corrado, et al. 2017. Google’s multilingual neural machine translation system: Enabling zero-shot translation. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Ling. 5 (2017), 339--351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Kimmo Kettunen. 2014. Can type-token ratio be used to show morphological complexity of languages? J. Quant. Ling. 21, 3 (2014), 223--245.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Philipp Koehn. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the MT Summit, Vol. 5. Citeseer, 79--86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Anoop Kunchukuttan and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2017. Learning variable length units for SMT between related languages via byte pair encoding. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Subword and Character Level Models in NLP. 14--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Anoop Kunchukuttan, Abhijit Mishra, Rajen Chatterjee, Ritesh Shah, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2014. Shata-anuvadak: Tackling multiway translation of indian languages. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Surafel Melaku Lakew, Mauro Cettolo, and Marcello Federico. 2018. A comparison of transformer and recurrent neural networks on multilingual neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 641--652.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Surafel M. Lakew, Quintino F. Lotito, Matteo Negri, Marco Turchi, and Marcello Federico. 2017. Improving zero-shot translation of low-resource languages. In Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Spoken Language Translation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 311--318.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Alberto Poncelas, Dimitar Shterionov, Andy Way, Gideon Maillette de Buy Wenniger, and Peyman Passban. 2018. Investigating backtranslation in neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation. European Association for Machine Translation, 249--258.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin Popel and Ondřej Bojar. 2018. Training tips for the transformer model. Prague Bull. Math. Ling. 110, 1 (2018), 43--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Matīss Rikters, Mārcis Pinnis, and Rihards Krišlauks. 2018. Training and adapting multilingual NMT for less-resourced and morphologically rich languages. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’18).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Sukanta Sen, Kamal Kumar Gupta, Asif Ekbal, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2018. IITP-MT at WAT2018: Transformer-based multilingual indic-english neural machine translation system. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Asian Translation (WAT’18).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Improving neural machine translation models with monolingual data. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Vol. 1. 86--96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. 2016. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Vol. 1. 1715--1725.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Lierni Sestorain, Massimiliano Ciaramita, Christian Buck, and Thomas Hofmann. 2018. Zero-shot dual machine translation. Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:1805.10338 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Ivan Skorokhodov, Anton Rykachevskiy, Dmitry Emelyanenko, Sergey Slotin, and Anton Ponkratov. 2018. Semi-supervised neural machine translation with language models. In Proceedings of the AMTA 2018 Workshop on Technologies for MT of Low Resource Languages (LoResMT’18). 37--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Matthew Snover, Bonnie Dorr, Richard Schwartz, Linnea Micciulla, and John Makhoul. 2006. A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. In Proceedings of Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (Vol. 200, No. 6).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 5998--6008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhen Yang, Wei Chen, Feng Wang, and Bo Xu. 2018. Improving neural machine translation with conditional sequence generative adversarial nets. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), Vol. 1. 1346--1355.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Translating Morphologically Rich Indian Languages under Zero-Resource Conditions

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!