Storage and computation
David_Tuggy at SIL.ORG
David_Tuggy at SIL.ORG
Wed Oct 14 00:05:00 UTC 1998
Deborah Ruuskanen wrote:
"Machine translation has tried to use ever[y] larger memories to store
and retrieve translations once made and match them against
translations to be made: this method simply does not work if the
translation to be done is not an *exact* match. So much for retrieval.
However, if it *is* an exact match, then retrieval saves mucho time
..."
So much for machine retrieval, perhaps. But do we need to posit that
humans doing retrieval are as literal-minded as computers are? It
would seem self-evident that we excel at non-exact matching.
Maybe another way to say it is that we apparently prefer to add a
little computation to our retrieval system to make it much more
flexible and efficient, rather than to invest a great deal more
computation starting over from scratch.
Once again, if we set up computation and retrieval as either/or
alternatives, we're setting ourselves on the wrong track. People do
both, and typically at the same time. Certainly things are weighted,
as Bill Croft and Wally Chafe and others have been saying, much more
heavily towards retrieval than the "generative" metaphor would lead
you to expect.
A closely related issue: what are we matching, anyway? Probably
something vastly different from the patterns of 0's and 1's or
higher-level letters that are all the computer knows. What is not an
exact phonological (much less phonetic) or even lexico-syntactic match
may be much more nearly an exact match of the somewhat sloppy semantic
stuff we're usually primarily comparing in translation. Even the
phonological and lexico-semantic stuff is almost certainly not be
stored in as rigid a form as a computer would do it.
--David Tuggy
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Storage and computation
Author: druuskan at CC.HELSINKI.FI at internet
Date: 10/13/98 10:07 AM
More information about the Funknet
mailing list