The boundaries of meaning: a case study in neural machine translation

Words can be split into smaller segments in different ways. Some of them are illustrated below:

Cases like (1b), (1c), and (1e) were made famous by Quine (1960, §30) and Kaplan (1969). Quine drew a stark contrast between the occurrence of singular terms like ‘nine’ in semantically transparent contexts such as

Quine motivated his pessimism about (3) – (6) by assimilating the occurrence of ‘nine’ and other similar expressions in contexts such as (3) and (4) to their occurrence in (1b) and their analogs:

We are not unaccustomed to passing over occurrences that somehow “do not count” — ‘mary’ in ‘summary’, ‘can’ in ‘canary’; and we can allow similarly for all non-referential occurrences of terms, once we know what to look out for (Quine 1960, 144).

Kaplan’s approach, in contrast, was more optimistic. Getting inspiration from Frege’s notion of referential shift (Frege 1892), he took the occurrences of ‘nine’ in (3) and (4) to be fully transparent but denoting, not the number nine, but themselves (i.e. the expression ‘nine’, as in Kaplan (1969)), or their sense (in his version of intensional logic). With the aid of additional resources this allows one to make full sense of (3) – (6):

As Kaplan notes (Kaplan 1969), this is only the first step in a good, Fregean direction, “ripe with insight.” And his early response to Quine is just the tip of an iceberg.¹¹ 1 I.e. the ongoing debate on propositional attitude reports. For a recent overview, see Nelson (2022). I began with this classic exchange because it provides a useful background and a point of reference for my case study. What really matters for it is not where Quine and Kaplan disagree but where they agree: that no semantic sense can be made of the occurrence of ‘nine’ in ‘canine’ — see (1b) above — or, for that matter, of the occurrences of the subword segments in (1c – 1e). To paraphrase Kaplan, semantic concerns — substitution, existential generalization, and contribution to the meaning of the whole — are simply inappropriate to (1b – 1e) alike.²² 2 Presumably, neither Quine nor Kaplan would object to a standard morphosemantic analysis of (1a).^,33 3 Quine’s take on character segmentation such as (1e) is notable in the present context. He intimates (Quine 1960, 143–4, 189–90) that spelling or orthographic transcription may be preferable to quotation because, unlike quotation, orthographic transcription generates not even an illusion of transparency. I revisit character segmentation in Section 3.2 This seems to be a reasonable common ground.

The goal of this paper is to argue that recent developments in computational linguistics may prompt us to be more open-minded about this common ground. As recently noted by a leading researcher (Koehn 2020, 229),

In the onslaught of deep learning on natural language processing, the linguistic concept of the word has survived, even as concepts such as morphology or syntax have been relegated to be just latent properties of language that can be discovered automatically in the intermediate representations of neural network models. But even that may fall. Maybe the atomic unit of language should be just the consonants and vowels, or in their written form, a character in the writing system — a letter in Latin script, a logograph or just a stroke in Chinese.

Such claims require careful examination, and the devil may be in the details. Language translation, I submit, is a natural place to examine them. According to the conventional wisdom, meaning representation and meaning transfer are at the very core of translation.⁴⁴ 4 The conventional wisdom has been challenged from several directions usefully characterized by the translation scholar Rachel Weissbrod as follows: “[1] translation cannot transfer meaning; [2] meaning is not what translators are supposed to transfer; [3] translators are authorized to create meaning rather than transferring it; (4) translation studies is not about meaning” (Weissbrod 2018, 289). I return to the relationship between translation and meaning at the end of the paper. Thinkers as different as Schleiermacher, Heidegger, Benjamin, Quine, and Davidson approached this idea from rather different angles.⁵⁵ 5 For recent discussions of their views on translation, see Rawling and Wilson (2018). Jakobson (1959, 232) put it in a slogan: “The meaning of any linguistic sign is its translation into some further, alternative sign.” On this view, the meaning of ‘dog’ has much, if not everything, to do with the fact that it is variously translated as chien, Hund, and perro. But this is just a starting point. ‘dog$|$s’ is translated as chien$|$s or chien$|$nes, and ‘kick the bucket’ as casser sa pipe (“break his pipe”). Signs, or “semantic atoms,” therefore, may be word-internal functional morphemes such as ‘-s’, or entire idiomatic phrases; they may be smaller or larger than words. In a broader perspective, different languages describe (model, represent) the extra-linguistic reality (i.e. who did what to whom) in very different ways reflected in numerous and often crosscutting typologies. For example, the “one morpheme per word” pattern of isolating analytic languages, such as Chinese (Dawson and Phelan 2016, 171):

Translating between languages of different types is far from straightforward. In many cases it requires mapping subword sequences to word or phrase sequences and vice versa, and sometimes mapping a single long word into an entire sentence. It requires dealing with structures both below and above the word level whose relationship, traditionally studied in morphosyntax, may be complicated.

Even more intriguingly, Marian NMT⁸⁸ 8 https://marian-nmt.github.io — a state-of-the-art neural machine translation engine, developed primarily by the Microsoft Translator team and widely used in production — translates the word ‘periodontist’ from English to its nearest neighbor French as parodontiste, with the source and target segmented and aligned as shown below:⁹⁹ 9 Segmentation and alignment based on the OPUS-CAT implementation of Marian NMT (Nieminen 2021); trained on over 100M English-French sentence pairs from the OPUS collection of multilingual corpora (https://opus.nlpl.eu).

period $|$ on $|$ t $|$ ist

par $|$ od $|$ ont $|$ iste

Both Quine and Kaplan would categorize such segmentations as purely “accidental”; the occurrence of ‘period’ in ‘periodontist’, in particular, is very similar to the occurrence of ‘nine’ in ‘canine’. However, despite their allegedly opaque nature, such subword segmentations and alignments are at work in highly efficient end-to-end machine translation systems. The computational value of such processes is unquestionable. But can any sense be made of them outside machine learning?

In the remainder of this paper I attempt to cast light on this question, in the spirit of making artificial intelligence more transparent and explainable. The plan is as follows: Section 2 presents the key ideas of neural machine translation (NMT) in a way that avoids excessive technicalities but highlights the relevant details. Section 3 is a brief overview of the subword and character segmentation methods which have become part and parcel of NMT and related natural language processing applications, followed by a discussion of their theoretical significance in Section 4. I summarize the lessons of my case study and explore the broader linguistic and cognitive plausibility of some non-traditional ways of thinking about subword and character meaning in Section 5.

Importantly, NMT is also the birthplace of subword segmentation algorithms.¹⁴¹⁴ 14 Sennrich, Haddow, and Birch (2016); Kudo (2018); Kudo and Richardson (2018). Initially introduced to address the problem of rare and unknown words,¹⁵¹⁵ 15 Luong et al. (2015). they have proven incredibly efficient and indispensable to machine translation, as well as many other natural language processing (NLP) tasks. The origin, rapid evolution, and deployment of subword segmentation methods combine highly theoretical and sometimes speculative ideas with very practical considerations and ad hoc engineering innovations. This makes them ripe for analysis. Coming to terms with these developments may help linguists, philosophers, cognitive scientists, and researchers working in related fields catalyze their thinking about linguistic meaning and about ways in which it can be encoded and processed in natural and artificial systems, by suggesting new approaches to traditional problems.

Below I summarize some of these developments. The rest of this section introduces the NMT architecture and motivates the need for subword segmentation, which is described in Section 3. In Sections 4 and 5 I relate these developments to broader concerns about linguistic meaning.

One important strand of work deals with the question of whether subword or character segmentation methods can successfully model morphology; for example, learn to split ‘canines’ as ‘canine|s’ rather than ‘can|in|e|s’ or ‘ca|nine|s’. There are two sides to this question: (i) Is a method such as BPE or character segmentation capable of learning morphology on its own, from pure strings of text? (ii) Can an NMT model as a whole benefit from incorporating explicit morphological tools³⁴³⁴ 34 Such as Morfessor (Smit et al. 2014; Grönroos et al. 2014). into the pre-processing segmentation step (and/or post-processing de-segmentation step)? The first question becomes particularly tangible in the context of recent work demonstrating neural networks’ ability to learn, from pure strings of text, complex syntactic phenomena such as center embedding and other long-distant dependencies.³⁵³⁵ 35 See, in particular, Gulordava et al. (2018) and Linzen and Baroni (2021). In view of the almost continuous nature of morphosyntax,³⁶³⁶ 36 A world-renowned typologist Martin Haspelmath has argued that word is a poorly defined concept which has much to do with our “bias towards written language and the strong influence of the habit of word separation by spaces in Western languages” (Haspelmath 2011, 33) and that there is “no good basis for a general, cross-linguistically viable word concept, and hence no basis for a general bifurcation between morphology and syntax.” They are best thought of as a unitary theoretical domain (ibid., 32, 72). Cf. a related discussion at the end of Section 1. one should expect phenomena of that sort to have counterparts in the corresponding morphological processes.³⁷³⁷ 37 Translating a single word of a polysynthetic language such as Sora into a long sentence of English is probably the most striking example of morphosyntax interpolating between two very different semantic decompositions (cf. examples (9) and (10) in Section 1 above). While modeling such cases in MT is not yet practically possible due to the virtual absence of training data for polysynthetic languages (but see Ortega, Castro Mamani, and Cho (2020) for important first steps in this direction), much effort has gone recently into studying low-resource language directions for which there is some data (say, 100–300K sentence pairs), even if it is two orders of magnitude smaller than the data for English-German or French-English. Low-resource settings can also be recreated by limiting the amount of data otherwise available to the system.

Can one go below the level of characters? Surprisingly, or perhaps not, the answer is yes. All Unicode characters are composed of bytes, so there is a sense in which all the world language “vocabularies” eventually bottom out at just 256 tokens! This feature was exploited in some earlier work on segmentation in NMT (Costa-jussà, Escolano, and Fonollosa 2017). Chinese, Japanese, and other logographic languages present an especially interesting case of subword semantics heavily informed by both orthography and phonology, with a distinctive morphosyntax arising from their complicated interaction.³⁸³⁸ 38 Chinese words, in particular, are composed of characters (hanzi) representing separate and unchangeable free morphemes. There is no inflexion and no natural spaces between words, so tokenization is often necessary to mark their boundaries for downstream NLP tasks such as translation. The resulting “words” are already too short (2.4 characters on average) for any subword segmentation method such as BPE to be useful. Most characters, however, are structured logograms whose parts (ideographs or radicals) combine in a systematic way to encode semantic and phonetic information. For example, Yeh, Chou, and Ho (2017) note that the character 猜(‘guess’) is composed of the semantic radical 犭denoting a categorical unit of meaning (‘wild animal’) and the phonetic radical 青providing a pronunciation cue [qing1], which is needed due to the widespread homophony in Chinese. Importantly, some phonetic radicals can have meaning on their own and can even function as standalone characters. Thus 青means ‘cyan’ when occurring in isolation. This blending of phonology with semantics is quite remarkable, and I briefly revisit it in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 below. ^,3939 39 Building on earlier studies, Zhang and Komachi recently investigated the performance of RNN- and transformer-based NMT systems for six language pairs involving Chinese, Japanese, and English (Zhang and Komachi 2021) at different levels of sub-character segmentation — “raw ideographs,” “finest ideographs,” and strokes — while making flexible use of the resulting shared vocabulary tokens between Chinese and Japanese (such as many common strokes historically imported from hanzi to kanji). Their results show that finer granularity of sub-character segmentation for both Chinese and Japanese consistently improves MT performance peaking at the stroke level on the source side and “ideo-finest” on the target side. The latter may be due to the semantic opacity of strokes or, as the authors suggest, to the decoding challenges presented by the much longer stroke sequences. Or both. The question might be worth exploring further.

The primary goal of the foregoing brief and selective survey of recent subword, character, and sub-character segmentation methods was to highlight important theoretical issues emerging from their application. I conclude this section with two general comments.

(1) While each of these results is valid and important, their cross-comparison is difficult because of the different settings, goals, corpora, domains, language pairs, base model varieties, training regimes, evaluations methods, and many other confounding factors involved.⁴⁰⁴⁰ 40 Unlike in many other shared machine translation tasks, there are still no uniform benchmarks for segmentation, which is hardly surprising given the sheer diversity of the approaches. This makes the overall picture rather mosaic. The field is developing very rapidly, with entire conferences and sessions devoted to segmentation in NMT and other NLP tasks. At the time of writing, various character and sub-character methods continue to perform best on some language pairs, domains, or datasets while subword methods outperform them on most others. And in many cases, what matters may indeed be hiding in the numerous details.

(2) Despite this diversity, the efficacy of many of these methods is beyond doubt. This calls for an explanation and a broader reflection, especially in cases of seemingly “opaque” segmentations breaking the performance records.

To take stock and prepare the ground for such reflection, I summarize the methods considered in this section in a schematic form. At some level of abstraction, every NMT model maps a sequence of indexed source tokens to a corresponding target sequence (Figures 1–3). The tokens may be words, subwords, characters or sub-characters. The first pre-processing step transforms the actual input string of source words into a sequence of such tokens which is then fed to the embedding layer generating their dense representations. This transformation may be as simple as identity (in word-based models) or as complicated as a separate neural network layer. A chosen encoder-decoder model maps the resulting representations to the target token predictions (this is where most of the deep learning magic happens) while using their embeddings “to keep going.” Finally the resulting string of the target tokens (i.e. sub-characters, characters, or subwords) is post-processed into an output sequence of the actual target words. Table 1 below illustrates various (real and hypothetical) segmentations of ‘periodontists’.

When everything is said and done, the difference between ‘perio$|$dont$|$ist$|$s’ and ‘period$|$on$|$t$|$ist$|$s’ is still staring us in the face. And making semantic sense of alignments such as those in Figures 4(b) and (c) still looks to be an (almost) impossible task.⁴¹⁴¹ 41 As noted earlier, the occurrence of ‘period’ in ‘period$|$on$|$t$|$ist$|$s’ is quite similar to the occurrence of ‘nine’ in ‘ca—nine’; Quine (1960, §30) and Kaplan (1969) would consider both of them orthographic accidents. Approaching the matter from a completely different, computational angle, Chung and colleagues seem to agree with Quine and Kaplan on this point: “Because of this view of words as basic units of meaning (either in the form of lexemes or derived form) from linguistics, much of previous work in natural language processing has focused on using words as basic units of which a sentence is encoded as a sequence. Also, the potential difficulty in finding a mapping between a word’s character sequence and meaning [for instance, ‘quit’, ‘quite’ and ‘quiet’ are one edit distance away from each other but have distinct meanings] has likely contributed to this trend toward word-level modelling” (Chung, Cho, and Bengio 2016, 1695). But one general lesson from the above discussion is that most of the segmentations and translation alignments similar to those shown in Table 1 and Figure 4 can be operative in highly successful end-to-end NMT systems, despite the fact that many of them cut across the natural “meaning joints” typically corresponding to intra-word morpheme boundaries.

Perhaps no semantic sense can be made of such phenomena, and we simply have to accept the “unreasonable effectiveness” of subword and character segmentation in NMT as another unfathomable fact of deep learning. I want, however, to end by briefly reviewing two unrelated linguistic proposals that might help make non-morphemic segmentation a bit more reasonable.

At some approximation,⁴²⁴² 42 Adapted from Vania (2020, §3.2). all the segmentation methods considered in Section 3 can be said to learn a function $f$ from the representations (i.e. the embeddings) of subword units $e_{sub}$ to the representations (the embeddings) of words $e_{w}$:

Some MT researchers explicitly refer to $f$ as a composition function,

which can establish a mapping between combinations of orthographic units and lexical meaning, that is learned using the bilingual context so that it can produce representations that are optimized for machine translation (Ataman and Federico 2018, 306).⁴³⁴³ 43 See also Ling et al. (2015).

Below I consider two extant linguistic proposals approaching this question from the opposite sides of the semantics spectrum.

The main lessons from the case study of the subword and character segmentation methods in neural machine translation undertaken in this paper are as follows: (i) these methods are many and diverse, forming almost a continuous spectrum, with explicit morphologically-informed approaches on one side and sub-character methods on the other; (ii) nearly all these methods have demonstrated highly successful performance in select settings, often without recognizing any a priori, human-imposed boundaries of subword structure; (iii) this success calls for an explanation that must be sensitive to the details of a given application; (iv) such an explanatory project could be aligned with important topics in theoretical linguistics and philosophy of language, and (v) might suggest new ways of thinking about some traditional problems by extending the boundaries of their logical space.

While exploring these avenues in detail is not possible here, I want to briefly revisit the relationship between translation and meaning mentioned in Section 1.⁵⁶⁵⁶ 56 I thank a referee for encouraging me to do so, and for a very helpful suggestion. In light of the foregoing discussion, this relationship may give rise to a number of theoretical options. According to the traditional view, the connection between translation and meaning is very tight: good translation involves, and perhaps boils down to, meaning preservation. Some go further and argue, in effect, that meaning is what is preserved by good translation (Jakobson 1959). If that is the case then, given that good translation may be learned by a neural network as direct mapping between semantically opaque subword segments devoid of any “standard meaning,” the empirical success of these methods could perhaps constitute a reductio of the attempts to ground meaning in translation (rather than in reference or truth conditions).

Alternatively, and more controversially, one may refuse to call what neural networks do translation, perhaps by analogy with refusal to characterize natural language “understanding” performed by neural networks trained on any number of chosen objectives, as any kind of understanding. Or even with the well-motivated refusal to call LaMDA or other large language models sentient.⁵⁷⁵⁷ 57 In reaction to Google’s engineer’s recent provocative claim (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/11/google-ai-lamda-blake-lemoine). On this view, real translation requires genuine grasp of meaning grounded in world knowledge, an unlimited number of contextual parameters, and other anchoring points unavailable to neural models. This is a plausible view and it is, in fact, popular in some circles. But defending it vis-à-vis recent developments which are rapidly erasing the remaining boundaries between human and machine translation is getting progressively difficult and may, in the end, be an uphill battle. Despite all its very real limitations, MT has become amazingly, even scaringly, good. Simply refusing to characterize it as translation may not be the best way to deal with the current situation. And the analogies with the hype associated with large language models may be strained: general enthusiasm about machine translation has no science fiction flavor to it, and no claim of “sentience” of any sort is made by the stakeholders. Indeed, MT is widely (but wrongly) perceived as being “solved” and, therefore, relatively uninteresting, compared to giant language models and other recent machine learning sensations.⁵⁸⁵⁸ 58 One of the luminaries of the field of machine translation describes the flow of intellectual resources through MT as follows: “It is only a slightly exaggerated characterization to say that the recent wave of young and excitable deep-learning researchers moved in, showed improvements through their methods, declared success, and moved to bigger and better things” (Koehn 2020, 29).

The two theoretical options sketched above are based on severing the connection between neural MT and meaning, either by denying that translation, human or machine, is constitutive of meaning or, more controversially, by denying that MT is genuine translation. This leaves room for a third and, perhaps, the most controversial option that must be mentioned. Traditional semantics starts by drawing a binary divide between meaningful and meaningless strings. And much of traditional philosophy of language starts with a reflection on Meaning with a capital ‘M’. But recent progress in natural language processing, as manifested in the stunning success of NMT, suggests that one could also start by thinking of linguistic meaning as something that can be processed by natural and artificial neural network-based systems alongside other features (morphosyntactic, phonetic, or orthographic) and then let the chips fall where they may. To borrow Kaplan’s expression, this way of thinking may be “ripe with insight.” In the end, there may be many dimensions of meaning that are specific to particular tasks, language pairs, domains, corpora, and processing methods. And the relative significance of such dimensions may turn on a complicated balance of factors including overall performance, computational efficiency and cost, as well as explanatory transparency.⁵⁹⁵⁹ 59 I note a convergence with broadly similar lessons Baroni draws from his recent review of generalization and compositionality in deep learning-based NLP: “Language …is …host to plenty of productive phenomena that obey less systematic, fuzzier laws, ranging from phonologically driven generalizations of irregular inflections […], to partial semantic transparency in derivational morphology […], to semi-lexicalized constraints in syntax […], to the early stages of grammaticalization in language change […]. Progress in understanding the linguistic capabilities of neural networks might help us to make precise predictions about the origin, scope and mechanics of these phenomena, and ultimately to develop a more encompassing account of the amazing productivity and malleability of human language” (Baroni 2019, 6). On this approach, rather than being a discrete parameter or feature, meaningfulness may be a continuous and multidimensional phenomenon. But we must leave the matter here.