Cross-Lingual Transfer for Machine Translation in Turkic Languages
Authors: Omer Burak Cinar, Mehmet Mert Dalkilic, Cagri Toraman
Organizations: Middle East Technical University · Computer Engineering Department
Abstract
Cross-lingual transfer is central to low-resource machine translation, but its behavior within closely related language families remains insufficiently characterized. We study transfer among five Turkic languages; Turkish, Azerbaijani, Uzbek, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz; using pairwise transfer matrices. In this setting, each model is fine-tuned with one transfer source and evaluated on a different transfer target while the translation target remains the same. Across mT5 experiments, we find that transfer is strongest between closely related Turkic pairs, especially Turkish-Azerbaijani and Kazakh-Kyrgyz. We also show that transfer direction matters, and that the same transfer source-transfer target pair can behave differently when the translation target changes. Latinization improves BLEU and chrF in several script-mismatched settings, but its effect is not uniform across metrics. Additional analyses show that transfer sources are mostly stable across different datasets and model settings.
We present a study on low-resource machine translation for the Tangkhul-English (nmf-en) language pair. Tangkhul is a severely under-resourced Tibeto-Burman language spoken primarily in Manipur, India, with virtually no prior natural language processing infrastructure. We describe two systems: (1) a primary system based on ByT5-large fine-tuned on 38,336 Tangkhul-English parallel sentence pairs, and (2) a contrastive system based on mT5-small fine-tuned on the same corpus. Our primary ByT5-large system achieves a corpus BLEU score of 39.97, chrF++ of 58.07, BERTScore F1 of 0.8104, and COMET (wmt22-comet-da) of 0.7302 on a held-out test set of 3,856 sentences. We further discuss the orthographic challenges specific to Tangkhul's Latin-script diacritics, the domain bias of our training corpus (which comprises biblical text, stories, and conversational data), and avenues for future improvement through data diversification and domain adaptation.
This paper presents the first comprehensive comparative analysis of modern machine learning architectures for transliteration between Tajik (Cyrillic script) and Persian (Arabic script). A key contribution is the creation and validation of a unique parallel corpus aggregated from multiple heterogeneous sources, including crowdsourced projects, lexicographic pairs, parallel texts of "Shahnameh", diplomatic articles, texts of "Masnavi-i Ma'navi", official terminology lists, and transliterated correspondences. The initial dataset comprised 328,253 sentence pairs; a representative subset of 40,000 pairs was formed using stratified random sampling. The experiment compared six classes of models: rule-based baseline, LSTM with attention, character-level Transformer, G2P Transformer (trained from scratch), pre-trained multilingual models (mBART, mT5 with LoRA), and byte-level ByT5. Results demonstrate the overwhelming superiority of ByT5 (chrF++ 87.4 for Tajik to Farsi, 80.1 for reverse). The G2P Transformer significantly outperformed mBART (72.3 vs. 62.2 chrF++) despite limited data. Models using subword tokenization (mT5) failed completely (chrF++ less than 18.5). The findings demonstrate that for accurate transliteration of the Tajik-Farsi pair, architectures operating at the byte or character level are unequivocally more effective than traditional multilingual Seq2Seq models relying on subword tokenization.
Closely related languages written in different scripts expose little surface overlap to multilingual models, limiting cross-lingual transfer. We compare two approaches to script unification: the general-purpose uroman romanizer and the family-specific Common Turkic Script (CTS). We train matched fastText models on transliterated Wikipedia corpora from 11 Turkic languages and evaluate them on WikiANN named entity recognition and Universal Dependencies part-of-speech tagging. CTS and uroman show no significant difference on NER, while both substantially outperform the official monolingual fastText baselines. POS results reveal no universal winner: language-specific differences are associated with the cross-lingual character n-gram coverage induced by each representation, while within-language coverage becomes more important when target-language supervision is available. Although CANINE-c achieves higher overall POS averages, the substantially simpler fastText-based systems remain competitive on several treebanks. Overall, the effectiveness of script unification depends on the language, the induced subword overlap, and the available supervision.