<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C80-1065">
  <Title>PRESENT AND FUTURE PARADIGMS</Title>
  <Section position="11" start_page="0" end_page="434" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
4. Concluding remarks
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> As in other problem-solving situations, simple methods should continue to be used in conjunction with more sophisticated ones.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Unfortunately, proponents of &amp;quot;very high&amp;quot; semantics seem too often to concentrate on interesting high level phenomenaeas anaphoric reference, discourse structure, causality and reasoning and to forget at the same time persisting and very frequent lower-level difficulties such as ambiguity of prepositional group dependency. Take Riesbeck's \[25 p. ll\] example ,'John hurt Mary because Mary informed Bill that John advised Rita to prevent Bill from buying the book by giving the look to John&amp;quot;. It seems obvious to the author that &amp;quot;by giving&amp;quot; relates to &amp;quot;prevent&amp;quot;. However, it could also relate to &amp;quot;hurt&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;informed&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;advised&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;buying&amp;quot; being excluded because of the coincidence of reference due to &amp;quot;the&amp;quot;). Take also Vauquois' example &amp;quot;the minister spoke of the candidate to the presidency&amp;quot;, and many other occurring with conjunction and enumeration.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> PARADIGM 8 : Reasonably large scale AT systems can rely only On semantics by features and static semantics in the near future. Scrip__t like methods must be complete d by automatic script generation and retrieval procedures before they can be used extensively. Semantic methods must complete and not discord previous ones.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> V - Computer environment for the users I. Essential functions and types of users The are different kinds of users of AT systems, intervening in different ways for different purposes, related to the functions of creation, maintenance and use. Specializgd linguists create the linguistic systems or subsystems, lexicographs and terminologists create and update the dictionaries, revisers and translaters use the system as a tool to produce translations, and the end user wants to know nothing about it, but is nevertheless the final judge.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> PARADIGM 9 : A modern AT system must allow large degrees of interactivity at ail functional levels, be transparent to the user, contain a (possibly specialized) data-base management system (for handling grammars, dictionaries, texts and their different versions as well as intermediate results and statistical information) and be integrated (from preediting and/or checking to revision and (photo) composition).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> 2. Types of use At creation time, interactivity is certainly essential, even during parts which will be fully automatic in a production environment.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Perhaps a mode should be provided in which the system could ask simple questions (choice of equivalents, for instance) to a translator sitting at a screen while doing the automatic rough translation part. Even that may be too costly in a production environment.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> For maintenance and updating of the linguistic data, we believe it is essential that an AT system provides ways of feed-back and communication between the different kinds of users, and between users and the system.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> 3. Human aspects The human and social aspects should not be neglected. To force a rigid system on revisors and translators is a guarantee of failure. It must be realized that AT can only be introduced step by step into some preexisting organizational structure. The translators and revisors of the EC did not only reject Systran because of its poor quality but also because they felt themselves becoming &amp;quot;slaves of the machine&amp;quot;, and condemned to a repetitive and frustrating kind of work.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> PARADIGM I0 : AT systems must be such that the users keep control over them, and not vice versa.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="434" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
VI - Types of implementation
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> This section is voluntarily short, as this question is not particular to AT systems. Hardware requirements for large MT systems are already met by minicomputers like IBM's 4300 series. Software requirements such as time-sharing and virtual memory are also available. Typically, GETA's current prototype Russian-French translation system executes with a central memory less than 1,5 Mbyte without any disk-access during the translation process, and uses 12 Mbytes on disk for linguistic files and the text data-bases. If the dictionaries would increase in size to, say, 40000 lexical units (more general than words, or roots), than 3 Mbyt~of virtual memory and 20 to 25 Mbytes on disk would be needed. Even microcomputers might support such systems in the (longer term) future.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> For the time being, such systems may be centralized, and operate on big computers, or be distributed on minicomputers, possibly linked through a network. The machine may be dedicated or not, and so forth. In addition to the hardware side, the software side is also important. Portability and efficiency are often conflicting goals. The implementation language(s) (~0PS the metalanguages) may be low-level (assembler, LP language) or high-level (FORTRAN, PASCAL, PL/I, ALGOL68, LISP, ADA,...). Another possibility is to devise a special abstract machine for the metalanguage.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2">  We believe that only the last two solutions should be considered, with re~PS portability and efficiency as the main criterion for choosing a high-level language.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> As a likely development, we foresee the use of AT systems first on big computers in large organizations, with or without teleprocessing, and then, in bureautics, on local minicomputers. However, some recent experience indicates that local development of user-tailored applications may well be done before bureaucratic inertia in large organizations allows decisions to be taken.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>