<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-2209">
  <Title>A tagger/lemmatiser for Dutch medical language</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="1148" end_page="2149" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Discussion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> As tar as we know, only one T/L for medical English exists (Paulussen and Martin, 1992), which has recently been adapted to medical Dutch and extended with semantic lal)elling (Maks and Mar-tin, 1996). Most of ttle T/Ls 6 attain a 5Probably, the ~mswer will be different depending on tile task of tile T/L: &amp;quot;pure&amp;quot; tagging or auxiliary function for the parser.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> ~Cf. (l'aulussen, 1992) for a detailed overview and discussion of some T/l,s - including CGC, Tag- null 95% - 97% score, although for ENGCG a 99.7 % succes rate is claimed (Tapanainen and Jiirvinen, 1994). All these taggers use a rather restricted tagset.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Therefore, we consider it fair to compare only our results on tagset2 with the scores of the mentioned T/Ls. It must be mentioned as well that word order in medical Dutch can be rather free. Moreover, medical sublanguage sometimes deviates considerably from the standard grammar rules. E.g. determiners can be easily skipped, which enhances the ditIiculty to distinguish a noun from certain conjugated verbal forms. As a conclusion, we believe that, our T/L performs relatively well and still has potentialities for improvement.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>