<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="A97-1023">
  <Title>Techniques for Accelerating a Grammar-Checker</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="156" end_page="157" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Significance and Caveats
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The techniques to be used for gaining overall performance, speed and nlemory efficiency etc., of a gramma.r-checking system presented result solely frorn research concerning relevant l)rOl)erties of the syntax of a particular language (( :ze(-ll, in t)art also Bulgarian), and, herlce, they are strongly languagedependent. However, it seems t.o be self evident that the core idea is transferable t&lt;) &lt;:)tiler languages. The  introduction of these techniques contributes to tile process of ripening of the system into a real industrial application at least in the following points: * it speeds up the overall performance of the system considerably (in the order ranging from one to two magnitudes, depending on the text to be processed) by avoiding full-fledged parsing to be performed in unnecessary cases or by making this parsing simpler * it extends its coverage, in particular the caimbilities of the system to recognize a.s error-free also a large nmnber of sentences which in the original version of the system would be unanalyzable by the non-relaxed grammar (ms well as by the grammar with relaxed constraints, tot that matter) due to either incompleteness of the grammar proper or the exhaustion of hardware resources.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> There is a serious caveat to be issued, however: since they do not employ fllll anMysis of the input sentence, these techniques are - albeit probably only rarely on the practical level - more likely to issue incorrect error messages, in the sense that their capabilities of detecting an erroneous sentence are exacffy the same as on the full-fledged approach, but their capabilities of detecting 'what kind of error occurred in the sentence are slightly reduced. For example, in (the Czech equivalent of) tile sentence *Your wife drives very drives tast a grammar-checker based solely on the flfll-fledged philosophy would correctly recognize that the same verb is repeated twice, while a checker using only finite state automaton detecting the presence/absence of a comma or a coordinating conjunction between two finite verbs issues a message concerning exactly the 'missing connna' - and similar exarrq:~les can be constructed also for all the other cases. In other words, there is a price to be paid for the speed-up of the error-checking process by means of tile techniques proposed.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>