<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W91-0115">
  <Title>Handling Pragmatic Information With A Reversible Architecture</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="123" end_page="125" type="evalu">
    <SectionTitle>
5. Discussions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> As mentioned in (Emele and Zajac,1990), the proposed approach inevitably leads to the consequence that the data structure becomes slightly complicated. However, due 12Because of space limitation, action expressions inform and utter are omitted in the figure.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  to the segregation of the structure such as the distinction between preconditions and constraints, the task of developing rules can be done independently. Thus, if you want, you can concentrate on developing grammar rules irrespective of the pragmatic information. If desired, however, pragmatics can be used to precisely stipulate some linguistic phenomena (Delin, 1990).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The semantic representation utilized here depends on the strong assumption that it can be systematically decomposed. It is advantageous that the assumption supports symmetry as discussed in (Noord,1990) and naturally realizes semantic indexing which leads to efficient processing (Calder, 1989). However, it limits the representation capability for semantic processing (Shieber et a1.,1989). The problems of semantic representation are still difficult, so their study is an ongoing task.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Syntactic information, or grammar rules in the paper is neutral in the sense that only one kind of rules, or axioms are sufficient for both parsing and generation; but their difference lies in their usage of information. In the case of parsing, syntactic information is used as a local cue to derive the semantic and pragmatic information. In the case of generation, it is used to prevent the production of ungrammatical strings.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> This difference appears to mirror asymmetry between writing and reading (or speaking and hearing). The reading process lets unknown words be hypothesized by referring to neighboring words that are understood.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Writing, on the other hand, is a process in which unknown words cannot be developed by examining adjacent words. Hypothesizing is used both for parsing and generation, but its role in these processes is different. It is used to derive a coherent interpretation from all words in the parsing, while it is used to smooth the conversational (or text) flow in generation. The difference of the hypothesis use seems to be one of the factors in explaining this asymmetry. The proposed architecture is certain to provide a basis to examine this claim in the sense that it integrates linguistic processes with a reasoning mechanism.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>