<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="E99-1027">
  <Title>Specifying a shallow grammatical representation</Title>
  <Section position="5" start_page="206" end_page="207" type="evalu">
    <SectionTitle>
4 Results and discussion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> It is interesting to note how high the agreement between the linguists is even before the first negotiations (99.80% of all words are analysed identically). Of the remaining differences, most, somewhat disappointingly, turned out to be classifted as 'slips of attention'; upon inspection they seemed to contain little linguistic interest. Especially one of the linguists admitted that most of the job seemed too much of a routine to keep one mentally alert enough. The number of genuine conflicts of opinion were much in line with observations by Voutilainen and J~irvinen. However, the negotiations were not altogether easy, considering that in all they took almost nine hours. Presumably uncertain analyses and conflicts of opinion were not easily passed by.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The main finding of this experiment is that basically Voutilainen and J~vinen's observations about the high specifiability and consistent usability of the ENGCG morphological tag set seem to be extendable to new users of the tag set. In  Proceedings of EACL '99 other words, the reputedly surface-syntactic tag set seems to be learnable as well. Overall, the experiment reported here provides evidence for the optimistic position about the specifiability of at least certain kinds of linguistic representations.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> It remains for future research, perhaps as a collaboration between teams working with different tag sets, to find out, what exactly are the properties that make some linguistic representations consistently learnable and usable, and others less SO.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>