<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C86-1023">
  <Title>Kagaku Kenky~-Hi IIojokin Ippan-Kenky-~-TB</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="110" end_page="110" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5. Conclusions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> This paper has dealt with the \].imitations and potentials of structure-bound machine translation (MT) from the standpoint of the idiosyncratic gaps (IG) that exist between Japanese and \]';nglish. Tile conmmrcial machine translation system (MT) curreut\].y on the market: are inept at handling riG since they are still not capable of understanding the nleaning of sentences l:i.ko human translators can, and are thns bound by the ,qyntactic structures of the source sentences. This was pointed out by applying the Cross Translation Test (CTT) to several sample sentences, which brought the performance limitations of structure-bound mach:i.ne translation into sharp relief. But the CTT applications also showed that if the source language sentence Js simple, logical and contains few ambiguities, today's fG-neglectJng machine translation systems are capable of generating acceptable target sentences, sentences that preserve the meaning of the original (source) sentences atrd can be understood.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> However ~ source sentences are not always simple, logical and unambiguous. Therefore, to improve the performance of machine trans\]ation systems it will be necessary to develop technology and techniques aimed at rewriting .';ource sentences prior to inputting them into systems, and at formalizing (norma\]izing) and control.ling source sentence preparation. One move in this direction in recent years has had to do with tile source language itself. Research has been steadily advancing in the area of Sub\].anguage Theory. Sub-languages are more regulated and controlled than everyday humml languages, and therefore make it easier to create simple, logical sentences that are re\].atively free of ambiguities. Some examples of sublanguage theories currently under study are &amp;quot;sublanguage&amp;quot; \[Kittredge and Lehrberger 1982\]~&amp;quot;controlled language&amp;quot; \[Nagao \].98311 and &amp;quot;normalized language&amp;quot; \[Yoshida \]984\].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The aim of these sublanguage theories is to assign certain rules arld restrict:lens to \]:he everyday human \]anguagea we use to trausmXt and explain information, improving the accuracy of parsing operations necessary \]for nlachJ.ne processJ.ng~ aud enhancing human understanding. Some examples of the \].ingnJstic rules and restrictions envisioned by the sublanguage theories are rules governing the creation of lexicons \[Kigtredge and Lehrberger 1982\], rules governing the use of function words related to the log:tca\] construction of sentences \[Yoshida 1984\] and ru\]es governirlg the expression of son\]cut\]el dependencies \[Nagao 1.983\] .</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>