<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C88-2125">
  <Title>IMPL~\[CI(TNESS~ A~:; A G(.lt~)I\[NG PRINC~itLE iN tV~AC~/li~NE TRANSLATION</Title>
  <Section position="5" start_page="600" end_page="600" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5. Conch~slon
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> An inte.uediate language for high-quality machine translation needs to he a full-fledged human language, due to the inherent lack of expressiveness that is an inevitable characteristic of artificial symbol systems. 1 argue that one can make a virtue of this necessity: A human language as intermediate representation allows for rendering the full content of the text without making semantic elements and relations more explicit than what is expressed by appropriately interrelated words of the intermediate language.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Of course the question arises whether, in that ease, any arbitrary language would be suited for this function. It should be pointed out, however, that the full range of trade-offs related to the choice of an intermediate language cannot be dealt with in this three-page contribution. My ideas about implicitness are closely related to one of at least three fundamental criteria for an intermediate language: expressiveness. The other two are regularity and semantic autonomy. Only when all criteria are considered together, can a choice be made.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>