<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C94-2203">
  <Title>CHINESE SEGMENTATION DISAMBIGUATION</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="1247" end_page="1247" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
4 Discussion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> q_'he assignment for the weight vector is empirical. It is based on the following analysis in which ~l's reresent the truth of each evidence/hypothesis and ~O's represent the false.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Since the segmentation algorithm always produces a segmented string, it is assumed that the evidence from morphology is true in varying degrees depending on the complexity of the word chain. The justification of a hypothesis is based on the evidence presented by the pragmatic, semantic and syntactic aspects shown in the following table.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> ~-~ J pragmte I semte I s-sTfitC-</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> prove the truth of the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is false.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> * Case(2) indicates that if the evidence supports an incoherent grarumatical sentence inconsistent with the context/circumstance, then the hypothesis is false as in the case of ~,g~-~(a banana ate a monkey).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> * Case(3) indicates that if the evidence supports a meaningful but ungrammatical string inconsistent with the context/circumstance, then the hypothesis is false, i.e. ~g~ (he wretch) against the real fact that he is a nice guy.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> * Case(4) indicates that even if tile evidence supports a grammatical meaningful sentence but is inconsistent with the context/circumstance, then tile hypothesis is false, i.e., ,~,(~ 7vN ~ ~ N (the president's forced resignation makes people angry) violates the circumstance that people hate the president.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> * Case(5) indicates the case of an idiomatic expression where the string is literally ungrammatical and incoherent, but as a whole it can be interpreted figuratively to make perfect sense. Therefore, we assutTrle that the hypothesis is true as in tile case of :~z~I:~JPS, literally means &amp;quot;carwater-horse--dragon&amp;quot;, but figuratively, it nleans &amp;quot;very crowded&amp;quot;.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> (r) Case(6) indicates the case of a metaphor or metonymy which superficially it is an incoherent grammatical string, but by reasoning with the support of world knowledge it can be interpreted as a lneaninghd string. Then, it is assumed that the hypothesis is true, i.e., ~NN~g ~t (1 drink North-West wind) means &amp;quot;i have nothing to eat&amp;quot;.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> * Case(7) indicates that the evidence supports a meaningful but ungrammatical string consistent with the context/circumstance, then the hypothesis is true as in Nla;lti (he wretch) is consistent with the real fact that he is a bad guy.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> * Case(8) indicates that if all evidence gives positive support to the hypothesis, then tile hypothesis is true.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> 1)Yore the analysis, it seems to be that pragmatic knowledge provides the strongest evidence for the hypothesis. Therefore, the highest weight is assigned to the pragmatic aspect of the certainty factor, in the absence of pragmatic inforrnation a default assumption, that semantic evidence is more important than syntactic evidence, is made. This can he observed in daily life people communicate through many ungrammatical expressions without having a problem of transferring the message such as a brief email message: ~ DRAFT-cornmerzts hard copy best-asap to yw pls. \[t means &amp;quot;To  write the, comment for the Ill{AFT on the ha.rd COl)y would be the best. Please return it to Yorick Wilks ~s soon as possible.&amp;quot; The certainty factor Cl;' ix used under the premise tha,t a,ll of I;he evide, nce is rendered by mutua, lly exclusive observations. Sitice lemguage is a,n expression integr~ting synl;actic, semantic and pr~Lgmatic information, is the syntat:ti(:, sema,nti(: a,n(\[ I)r~gmatic evid(mce mutually exclusive? This is not so (:lca,r. All knowledge is cultur~dly (tel)e~l.d(mt , i.e. one paN;ieular instance m~y be ~meepta, b\]e in one culture but not in a,nothe, r. In this research a defmflt assumption is made that the obserw&gt; tions from various language ast)ects are independent. The questioa is left ope, for further discussiou.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>