Closure properties of linear context-free tree languages with an application to optimality theory

Context-free tree grammars, originally introduced by Rounds [Math. Systems Theory 4(3) (1970) 257-287], are powerful grammar devices for the definition of tree languages. The properties of the class of context-free tree languages have been studied for more than three decades now. Particularly important here is the work by Engelfriet and Schmidt [J. Comput. System Sci. 15(3) (1977) 328-353, 16(1) (1978) 67-99]. In the present paper, we consider a subclass of the class of context-free tree languages, namely the class of linear context-free tree languages. A context-free tree grammar is linear, if no rule permits the copying of subtrees. For this class of linear context-free tree languages we show that the grammar derivation mode, which is very important for the general class of context-free tree languages, is immaterial. The main result we present is the closure of the class of linear context-free tree languages under linear frontier-to-root tree transduction mappings. Two further results are the closure of this class under linear root-to-frontier tree transduction mappings and under intersection with regular tree languages.The results of the first part of the paper are applied to the formalisation of optimality theory. Optimality theory (OT), introduced by Prince and Smolensky [Tech. Report 1993], is a linguistic framework in which the mapping of one level of linguistic representation to another is based on rules and filters. The rules generate candidate expressions in the target representation, which are subsequently checked against the filters, so that only those candidates remain that survive this filtering process. A proposal to formalise the description of OT using formal language theory and in particular automata theory was presented by Karttunen [Proceedings of International Workshop on Finite-State Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1998, pp. 1-12] and Frank and Satta [Comput. Linguistics 24 (1998) 307-315]. The main result of these papers is that if the generator is defined as a finite-state string transducer and the filters are defined by finite-state string automata, then the whole OT-system can be defined by means of a finite-state string transducer. Considering the fact that most parts of linguistics have trees as their underlying data structures instead of strings, we show here that generators can be extended to linear frontier-to-root tree transducers on linear context-free tree languages--with constraints being regular tree languages--while the computation of optimal candidates can still be performed using finite-state techniques (over trees).

[1]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language , 1985 .

[2]  Gerhard Jäger,et al.  Recursion by optimization: on the complexity of bidirectional optimality theory , 2003, Natural Language Engineering.

[3]  Joost Engelfriet,et al.  Bottom-up and top-down tree transformations— a comparison , 1975, Mathematical systems theory.

[4]  Gerhard Jäger,et al.  Some Notes on the Formal Properties of Bidirectional Optimality Theory , 2002, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[5]  Joost Engelfriet,et al.  IO and OI. II , 1978, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[6]  Ferenc Gécseg,et al.  Tree Languages , 1997, Handbook of Formal Languages.

[7]  T. S. E. Maibaum,et al.  A Generalized Approach to Formal Languages , 1974, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[8]  James Rogers,et al.  A descriptive approach to language-theoretic complexity , 1998 .

[9]  William C. Rounds,et al.  Mappings and grammars on trees , 1970, Mathematical systems theory.

[10]  John Doner,et al.  Tree Acceptors and Some of Their Applications , 1970, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[11]  Uwe Mönnich,et al.  A Model-Theoretic Description of Tree Adjoining Grammars , 2001, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Reinhard Blutner,et al.  Some Aspects of Optimality in Natural Language Interpretation , 2000, J. Semant..

[13]  J. Van Leeuwen,et al.  Handbook of theoretical computer science - Part A: Algorithms and complexity; Part B: Formal models and semantics , 1990 .

[14]  William C. Rounds,et al.  Tree-oriented proofs of some theorems on context-free and indexed languages , 1970, STOC.

[15]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar , 2004 .

[16]  Joost Engelfriet,et al.  Macro Tree Transducers , 1985, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[17]  Bruno Courcelle,et al.  The Expression of Graph Properties and Graph Transformations in Monadic Second-Order Logic , 1997, Handbook of Graph Grammars.

[18]  Hans Kamp,et al.  Linguistic form and its computation , 2001 .

[19]  J. Stemberger,et al.  Optimality Theory , 2003 .

[20]  Jean-Pierre Jouannaud,et al.  Rewrite Systems , 1991, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics.

[21]  James W. Thatcher,et al.  Generalized finite automata theory with an application to a decision problem of second-order logic , 1968, Mathematical systems theory.

[22]  T. S. E. Maibaum.  Erratum: A Generalized Approach to Formal Languages , 1977, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[23]  J. Engelfriet,et al.  IO and OI , 1975 .

[24]  Lauri Karttunen,et al.  The Proper Treatment of Optimality in Computational Phonology , 1998, ArXiv.

[25]  Giorgio Satta,et al.  Optimality Theory and the Generative Complexity of Constraint Violability , 1998, CL.

[26]  HANS-PETER KOLB,et al.  Descriptions of Cross-Serial Dependencies , 2000, Grammars.

[27]  Hartmut Ehrig,et al.  Handbook of graph grammars and computing by graph transformation: vol. 3: concurrency, parallelism, and distribution , 1999 .

[28]  Grzegorz Rozenberg,et al.  Handbook of Formal Languages , 1997, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[29]  Hans-Peter Kolb,et al.  An operational and denotational approach to non-context-freeness , 2003, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[30]  J. Michaelis,et al.  On Minimalist Attribute Grammars and Macro Tree Transducers , 2001 .

[31]  Frank Morawietz,et al.  Representing Constraints with Automata , 1997, ACL.