Reference-Set Constraints as Linear Tree Transductions via Controlled Optimality Systems

  • Thomas Graf
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7395)


Reference-set constraints are a special class of constraints used in Minimalist syntax. They extend the notion of well-formedness beyond the level of single trees: When presented with some phrase structure tree, they compute its set of competing output candidates and determine the optimal output(s) according to some economy metric. Doubts have frequently been raised in the literature whether such constraints are computationally tractable [4]. I define a subclass of Optimality Systems (OSs) that is sufficiently powerful to accommodate a wide range of reference-set constraints and show that these OSs are globally optimal [5], a prerequisite for them being computable by linear tree transducers. As regular and linear context-free tree languages are closed under linear tree transductions, this marks an important step towards showing that the expressivity of various syntactic formalisms is not increased by adding reference-set constraints. In the second half of the paper, I demonstrate the feasibility of the OS-approach by exhibiting an efficiently computable OS for a prominent reference-set constraint, Focus Economy [10].


Optimality Systems Tree Transducers Reference-Set Constraints Transderivationality Modeling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chomsky, N.: The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frank, R., Satta, G.: Optimality theory and the generative complexity of constraint violability. Computational Linguistics 24, 307–315 (1998)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gécseg, F., Steinby, M.: Tree Automata. Academei Kaido, Budapest (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson, D., Lappin, S.: Local Constraints vs. Economy. CSLI, Stanford (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jäger, G.: Gradient constraints in finite state OT: The unidirectional and the bidirectional case. In: Kaufmann, I., Stiebels, B. (eds.) More than Words. A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, pp. 299–325. Akademie Verlag, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karttunen, L.: The proper treatment of optimality in computational phonology (1998); manuscript, Xerox Research Center EuropeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kepser, S., Mönnich, U.: Closure properties of linear context-free tree languages with an application to optimality theory. Theoretical Computer Science 354, 82–97 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kobele, G.M.: Without Remnant Movement, mGs are Context-Free. In: Ebert, C., Jäger, G., Michaelis, J. (eds.) MOL 10. LNCS, vol. 6149, pp. 160–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kobele, G.M., Retoré, C., Salvati, S.: An automata-theoretic approach to minimalism. In: Rogers, J., Kepser, S. (eds.) Model Theoretic Syntax at 10, pp. 71–80 (2007); Workshop Organized as Part of the Europen Summer School on Logic, Language and Information (ESSLLI 2007), Dublin, Ireland, August 6-17 (2007) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reinhart, T.: Interface Strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rogers, J.: A Descriptive Approach to Language-Theoretic Complexity. CSLI, Stanford (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stabler, E.P., Keenan, E.: Structural similarity. Theoretical Computer Science 293, 345–363 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wartena, C.: A note on the complexity of optimality systems. In: Blutner, R., Jäger, G. (eds.) Studies in Optimality Theory, pp. 64–72. University of Potsdam, Potsdam (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Graf
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations