File size: 82,008 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 | {
"paper_id": "P02-1007",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:31:15.768891Z"
},
"title": "OT Syntax: Decidability of Generation-based Optimization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jonas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kuhn",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Stanford University",
"location": {}
},
"email": "jonask@stanford.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "In Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, optimization with unrestricted expressive power on the side of the OT constraints is undecidable. This paper provides a proof for the decidability of optimization based on constraints expressed with reference to local subtrees (which is in the spirit of OT theory). The proof builds on Kaplan and Wedekind's (2000) construction showing that LFG generation produces contextfree languages. 3 OT-LFG Following (Bresnan, 2000; Kuhn, 2000; Kuhn, 2001), we define a restricted OT system based on Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) representations: c(ategory) structure/f(unctional) structure 2 Most computational OT work so far focuses on candidates and constraints expressible as regular languages/rational relations, based on (",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P02-1007",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "In Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, optimization with unrestricted expressive power on the side of the OT constraints is undecidable. This paper provides a proof for the decidability of optimization based on constraints expressed with reference to local subtrees (which is in the spirit of OT theory). The proof builds on Kaplan and Wedekind's (2000) construction showing that LFG generation produces contextfree languages. 3 OT-LFG Following (Bresnan, 2000; Kuhn, 2000; Kuhn, 2001), we define a restricted OT system based on Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) representations: c(ategory) structure/f(unctional) structure 2 Most computational OT work so far focuses on candidates and constraints expressible as regular languages/rational relations, based on (",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Optimality-Theoretic (OT) grammar systems are an interesting alternative to classical formal grammars, as they construe the task of learning from data in a meaning-based way: a form is defined as grammatical if it is optimal (most harmonic) within a set of generation alternatives for an underlying logical form. The harmony of a candidate analysis depends on a language-specific ranking ( \u00a1 ) of violable constraints, thus the learning task amounts to adjusting the ranking over a given set of constraints. The comparison-based setup of OT learning is closely related to discriminative learning approaches in probabilistic parsing (Johnson et al., 1999; Riezler et al., 2000; Riezler et al., 2002) , 1 however the comparison of generation alternatives -rather than parsing alternatives -adds the possibility of systematically learning the basic language-specific grammatical principles (which in probabilistic parsing are typically fixed a priori, using either a treebankderived or a manually written grammar for the given This work was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 632,
"end": 654,
"text": "(Johnson et al., 1999;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 655,
"end": 676,
"text": "Riezler et al., 2000;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 677,
"end": 698,
"text": "Riezler et al., 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "1 This is for instance pointed out by (Johnson, 1998) . language). The \"base grammar\" assumed as given can be highly unrestricted in the OT setup. Using a linguistically motivated set of constraints, learning proceeds with a bias for unmarked linguistic structures (cf. e.g., (Bresnan et al., 2001) ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 53,
"text": "(Johnson, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 298,
"text": "(Bresnan et al., 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "For computational OT syntax, an interleaving of candidate generation and constraint checking has been proposed (Kuhn, 2000) . But the decidability of the optimization task in OT syntax, i.e., the identification of the optimal candidate(s) in a potentially infinite candidate set, has not been proven yet. 2",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 123,
"text": "(Kuhn, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Assume that the candidate set is characterized by a context-free grammar (cfg) , plus one additional candidate 'yes'. There are two constraints ( \u00a1 ) :",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 78,
"text": "(cfg)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "is violated if the candidate is neither 'yes' nor a structure generated by a cfg ; is violated only by 'yes'. Now, 'yes' is in the language defined by this system iff there are no structures in that are also in . But the emptiness problem for the intersection of two context-free languages is known to be undecidable, so the optimization task for unrestricted OT is undecidable too. 3 However, it is not in the spirit of OT to have extremely powerful individual constraints; the explanatory power should rather arise from interaction of simple constraints.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 383,
"end": 384,
"text": "3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "pairs \u00a2 \u00a1 \u00a4 \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 \u00a7 like (4),(5) \u00a7",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": ". Each c-structure tree node is mapped to a node in the f-structure graph by the function \u00a9 . The mapping is specified by fannotations in the grammar rules (below category symbols, cf. (2)) and lexicon entries (3). 4 (2) ROOT , i.e., the f-structure corresponding to the present node's mother category.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 215,
"end": 216,
"text": "4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "FP VP \" ! FP # NP FP $ TOPIC% $ COMP* OBJ% (NP) F& $ SUBJ% ' ! F& ( F FP VP ! VP (NP) V& ( SUBJ)= = V& ) V NP $ OBJ% 0 FP $ COMP% \" ! (3) Mary NP ( PRED)='Mary' ( NUM)=SG that F had F ( TNS)=PAST seen V ( PRED)='see 1 ( SUBJ) ( OBJ) 2 ' ( ASP)=PERF thought V ( PRED)='think 1 ( SUBJ) ( COMP) 2 ' ( TNS)=PAST laughed V ( PRED)='laugh 1 ( SUBJ) 2 ' ( TNS)=PAST (4) c",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The correct f-structure for a sentence is the minimal model satisfying all properly instantiated fannotations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In OT-LFG, the universe of possible candidates is defined by an LFG",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Q P S R U T V P X W \u1ef2",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "(encoding inviolable principles, like an X-bar scheme). A particular candidate set is the set Gena",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "c b d V e \u00a2 b f h g p i \u00a5 P S R r q",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "-i.e., the c-/fstructure pairs in",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "s P C R U T p P S W \u1ef2",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": ", which have the input",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "\u00a5 P C R",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "as their f-structure. Constraints are expressed as local configurations in the c-/f-structure pairs. They have one of the following implicational forms:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "5 (6) tu w v t & u & where t y x t y &",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "are descriptions of nonterminals of",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "b d p e b f h g ; u x u &",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "are standard LFG f-annotations of constraining equations with as the only f-structure metavariable.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "(7) t u v t y & & & u & r & where t y x t y & x x & are descriptions of nonterminals of b d V e \u00a2 b f h g ; t y x t &",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "refer to the mother in a local subtree configuration,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "x & refer to the same daughter category;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "x",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "& x x r &",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "are regular expressions over nonterminals; Any of the descriptions can be maximally unspecific; (6) can for example be instantiated by the OPSPEC constraint ( OP)=+ (DF ) (an operator must be the value of a discourse function, (Bresnan, 2000) ) with the category information unspecified.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 227,
"end": 242,
"text": "(Bresnan, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "An OT-LFG system is thus characterized by a base grammar and a set of constraints, with a language-specific ranking relation",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "\u00a1 : 1 b d V e \u00a2 b f h g x 1 x 2 2 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The evaluation function Evald C e g f h r i picks the most harmonic from a set of candidates, based on the constraints and ranking. The language (set of analyses) 6 generated by an OT system is defined as",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "j $ % l k 1 n m p o U x q o r 2 ' b d p e b f h g s t q b d v u 1 n m o x w q o 2 Evalx z y U { | } $ Gen r \u00a2 X X $ q b d % %",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Undecidability for unrestricted OT",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Our decidability proof for generation-based optimization builds on the result of (Kaplan and Wedekind, 2000) (K&W00) that LFG generation produces context-free languages. . K&W00 present a constructive proof, folding all fstructural contributions of lexical entries and LFG rules into the c-structural rewrite rules (which is possible since we know in advance the range of fstructural objects that can instantiate the f-structure meta-variables in the rules). I illustrate the specialization steps with grammar (2) and lexicon (3) and for generation from f-structure (5).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Initially, the generalized format of right-hand sides in LFG rules is converted to the standard context-free notation (resolving regular expressions by explicit disjunction or recursive rules). Fstructure (5) contains five substructures: the root fstructure, plus the embedded f-structures under the paths SUBJ, COMP, COMP SUBJ, and COMP OBJ. Any relevant metavariable ( , \u00a4 ) in the grammar must end up instantiated to one of these. So for each path from the root f-structure, a distinct variable is introduced: \u00a5 , subscripted with the (abbreviated and possibly empty) feature path:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "\u00a5 \u00a3 \u00a5 \u00a7 \u00a6 \u00a3 \u00a5 \u00a9 \u00a3 \u00a5 \u00a9 \u00a6 \u00a3 \u00a5 \u00a9 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Rule augmentation step 1 adds to each category name a concrete f-structure to which the category corresponds. So for FP, we get FP:\u00a5 , FP:\u00a5 \u00a6 , FP:\u00a5 , FP:\u00a5\u00a6 , and FP:\u00a5 . The rules are multiplied out to cover all combinations of augmented categories obeying the original f-annotations. 7 Step 2 adds a set of instantiated f-annotation schemes to each symbol, based on the instantiation of metavariables from step 1. One instance of the lexicon entry Mary look as follows: 9NP:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 285,
"end": 286,
"text": "7",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": ": $ PRED)='Mary' $ N UM)=SG ! Mary",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The rules are again multiplied out to cover all combinations for which the set of f-constraints on the mother is the union of all daughters' fconstraints, plus the appropriately instantiated rulespecific annotations. So, for the VP rule based on the categories NP:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": ": $ ! PRED)='Mary' $ NUM)=SG ! and V& : ! : # $ ! P RED)='laugh' $ T NS)=PAST \"",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": ", we get the rule 7 VP:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "NP: V & :",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "i s allowed, while VP:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "! NP: ! V & :",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "#",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "is excluded, since the = annotation of V& in the VP rule (2) enforces that",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "E $ VP% E $ V& X % . VP: : $ % % % % & % % % % ' $ S UBJ% $ P RED)='Mary' $ NUM)=SG $ PRED)='laugh' $ ! T NS)=PAST ( % % % % ) % % % % 0 NP: ! : $ P RED)='Mary' $ NUM)=SG ! V& : : # $ ! P RED)='laugh' $ TNS)=PAST ! ! \"",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "With this bottom-up construction it is ensured that each new category ROOT:\u00a5 :1 . . .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "(corresponding to the original root symbol) contains a complete possible collection of instantiated f-constraints. To exclude analyses whose f-structure is not \u00a5 (for which we are generating strings) a new start symbol is introduced \"above\" the original root symbol. Only for the sets of f-constraints that have \u00a5 as their minimal model, rules of the form ROOT \u00a7 3 ROOT:\u00a5 :1 . . .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "are introduced (this also excludes inconsistent fconstraint sets).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u00a1 \u00a3 \u00a2 i \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 q",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "With the cfg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ", standard techniques for cfg's can be applied, e.g., if there are infinitely many possible analyses for a given f-structure, the smallest one(s) can be produced, based on the pumping lemma for context-free languages. Grammar 2does indeed produce infinitely many analyses for the input f-structure (5). It overgenerates in several respects: The functional projection FP can be stacked due to recursions like the following (with the augmented FP reoccuring in the F rules):",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "With the cfg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "FP:4 6 5 : $ % % % & % % % ' 7 4 8 5 P RED)='see 6 . . . 8 ' 7 4 6 5 T NS)=PAST 7 45 S UBJ9 A @ B 45 D C 7 45 E C P RED)='Mary' 7 4 6 5 O BJ9 A @ B 4 6 5 D F 7 45 E F P RED)='Titanic' 45@ B 45 ( % % % ) % % % 0 H G FI :4 6 5 : $ % % % & % % % ' 7 4 6 5 P RED)='see 6 . . . 8 ' 7 4 8 5 T NS)=PAST 7 45 S UBJ9 @ B 45 E C 7 45 D C P RED)='Mary' 7 4 8 5 O BJ9 \u00a7 @ B 4 8 5 E F 7 45 D F P RED)='Titanic' 45@ B 45 ( % % % ) % % % 0 FI :4 8 5 : $ % % % & % % % ' 7 4 8 5 P RED)='see 6 . . . 8 ' 7 4 6 5 T NS)=PAST 7 45 S UBJ9 @ B 45 D C 7 45 E C P RED)='Mary' 7 4 6 5 O BJ9 A @ B 4 6 5 D F 7 45 E F P RED)='Titanic' 45@ B 45 ( % % % ) % % % 0 G F:4 8 5 : P F P:4 6 5 : $ % % % & % % % ' 7 4 8 5 P RED)='see 6 . . . 8 ' 7 4 6 5 T NS)=PAST 7 45 S UBJ9 \u00a7 @ B 45 D C 7 45 E C P RED)='Mary' 7 4 6 5 O BJ9 A @ B 4 6 5 D F 7 45 E F P RED)='Titanic' 45@ B 45 ( % % % ) % % % 0 F:\u00a5 \u00a9 : Q",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "With the cfg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "is one of the augmented categories we get for that in (3), so \u00a1 \u00a3 \u00a2 ((2),(5)) generates an arbitrary number of thats on top of any FP. A similar repetition effect will arise for the auxiliary had. 8 Other choices in generation arise from the freedom of generating the subject in the specifier of VP or FP and from the possibility of (unbounded) topicalization of the object (the first disjunction of the FP rule in (2) contains a functional-uncertainty equation):",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 197,
"end": 198,
"text": "8",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "With the cfg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(10) a.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "With the cfg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "John thought that Titanic, Mary had seen. b.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "With the cfg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Titanic, John thought that Mary had seen.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "With the cfg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "While grammar (2) would be considered defective as a classical LFG grammar, it constitutes a reasonable example of a candidate generation grammar (",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation in OT-LFG",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "P S R U T V P X W \u1ef2 ) in OT.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation in OT-LFG",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Here, it is the OT constraints that enforce language-specific restrictions, so",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation in OT-LFG",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "P S R U T V P X W \u1ef2",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation in OT-LFG",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "has to ensure that all candidates are generated in the first place. For instance, expletive elements as do in Who do you know will arise by passing a recursion in the cfg constructed during generation. A candidate containing such a vacuous cycle can still become the winner of the OT competition if the Faithfulness constraint punishing expletives is outranked by some constraint favoring an aspect of the recursive structure. So the harmony is increased by going through the recursion a certain number of times. It is for this very reason, that Who do you know is predicted to be grammatical in English.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation in OT-LFG",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "So, in OT-LFG it is not sufficient to apply just the \u00a1 \u00a3 \u00a2 construction; I use an additional step: prior to application of \u00a1 \u00a3 \u00a2 , the LFG grammar",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation in OT-LFG",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "P S R U T V P X W \u1ef2 is converted to a different form e i P C R U T p P S W \u1ef2 q",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation in OT-LFG",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "(depending on the constraint set \u00a1 ), which is still an LFG grammar but has category symbols which reflect local constraint violations. When the \u00a1 \u00a2 construction is applied to",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation in OT-LFG",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "e i P S R U T V P X W \u1ef2 q",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation in OT-LFG",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": ", all \"pumping\" structures generated by the cfg",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation in OT-LFG",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "\u00a1 \u00a3 \u00a2 i e i P C R U T p P S W \u1ef2 q \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 P C R q",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation in OT-LFG",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "can indeed be ignored since all OT-relevant candidates are already contained in the finite set of nonrecursive structures. So, finally the ranking of the constraints is taken into consideration in order to determine the harmony of the candidates in this finite subset.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "LFG generation in OT-LFG",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "\u00a2 e \u00a4 \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 P C R U T p P S W \u1ef2 \u00a7",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The conversion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Preprocessing Like K&W00, I assume an initial conversion of the c-structure part of rules into standard context-free form, i.e., the right-hand side is a category string rather than a regular expression. This ensures that for a given local subtree, each constraint (of form (6) or (7)) can be applied only a finite number of times: if \u00a9 is the arity of the longest right-hand side of a rule, the maximal number of local violations is \u00a9 (since some constraints of type (7) can be instantiated to all daughters).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The conversion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "With the number of local violations bounded, we can encode all candidate distinctions with respect to constraint violations at the local-subtree level with finite means: The set of categories in the newly constructed LFG grammar",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "e i P C R U T p P S W Y q",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "is the finite set",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(11) h S X",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ": the set of categories in The rules in",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "y $ b d V e \u00a2 b f h g % k t :1 ! \u00a3 x \" \u00a5 x \" $ # & % ' % ( % ) 1 0 \u00a6 2 s t a nonterminal symbol of b d V",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "e i P C R U T p P S W Y q",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "are constructed in such a way that for each rule Note that the constraint profile of the daughter categories does not play any role in the determination of constraint violations local to the subtree under consideration (only the sequences 9 Q A are restricted by the conditions (12) and (13)). So for each new rule type, all combinations of constraint profiles on the daughters are constructed (creating a large but finite number of rules). 9 This ensures that no sentence that can be parsed (or generated) by analysis by applying a projection function Cat to all c-structure categories:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "X R X\u00a3 . . . X8 m \u00a3 m 8 in Q P C R U T p P S W \u1ef2 and each sequence @ 9 A \u00a3 B 9 A D C E C E C 9 G F A \u00a7 , H P I 9 R Q A I \u00a9 , all rules of the form X R :1 ! \u00a3 R x \" \u00a5 R % ( % ' % \" 0 R 2 X\u00a3 :1 ! \u00a3 \u00a3 % ' % B % S 0 \u00a32 . . . X8 :1 ! \u00a3 8 % ' % ' % \" 0 8 2 ,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(12) for \u00a7 \u00a9 of form (6) U tu v t & u & ) V : a. \u00a8R 3 ; m & o m p o (W 4 Y X 4 b a ) if X R does not match the condition t ; b. \u00a8R 3 ; m & \u00a3 m \u00a3 d c f e u ; m & o m o (g 4 Y X h 4 7 a ) if X R matches t ; c. \u00a8R 3 ; m & \u00a3 m \u00a3 c u c u & ; m & o m p o (g 4 Y X h 4 b a ) if X R matches both t and t & ; d. \u00a8R W ; m & \u00a3 m \u00a3 d c u ; m & o m o (g 4 Y X h 4 b a ) if X R matches t but not t & ; e. \u00a8R W ; m & \u00a3 m \u00a3 c u c i e u & ; m & o m p o (g 4 p X & 4 \u00e0 ) if X",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "Cat $ t :1 ! \u00a3 x \" \u00a5 % ' % ' % \" 0 2 % t for every category in $ \u00a2 X X",
"eq_num": "(11)"
}
],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "9 For one rule/constraint combination several new rules can result; e.g., if the right-hand side of a rule (X R ) matches both the antecedent (t ) and the consequent (t & ) category description of a constraint of form (6), three clauses apply: (12b), (12c), and (12d). So, we get two new rules with the count of 0 local violations of the constraint and two rules with count 1, with a difference in the f-annotations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "10 Providing all possible combinations of augmented category symbols on the right-hand rule sides in y $ %",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "ensures that the newly constructed rules can be reached from the root symbol in a derivation. It is also guaranteed that whenever a rule \u00a2 in contributes to an analysis, at least one of the rules constructed from \u00a2 will contribute to the corresponding analysis in y $ % . This is ensured since the subclauses in (12) and (13) cover the full space of logical possibilities.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We can overload the function name Cat with a function applying to the set of analyses produced by an LFG grammar by defining encodes the number of local violations for all constraints. Since all constraints are locally evaluable by assumption, all constraints violated by a candidate analysis have to be incurred local to some subtree. Hence the total number of constraint violations incurred by a candidate can be computed by simply summing over all category-encoded local violation profiles: ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Cat $ % k 1 n m c x V q 2 s 1 n m & x w q 2 ,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1 n m x q 2 y $ b d V e \u00a2 b f h g % is \u00a3 \u00a5 \u00a4 \u00a7 \u00a6$ m % q \u00a9 x \u00a6 ~ f \" ! $ # \u00a8 D efine Totaly $ m % 1 \u00a3 \u00a4 & % $ m % V x \u00a3 \u00a4 \u00a7 ' $ m % V x ( % ' % ' % \u00a3 \u00a4 & ( $ m % 2 7 Applying ) 1 0 on \u00a2 e \u00a4 \u00a3 s \u00a5 P C R U T p P S W Y \u00a7 Since e i Q P C R U T p P S W \u1ef2 q",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "is a standard LFG grammar, we can apply the \u00a1 \u00a3 \u00a2 construction to it to get a cfg for a given f-structure Since the e construction (strongly) preserves the language generated, coverage preservation holds also after the application of",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u00a1 \u00a3 \u00a2 to e i P C R U T p P S W Y q and P S R U T V P X W \u1ef2",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ", respectively:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(17) Cat $ @ 9 B A $ y $ b d p e b f h g % V x q b d % % Cat $ @ 9 B A $ b d p e b f h g x w q b d % %",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "But since the symbols in",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "e i P C R U T p P S W \u1ef2 q reflect local constraint violations, Cati \u00a1 \u00a3 \u00a2 i e i P C R U T p P S W \u1ef2 q \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 P S R q q",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "has the property that all instances of recursion in the resulting cfg create candidates that are at most as harmonic as their non-recursive counterparts. Assuming a projection function CatCount i 4 3",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ":\u00a5 :5 :6 q \u00a5 7 3",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ":\u00a5 , we can state more formally: ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u00a3x \" \u00a5 $ W %% 2 % from 1 ! \u00a3 \u00a3 % ' % B % S \u00a3 % B % ' % \" 0 \u00a32 Totaly $ m \u00a3%",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ", and",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "1 ! \u00a3 \u00a5 % ' % ' % \" \u00a5 % ( % ' % \" 0 \u00a5 2 Totaly $ m \u00a5 % .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This fact follows from definition of Total (16): the violation counts in the additional nodes in \u00a1 will add to the total of constraint violations (and if none of the additional nodes contains any local constraint violation at all, the total will be the same as in \u00a1 ) . Intuitively, the effect of the augmentation of the category format is that certain recursions in the pure \u00a1 \u00a3 \u00a2 construction (which one may think of as a loop) are unfolded, leading to a longer loop. The new loop is sufficiently large to make all relevant distinctions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This result can be directly exploited in processing: if all non-recursive analyses are generated (of which there are only finitely many) it is guaranteed that a subset of the optimal candidates is among them. If the grammar does not contain any violation-free recursion, we even know that we have generated all optimal candidates. Note that if there is an applicable violation-free recursion, the set of optimal candidates is infinite; so if the constraint set is set up properly in a linguistic analysis, one would assume that violation-free recursion should not arise. (Kuhn, 2000) excludes the application of such recursions by a similar condition as offline parsability (which excludes vacuous recursions over a string in parsing), but with the \u00a1 \u00a3 \u00a2 construction, this condition is not necessary for decidability of the generation-based optimization task. The cfg produced by \u00a1 \u00a2 can be transformed further to only generate the optimal candidates according to the constraint ranking \u00a1 of the OT system",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 571,
"end": 583,
"text": "(Kuhn, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "7 P S R U T V P X W \u1ef2 \u00a3 \u00a1 \u00a3 \u00a1 \u00a7 \u00a7",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ", eliminating all but the violation-free recursions in the grammar:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(20) Creating a cfg that produces all optimal candidates a. Define",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To prove fact (21) we will show that the c-structure of an arbitrary candidate analysis generated from",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u00a5 P S R with P S R U T V P X W \u1ef2 is contained in Cati \" ! # b d q",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "iff all other candidates are equally or less harmonic.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Take an arbitrary candidate c-structure",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u00a1 gen- erated from \u00a5 P C R with P S R U T V P X W \u1ef2 such that \u00a1 Cati \" ! # b d q",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ". We have to show that all other candidates would also be excluded (for lack of the relevant rules in the non-recursive part). On the other hand, if it were the recursion in by construction step (20c,d) (only violation-free recursion is possible). So we get another contradiction to the assumption that does incur some violation, not using the recursion leads to an even more harmonic candidate, for which again cases (i) and (ii) will apply. All possible cases lead to a contradiction with the assumptions, so no candidate is more harmonic than our",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u00a1 Cati \" ! # b d q .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We still have to prove that if the c-structure \u00a1 of a candidate analysis generated from",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u00a5 P C R with Q P C R U T p P S W \u1ef2",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "is equally or more harmonic than all other candidates, then it is contained in Cati \" ! # . Now, there has to be a homomorphism from the categories in \u00a1 to the categories of some analysis in",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\" ! # b d . \" ! # b d is also based on \u00a1 \u00a3 \u00a2 i P S R U T V P X W \u1ef2 \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 P C R q",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(with an additional index \u00a1 on each category and some categories and rules of",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u00a1 \u00a3 \u00a2 i P C R U T p P S W \u1ef2 \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 P S R q having no counterpart in \" ! # b d",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "). Since we know that \u00a1 is equally or more harmonic than any other candidate generated from ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar conversion",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We showed that for OT-LFG systems in which all constraints can be expressed relative to a local subtree in c-structure, the generation task from (noncyclic 13 ) f-structures is solvable. The infinity of the conceptually underlying candidate set does not preclude a computational approach. It is obvious that the construction proposed here has the purpose of bringing out the principled computability, rather than suggesting a particular algorithm for implementation. However on this basis, an implementation can be easily devised. The locality condition on constraint-checking seems unproblematic for linguistically relevant constraints, since a GPSG-style slash mechanism permits reference to (finitely many) nonlocal configurations from any given category (cf. fn. 5). 14 Decidability of generation-based optimization (from a given input f-structure) alone does not imply that the recognition and parsing tasks for an OT grammar system defined as in sec. 3 are decidable: for these tasks, a string is given and it has to be shown that the string is optimal for some underlying input f-structure (cf. (Johnson, 1998) ). However, a similar construction as the one presented here can be devised for parsing-based optimization (even for an LFG-style grammar that does not obey the offline parsability condition). So, if the language generated by an OT system is defined based on (strong) bidirectional optimality (Kuhn, 2001 , ch. 5), decidability of both the general parsing and generation problem follows. 15 For the unidirectionally defined OT language (as in sec. 3), decidability of parsing can be guaranteed under the assumption of a contextual recoverability condition in parsing (Kuhn, in preparation) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 771,
"end": 773,
"text": "14",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 1102,
"end": 1117,
"text": "(Johnson, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 1411,
"end": 1422,
"text": "(Kuhn, 2001",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 1506,
"end": 1508,
"text": "15",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 1685,
"end": 1707,
"text": "(Kuhn, in preparation)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "9"
},
{
"text": "Note that with GPSG-style category-level feature percolation it is possible to refer to (finitely many) nonlocal configurations at the local tree level.6 The string language is obtained by taking the terminal string of the c-structure part of the analyses.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The FR entries do not contribute any PRED value, which would exclude doubling due to the instantiated symbol character of PRED values (cf. K&W00, fn. 2).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The non-cyclicity condition is inherited from K&W00; in linguistically motivated applications of the LFG formalism, cru-",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "are the indexed symbols of step c.; S \u00a4 is a new start symbol; the ruleswhich were used in the analyses in Evalx With the index introduced in step (20c), the original recursion in the cfg is eliminated in all but the violation-free cases. The grammar Catiproduces (the c-structure of) the set of optimal candidates for the input, i.e., the set of c-structures for the optimal candidates for input f-structure .11 The projection function Cat is again overloaded to also remove the index on the categories.12 Like K&W00, I make the assumption that the input fstructure in generation is fully specified (i.e., all the candidates have the form), but the result can be extended to allow for the addition of a finite amount of f-structure information in generation. Then, the specified routine is computed separately for each possible f-structural extension and the results are compared in the end.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "annex",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bresnan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shipra",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dingare",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of the LFG 2001 Conference",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joan Bresnan, Shipra Dingare, and Christopher Manning. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Proceedings of the LFG 2001 Conference. CSLI Publications.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "cial use of cyclicity in underlying semantic feature graphs has never been made",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "cial use of cyclicity in underlying semantic feature graphs has never been made.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "A hypothetical constraint that is excluded would be a parallelism constraint comparing two subtree structures of arbitrary depth. Such a constraint seems unnatural in a model of grammaticality. Parallelism of conjuncts does play a role in models of human parsing preferences; however, here it seems reasonable to assume an upper bound on the depth of parallel structures",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A hypothetical constraint that is excluded would be a paral- lelism constraint comparing two subtree structures of arbitrary depth. Such a constraint seems unnatural in a model of gram- maticality. Parallelism of conjuncts does play a role in models of human parsing preferences; however, here it seems reason- able to assume an upper bound on the depth of parallel struc- tures to be compared (due to memory restrictions).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Parsing: for a given string, parsing-based optimization is used to determine the optimal underlying f-structure; then generation-based optimization is used to check whether the original string comes out optimal in this direction too",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "Generation is symmetrical",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Parsing: for a given string, parsing-based optimization is used to determine the optimal underlying f-structure; then generation-based optimization is used to check whether the original string comes out optimal in this direction too. Gen- eration is symmetrical, starting with an f-structure.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Optimal syntax",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bresnan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw, and Jeroen van de Weijer, editors, Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joan Bresnan. 2000. Optimal syntax. In Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw, and Jeroen van de Weijer, edi- tors, Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Ac- quisition. Oxford University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Efficient generation in primitive optimality theory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jason",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eisner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Proceedings of the ACL 1997",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jason Eisner. 1997. Efficient generation in primitive optimality theory. In Proceedings of the ACL 1997, Madrid.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Optimality theory and the generative complexity of constraint violation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [],
"last": "Frank",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Giorgio",
"middle": [],
"last": "Satta",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "24",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "307--316",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Robert Frank and Giorgio Satta. 1998. Optimality theory and the generative complexity of constraint violation. Computational Linguistics, 24(2):307-316.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Approximation and exactness in finite state Optimality Theory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dale",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gerdemann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gertjan Van Noord",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "SIGPHON 2000, Finite State Phonology. 5th Workshop of the ACL Special Interest Group in Comp. Phonology",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dale Gerdemann and Gertjan van Noord. 2000. Approx- imation and exactness in finite state Optimality The- ory. In SIGPHON 2000, Finite State Phonology. 5th Workshop of the ACL Special Interest Group in Comp. Phonology, Luxembourg.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Estimators for stochastic \"unification-based\" grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stuart",
"middle": [],
"last": "Geman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Canon",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Zhiyi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stefan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Riezler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'99)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "535--541",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mark Johnson, Stuart Geman, Stephen Canon, Zhiyi Chi, and Stefan Riezler. 1999. Estimators for stochastic \"unification-based\" grammars. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics (ACL'99), College Park, MD, pages 535-541.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Optimality-theoretic Lexical Functional Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 11th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mark Johnson. 1998. Optimality-theoretic Lexical Func- tional Grammar. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Rutgers University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "LFG generation produces context-free languages",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ronald",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J\u00fcrgen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kaplan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wedekind",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proceedings of COLING-2000",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "297--302",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ronald M. Kaplan and J\u00fcrgen Wedekind. 2000. LFG generation produces context-free languages. In Proceedings of COLING-2000, pages 297-302, Saarbr\u00fccken.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "The proper treatment of optimality in computational phonology",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lauri",
"middle": [],
"last": "Karttunen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Internat. Workshop on Finite-State Methods in Natural Language Processing, FSMNLP'98",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--12",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lauri Karttunen. 1998. The proper treatment of optimal- ity in computational phonology. In Proceedings of the Internat. Workshop on Finite-State Methods in Natural Language Processing, FSMNLP'98, pages 1-12.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Processing Optimality-theoretic syntax by interleaved chart parsing and generation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jonas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kuhn",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL 2000",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "360--367",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jonas Kuhn. 2000. Processing Optimality-theoretic syn- tax by interleaved chart parsing and generation. In Proceedings of ACL 2000, pages 360-367, Hongkong.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Formal and Computational Aspects of Optimality-theoretic Syntax",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jonas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kuhn",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "stitut f\u00fcr maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jonas Kuhn. 2001. Formal and Computational As- pects of Optimality-theoretic Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, In- stitut f\u00fcr maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, Universit\u00e4t Stuttgart.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Decidability of generation and parsing for OT syntax",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jonas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kuhn",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jonas Kuhn. in preparation. Decidability of generation and parsing for OT syntax. Ms., Stanford University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Lexicalized stochastic modeling of constraint-based grammars using log-linear measures and EM training",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stefan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Riezler",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Detlef",
"middle": [],
"last": "Prescher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jonas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kuhn",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'00)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "480--487",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stefan Riezler, Detlef Prescher, Jonas Kuhn, and Mark Johnson. 2000. Lexicalized stochastic modeling of constraint-based grammars using log-linear measures and EM training. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics (ACL'00), Hong Kong, pages 480-487.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Parsing the Wall Street Journal using a Lexical-Functional Grammar and discriminative estimation techniques",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stefan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Riezler",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dick",
"middle": [],
"last": "Crouch",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ron",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kaplan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tracy",
"middle": [],
"last": "King",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [],
"last": "Maxwell",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stefan Riezler, Dick Crouch, Ron Kaplan, Tracy King, John Maxwell, and Mark Johnson. 2002. Parsing the Wall Street Journal using a Lexical-Functional Gram- mar and discriminative estimation techniques. This conference.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF9": {
"text": "Total number of constraint violations Let Nodes $ m % be the multiset of categories occurring in the c-structure tree m , then the total number of violations of constraint \u00a7 incurred by an analysis",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF12": {
"text": "19) A recursion with the derivation path",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF14": {
"text": "have to be incurred within some local subtree; so \u00a1 must contain a local violation configuration that \u00a1 does not contain, and by the construction (12)/(13) the e",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF16": {
"text": ". If this recursion is violation-free, we can pick the equally harmonic candidate avoiding the recursion to be oure i \u00a1 q , and we are back to case (i) and (ii). Likewise, if the recursion in e i \u00a1 q",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF17": {
"text": "recursion or only violation-free recursion. If it does contain such violation-free recursions we map all categories \u00a2 on the recursion paths to the indexed form \u00a2 : H , and furthermore consider the variant of \u00a1avoiding the recursion(s). For our (non-recursive) tree, there is guaranteed to be a counterpart in the finite set of non-recursive trees in \"",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"uris": null
}
}
}
} |