Logics for linguistic structures

1

The Developmental Psychology of Music Cambridge University Press David J. Hargreaves Year: 1986 Language: english File: DJVU, 1.85 MB

2

101 Creative Problem Solving Techniques: The Handbook of New Ideas for Business New Management Pub. Co. James M. Higgins Year: 1994 Language: english File: PDF, 4.03 MB

Logics for Linguistic Structures

≥

Trends in Linguistics
Studies and Monographs 201

Editors

Walter Bisang
Hans Henrich Hock
(main editor for this volume)

Werner Winter

Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin · New York

Logics for Linguistic Structures

Edited by

Fritz Hamm
Stephan Kepser

Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin · New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)
is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines
앪
of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Logics for linguistic structures / edited by Fritz Hamm and Stephan
Kepser.
p. cm. ⫺ (Trends in linguistics ; 201)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-3-11-020469-8 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Language and logic. 2. Computational linguistics. I. Hamm,
Fritz, 1953⫺ II. Kepser, Stephan, 1967⫺
P39.L5995 2008
401⫺dc22
2008032760

ISBN 978-3-11-020469-8
ISSN 1861-4302
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
” Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this
book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher.
Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin.
Printed in Germany.

Contents

Introduction
Fritz Hamm and Stephan Kepser

1

Type Theory with Records and unification-based grammar
Robin Cooper

9

One-letter automata: How to reduce k tapes to one
Hristo Ganchev, Stoyan Mihov, and Klaus U. Schulz

35

Two aspects of situated meaning
Eleni Kalyvianaki and Yiannis N. Moschovakis

57

Further excursions in natural logic: The Mid-Point Theorems
Edward L. Keenan

87

On the logic of LGB type structures. Part I: Multidominance
structures
Marcus Kracht

105

Completeness theorems for syllogistic fragments
Lawrence S. Moss

143

List of contributors

175

Index

179

Introduction
Fritz Hamm and Stephan Kepser

Logic has long been playing a major role in the formalization of linguistic
structures and linguistic theories. This is certainly particularly true for the
area of semantics, where formal logic has been the major tool ever since
the Fregean program. In the area of syntax it was the rising of principles
based theories with the focus shifting away from the generation process of
structures to defining general well-formedness conditions of structures that
opened the way for logic. The naturalness by which many types of wellformedness conditions can be expressed in some logic or other led to different
logics being proposed and used in diverse formalizations of syntactic theories
in general and the field of model theoretic syntax in particular.
The contributions collected in this volume address central topics in theoretical and computational linguistics, such as quantification, types of context
dependence and aspects concerning the formalisation of major grammatical
frameworks, among others GB, DRT and HPSG. All contributions have in
common a strong preference for logic as the major tool of analysis. Two of
them are devoted to formal syntax, three to aspects of logical semantics. The
paper by Robin Cooper contributes both to syntax and semantics. We therefore grouped the description of the papers in this preface in a syntactic and
a semantic section with Cooper’s paper as a natural interface between these
two fields.
The contribution by Hristo Ganchev, Stoyan Mihov, and Klaus U. Schulz
belongs to the field of finite state automata theory and provides a method how
to reduce multi tape automata to single tape automata. Multi tape finite state
automata have many applications in computer science, they are particularly
frequently used in many areas of natural language processing. A disadvantage
for the usability of multi tape automata is that certain automata constructions,
namely composition, projection, and cartesian product, are a lot more complicated than for single tape automata. A reduction of multi tape automata to
single tape automata is thus desirable.
The key construction by Ganchev, Mihov, and Schulz in the reduction is
the definition of an automaton type that bridges between multi and single
tape automata. The authors introduces so-called one-letter automata. These

2 Fritz Hamm and Stephan Kepser
are multi tape automata with a strong restriction. There is only one type of
transitions permitted and that is where only a single letter in the k-tuple of signature symbols in the transition differs from the empty word. In other words,
all components of the tuple are the empty word with the exception of one
component. Ganchev, Mihov, and Schulz show that one-letter automata are
equivalent to multi tape automata. Interestingly, one-letter automata can be
regarded as single tape automata over an extended alphabet which consists of
complex symbols each of which is a k-tuple with exactly one letter differing
from the empty word.
One of the known differences between multi dimensional regular relations and one dimensional regular relations is that the latter are closed under
intersection while the former are not. To cope with this difference, Ganchev,
Mihov, and Schulz define a criterion on essentiality of a component in a kdimensional regular relation and show that the intersection of two k-dimensional regular relations is regular if the two relations share at most one essential component. This result can be extended to essential tapes of one-letter
automata and the intersection of these automata.
On the basis of this result Ganchev, Mihov, and Schulz present automata
constructions for insertion, deletion, and projection of tapes as well as composition and cartesian product of regular relations all of which are based on
the corresponding constructions for single tape automata. This way the effectiveness of one-letter automata is shown. It should hence be expected that
this type of automata will be very useful for practical applications.
The contribution by Marcus Kracht provides a logical characterisation of the
datastructures underlying the linguistic frameworks Government and Binding and Minimalism. Kracht identifies so-called multi-dominance structures
as the datastructures underlying these theories. A multi-dominance structure
is a binary tree with additional immediate dominance relations which have a
restricted distribution in the following way. All parents of additional dominance relations must be found on the path from the root to the parent of
the base dominance relation. Additional dominance relations provide a way
to represent movement of some component from a lower part in a tree to a
position higher up.
The logic chosen by Kracht to formalize multi-dominance structures is
propositional dynamic logic (PDL), a variant of modal logic that has been
used before on many occasions by Kracht and other authors to formalize linguistic theories. In this paper, Kracht shows that PDL can be used to axiomatize multi-dominance structures. This has the important and highly desirable

Introduction 3

consequence that the dynamic logic of multi-dominance structures is decidable. The satisfiability of a formula can be decided in in 2EXPTIME.
In order to formalize a linguistic framework it is not enough to provide
an axiomatisation of the underlying datastructures only. The second contribution of this paper is therefore a formalisation of important grammatical
concepts and notions in the logic PDL. This formalisation is provided for
movement and its domains, single movement, adjunction, and cross-serial
dependencies. In all of these, care is taken to ensure that the decidability
result of multi-dominance structures carries over to grammatical notions defined on these structures. It is thereby shown that large parts of the linguistic
framework Government and Binding can be formalized in PDL and that this
formalisation is decidable.
The contribution by Robin Cooper shows how to render unification based
grammar formalisms with type theory using record structures. The paper is
part of a broader project which aims at providing a coherent unified approach
to natural language dialog semantics. The type theory underlying this work
is based on set theory and follows Montague’s style of recursively defining
semantic domains. There are functions and function types available in this
type theory providing a version of the typed λ-calculus. To this base records
are added. A record is a finite set of fields, i.e., ordered pairs of a label and an
object. A record type is accordingly a finite set of ordered pairs of a label and
a type. Records and record types may be nested. The notions of dependent
types and subtype relations are systematically extended to be applicable to
record types.
The main contribution of this paper is a type theoretical approach to unification phenomena. Feature structures of some type play an important role
in almost all modern linguistic frameworks. Some frameworks like LFG and
HPSG make this rather explicit. They also provide a systematic way to combine two feature structures partially describing some linguistic object. This
combination is based on ideas of unification even though this notion need no
longer be explicitely present in the linguistic frameworks. In a type theoretical approach, records and their types render feature structures in a rather
direct and natural way. The type theoretical tools to describe unification are
meet types and equality. Cooper assumes the existence of a meet type for
each pair of types in his theory including record types. He provides a function that recursively simplifies a record type. This function is particularly
applicable to record types which are the result of the construction of a meet
record type and should be interpreted as the counterpart of unification in type

4 Fritz Hamm and Stephan Kepser
theory with records. There are though important differences to feature structure unification. One of them is that type simplification never fails. If the
meet of incompatible types was constructed, the simplification will return a
distinguished empty type.
The main advantage of this approach is that it provides a kind of intensionality which is not available for feature structures. This intensionality can be
used, e.g., to distinguish equivalent types such as the source of grammatical
information. It can also be used to assign different empty types with different
ungrammatical phrases. This may provide a way to support robust parsing
in that ungrammatical phrases can be processed and the the consistent parts
of their record types may contain useful informations for further processing.
Type theory with records also offers a very natural way to integrate sematic
analyses into syntactic analyses based on feature structures.

The paper by Eleni Kalyvianaki and Yiannis Moschovakis contains a sophisticated application of the theory of referential intensions developed by
Moschovakis in a series of papers (see for instance (Moschovakis 1989a,b,
1993, 1998)), and applied to linguistics in (Moschovakis 2006). Based on
the theory of referential intensions the paper introduces two notion of context
dependent meaning, factual content and local meaning, and shows that these
notions solve puzzles in philosophy of language and linguistics, especially
those concerning the logic of indexicals.
Referential intension theory allows to define three notions of synonymy,
namely referential synonymy, local synonymy, and factual synonymy. Referential synonymy, the strongest concept, holds between two terms A and B
iff there referential intensions are the same; i.e., int(A) = int(B). Here the
referential intension of an expression A, int(A) is to be understood as the natural algorithm (represented as a set–theoretical object) which computes the
denotation of A with respect to a given model. Thus referential synonymy
is a situation independent notion of synonymy. This contrasts with the other
two notions of synonymy which are dependent on a given state a. Local synonymy is synonymy with regard to local meaning where the local meaning
of an expression A is computed from the referential intension of A applied to
a given state a. It is important to note that for the constitution of the local
meaning of A the full meanings of the parts of A have to be computed. In
this respect the concept of local meaning differs significantly from the notion
factual content and for this reason from the associated notion of synonymy
as well. This is best explained by way of an example.

Introduction 5

If in a given state a her(a) = Mary(a) then the factual content of the
sentence John loves her is the same as the factual content of John loves Mary.
The two sentences are therefore synonymous with regard to factual content.
But they are not locally synonymous since the meaning of her in states other
than a my well be different from the meaning of Mary.
The paper applies these precisely defined notions to Kaplan’s treatment of
indexicals and argues for local meanings as the most promising candidates
for belief carriers. The paper ends with a brief remark on what aspects of
meaning should be preserved under translation.
The paper by Edward L. Keenan tries to identify inference patterns which
are specific for proportionality quantifiers. For instance, given the premisses
(1-a), (1-b) in (1) we may conclude (1-c).
(1)

a.
b.
c.

More than three tenths of the students are athletes.
At least seven tenths of the students are vegetarians.
At least one student is both an athlete and a vegetarian.

This is an instance of the following inference pattern:
(2)

a.
b.
c.

More than n/m of the As are Bs.
At least 1 − n/m of the As are Cs.
Ergo: Some A is both a B and a C.

Although proportionality quantifiers satisfy inference pattern (2), other quantifiers do so as well, as observed by Dag Westerståhl. Building on (Keenan
2004) the paper provides an important further contribution to the question
whether there are inference patterns specific to proportionality quantifiers.
The central result of Keenan’s paper is the Mid-Point Theorem and a generalization thereof.
The Mid-Point Theorem Let p, q be fractions with 0 ≤ p ≤ q ≤ 1 and p +
q = 1. Then the quantifiers
(BETW EEN p AND q) and (MORE T HAN p AND LESS T HAN q)
are fixed by the postcomplement operation.
The postcomplement of a generalized quantifier Q is that generalized quantifier which maps a set B to Q(¬B). The following pair of sentences illustrates
this operation:

6 Fritz Hamm and Stephan Kepser
(3)

a.
b.

Exactly half the students got an A on the exam.
Exactly half the students didn’t get an A on the exam.

The mid-point theorem therefore guarantees the equivalence of sentences
(4-a) and (4-b); and analogously the equivalence of sentences formed with
MORE T HAN p AND LESS T HAN q).
(4)

a.
b.

Between one sixth and five sixth of the students are happy.
Between one sixth and five sixth of the students are not happy.

However, this and the generalization of the mid-point theorem are still
only partial answers to the question concerning specific inference patterns
for proportionality quantifiers, since non-proportional determiner exist which
still satisfy the conditions of the generalized mid-point-theorem.
The paper by Lawrence S. Moss studies syllogistic systems of increasing
strength from the point of view of natural logic (for a discussion of this notion,
see Purdy (1991)). Moss proves highly interesting new completeness results
for these systems. More specifically, after proving soundness for all systems
considered in the paper the first result states the completeness of the following
two axioms for L (all) a syllogistic fragment containing only expressions of
the form All X are Y:

All X are X

All X are Z All Z are Y
All X are Y

In addition to completness the paper studies a further related but stronger
property, the canonical model property. A system which has the canonical
model property is also complete, but this does not hold vice versa. Roughly,
a model M is canonical for a fragment F , a set Γ of sentences in F and a
logical system for F if for all S ∈ F , M |= S iff Γ  S. A fragment F has
the canonical model if every set Γ ⊆ F has a canonical model. The canonical
model property is a rather strong property. Classical propositional logic, for
instance, does not have this property, but the fragment L (all) has it. Some
but not all of the systems in the paper have the canonical model property.
Other system studied in Moss’ paper include Some X are Y, combinations of this system with L (all) and sentences involving proper names, systems with Boolean combinations, a combination of L (all) with There are
at least s many X as Y, logical theories for Most and Most + Some. The
largest logical system for which completeness is proved adds ∃≥ to the theory

Introduction 7

L (all, some, no, names) with Boolean operations, where ∃≥ (X ,Y ) is considered true in case X contains more elements than Y .
Moss’ paper contains two interesting digressions as well. The first is concerned with sentences of the form All X which are Y are Z, the second with
most. For instance, Moss proves that the following two axioms are complete
for most.
Most X are Y
Most X are X

Most X are Y
Most Y are Y

Moreover, if Most X are Y does not follow from a set of sentences Γ then
there exists a model of Γ with cardinality ≤ 5 which falsifies Most X are Y.
All papers collected in this volume grew out of a conference in honour of
Uwe Mönnich which was held in Freudenstadt in November 2004. Since
this event four years elapsed. But another important date is now imminent,
Uwe’s birthday. Hence we are in the lucky position to present this volume as
a Festschrift for Uwe Mönnich on the occasion of his 70th birthday.

Tübingen, July 2008

Fritz Hamm and Stephan Kepser

References
Keenan, Edward L.
2004
Excursions in natural logic. In Claudia Casadio, Philip J. Scott, and
Robert A.G. Seely, (eds.), Language and Grammar: Studies in Mathematical Linguistics and Natural Language. Stanford: CSLI.
Moschovakis, Yiannis
1989a
The formal language of recursion. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 54:
1216–1252.

8 Fritz Hamm and Stephan Kepser
1989b

A mathematical modeling of pure recursive algorithms. In Albert R.
Meyer and Michael Taitslin, (eds.), Logic at Botik ’89, LNCS 363.
Berlin: Springer.
1993
Sense and denotation as algorithm and value. In Juha Oikkonen and
Jouko Väänänen, (eds.), Logic Colloquium ’90. Natick, USA: Association for Symbolic Logic, A.K. Peters, Ltd.
1998
On founding the theory of algorithms. In Harold Dales and Gianluigi
Oliveri, (eds.), Truth in Mathematics. Oxford University Press.
2006
A logical calculus of meaning and synonymy. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 27–89.
Purdy, William C.
1991
A logic for natural language. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic
32: 409–425.

Type Theory with Records and unification-based
grammar
Robin Cooper

Abstract
We suggest a way of bringing together type theory and unification-based grammar
formalisms by using records in type theory. The work is part of a broader project
whose aim is to present a coherent unified approach to natural language dialogue
semantics using tools from type theory.

1.

Introduction

Uwe Mönnich has worked both on the use of type theory in semantics and on
formal aspects of grammar formalisms. This paper suggests a way of bringing
together type theory and unification as found in unification-based grammar
formalisms like HPSG by using records in type theory which provide us with
feature structure like objects. It represents a small offering to Uwe to thank
him for many kindnesses over the years sprinkled with insights and rigorous
comments.
This work is part of a broader project whose aim is to present a coherent unified approach to natural language dialogue semantics using tools from
type theory. We are seeking to do this by bringing together Head Driven
Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) (Sag et al. 2003), Montague semantics
(Montague 1974), Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) (Kamp and Reyle
1993; van Eijck and Kamp 1997, and much other literature), situation semantics (Barwise and Perry 1983) and issue-based dialogue management (Larsson 2002) into a single type-theoretic formalism. A survey of our approach
to the semantic theories (i.e., Montague semantics, DRT and situation semantics) and HPSG can be found in (Cooper 2005b). Other work in progress can
be found on http://www.ling.gu.se/˜ cooper/records. We give a brief
summary here: Record types can be used as discourse representation structures (DRSs). Truth of a DRS corresponds to there being an object of the
appropriate record type and this gives us the effect of simultaneous binding
of discourse referents (corresponding to labels in records) familiar from the

10 Robin Cooper
semantics of DRSs in (Kamp and Reyle 1993). Dependent function types provide us with the classical treatment of donkey anaphora from DRT in a way
corresponding to the type theoretic treatment proposed by Mönnich (1985),
Sundholm (1986) and Ranta (1994). At the same time record types can be
used as feature structures of the kind found in HPSG since they have recursive
structure and induce a kind of subtyping which can be used to mimic unification. Because we are using a general type theory which includes records we
have functions available and a version of the λ-calculus. This means that we
can use Montague’s λ-calculus based techniques for compositional interpretation. From the HPSG perspective this gives us the advantage of being able
to use “real” variable binding which can only be approximately simulated in
pure unification based systems. From the DRT perspective this use of compositional techniques gives us an approach similar to that of Muskens (1996)
and work on λ-DRT (Kohlhase et al. 1996).
In this paper we will look at the notion of unification as used in unificationbased grammar formalisms like HPSG from the perspective of the type theoretical framework. This work has been greatly influenced by work of Jonathan
Ginzburg (for example, Ginzburg in prep, Chap. 3). In Section 2 we will give
a brief informal introduction to our view of type theory with records. The version of type theory that we discuss has been made more precise in (Cooper
2005a) and in an implementation called TTR (Type Theory with Records)
which is under development in the Oz programming language. In Section 3
we will discuss the notion of subtype which records introduce (corresponding to the notion of subsumption in the unification literature). We will then,
in Section 4, propose that linguistic objects are to be regarded as records
whereas feature structures are to be regarded as corresponding to record types.
Type theory is “function-based” rather than “unification-based”. However,
the addition of records to type theory allows us to get the advantages of unification without having to leave the “function-based” approach. We show how
to do this in Section 5 treating some classical simple examples which have
been used to motivate the use of unification. Section 6 deals with the way in
which unification analyses are used to allow the extraction of linguistic generalizations as principles in the style of HPSG. The conclusion (Section 7) is
that by using record types within a type theory we can have the advantages of
unification-based approaches together with an additional intensionality not
present in classical unification approaches and without the disadvantage of
leaving the “function-based” approach which is necessary in order to deal
adequately with semantics (at least).

TTR and unification-based grammar 11

2.

Records in type theory

In this section1 we give a very brief intuitive introduction to the kind of
type theory we are employing. A more detailed and formal account can be
found in (Cooper 2005a) and work in progress on the project can be found
on http://www.ling.gu.se/˜ cooper/records. While the type theoretical machinery is based on work carried out in the Martin-Löf approach (Coquand et al. 2004; Betarte 1998; Betarte and Tasistro 1998; Tasistro 1997)
we are making a serious attempt to give it a foundation in standard set theory using Montague style recursive definitions of semantic domains. There
are two main reasons for this. The first is that we think it important to show
the relationship between the Montague model theoretic tradition which has
been developed for natural language semantics and the proof-theoretic tradition associated with type theory. We believe that the aspects of this kind of
type theory that we need can be seen as an enrichment of Montague’s original
programme. The second reason is that we are interested in exploring to what
extent intuitionistic and constructive approaches are appropriate or necessary
for natural language. For example, we make important use of the notion
“propositions as types” which is normally associated with an intuitionistic
approach. However, we suspect that our Montague-like approach to defining
the type theory to some extent decouples the notion from intuitionism. We
would like to see type theory as providing us with a powerful collection of
tools for natural language analysis which ultimately do not commit one way
or the other to philosophical notions associated with intuitionism.
The central idea of records and record types can be expressed informally
as follows, where T (a1 , . . . , an ) represents a type T which depends on the
objects a1 , . . . , an .
If a1 : T1 , a2 : T2 (a1 ), . . . , an : Tn (a1 , a2 , . . . , an−1 ), a record:
⎤
⎡
= a1
l1
⎢ l2
= a2 ⎥
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢ ...
⎥
⎢
⎣ ln
= an ⎦
...
is of type:
⎡
: T1
l1
⎢ l2
: T2 (l1 )
⎢
⎣ ...
: Tn (l1 , l2 , . . . , ln−1 )
ln

⎤
⎥
⎥
⎦

12 Robin Cooper
A record is to be regarded as a finite set of fields , a , which are ordered
pairs of a label and an object. A record type is to be regarded as a finite set
of fields , T which are ordered pairs of a label and a type. The informal
notation above suggests that the fields are ordered with types being dependent
on previous fields in the order. This is misleading in that we regard record
types as sets of fields on which a partial order is induced by the dependency
relation. Dependent types give us the possibility of relating the values in
fields to each other and play a crucial role in our treatment of both feature
structures and semantic objects. Both records and record types are required
to be the graphs of functions, that is, if , α and  , β are members of a
given record or record type then  =  . A record r is of record type R just
in case for each field , T in R there is a field , a in r (i.e., with the same
label) and a is of type T . Notice that the record may have additional fields not
mentioned in the type. Thus a record will generally belong to several record
types and any record will belong to the empty record type. This gives us a
notion of subtyping which we will explore further in Section 3.
Let us see how this can be applied to a simple linguistic example. We will
take the content of a sentence to be modelled by a record type. The sentence
a man owns a donkey
corresponds to a record type:
⎤
⎡
x : Ind
⎥
⎢ c1 : man(x)
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢ y : Ind
⎥
⎢
⎣ c2 : donkey(y) ⎦
c3 : own(x,y)
A record of this type will be:
⎤
⎡
x = a
⎢ c1 = p1 ⎥
⎥
⎢
⎢ y = b ⎥
⎥
⎢
⎣ c2 = p2 ⎦
c3 = p3
where
a, b are of type Ind, individuals
p1 is a proof of man(a)
p2 is a proof of donkey(b)
p3 is a proof of own(a, b).

TTR and unification-based grammar 13

Note that the record may have had additional fields and still be of this type.
The types ‘man(x)’, ‘donkey(y)’, ‘own(x,y)’ are dependent types of proofs
(in a convenient but not quite exact abbreviatory notation – we will give a
more precise account of dependencies within record types in Section 3). The
use of types of proofs for what in other theories would be called propositions
is often referred to as the notion of “propositions as types”. Exactly what
type ‘man(x)’ is depends on which individual you choose in your record to
be labelled by ‘x’. If the individual a is chosen then the type is the type
of proofs that a is a man. If another individual d is chosen then the type
is the type of proofs that d is a man, and so on. What is a proof? MartinLöf considers proofs to be objects rather than arguments or texts. For nonmathematical propositions proofs can be regarded as situations or events. For
useful discussion of this see (Ranta 1994, p. 53ff). We discuss it in more
detail in (Cooper 2005a).
There is an obvious correspondence between this record type and a discourse representation structure (DRS) as characterised in (Kamp and Reyle
1993). The characterisation of what it means for a record to be of this type
corresponds in an obvious way to the standard embedding semantics for such
a DRS which Kamp and Reyle provide.
Records (and record types) are recursive in the sense that the value corresponding to a label in a field can be a record (or record type)2 . For example,
⎡
⎡

⎤ ⎤
ff = a
f
=
⎢ f = ⎣
⎦ ⎥
gg = b
⎢
⎥
⎥
r=⎢
⎢
⎥
 g = c
⎣
⎦
g = a
g =
h =
h = d
is of type
⎡
⎢ f
⎢
R=⎢
⎢
⎣
g

⎡
:
:



⎣ f
 g
h

:

ff
gg

: T3
g
:
h

:
:
:
:

T1
T2
T1
T4

⎤ ⎤
⎦ ⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦

given that a : T1 , b : T2 , c : T3 and d : T4 . We can use path-names in records
and record types to designate values in particular fields, e.g.
⎡

⎤
ff = a
f =
⎦
gg = b
r.f = ⎣
g = c
R.f.f.ff = T1

14 Robin Cooper
The recursive nature of records and record types will be important later in the
paper when we use record types to correspond to linguistic feature structures.
Another important aspect of the type theory we are using is that types
themselves can also be treated as objects.3 A simple example of how this
can be exploited is the following representation for a girl believes that a man
owns a donkey. This is a simplified version of the treatment discussed in
(Cooper 2005a).
⎡
⎤
x : Ind
⎢ c1 : girl(x)
⎥
⎢
⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢
⎥
y : Ind
⎢
⎥
⎢ c3 : man(y)
⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎥) ⎥
⎢ c2 : believe(x, ⎢ z
: Ind
⎢
⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ c4 : donkey(z) ⎦ ⎦
⎣
c5 : own(y, z)
The treatment of types as first class objects in this way is a feature which
this type theory has in common which situation theory and it is an important
component in allowing us to incorporate analyses from situation semantics in
our type theoretical treatment.
The theory of records and record types is embedded in a general type theory. This means that we have functions and function types available giving us
a version of the λ-calculus. We can thus use Montague’s techniques for compositional interpretation. For example, we can interpret the common noun
donkey as a function which maps records r of the type x:Ind (i.e. records
which introduce an individual labelled with the label ‘x’) to a record type
dependent on r. We notate the function as follows:
λr: x:Ind ( c:donkey(r.x) )
The type of this function is
P = ( x:Ind )RecType
This corresponds to Montague’s type e,t (the type of functions from individuals (entities) to truth-values). In place of individuals we use records
introducing individuals with the label ‘x’ and in place of truth-values we use
record types which, as we have seen above, correspond to an intuitive notion
of proposition (in particular a proposition represented by a DRS). Using the
power of the λ-calculus we can treat determiners Montague-style as functions
which take two arguments of type P and return a record type. For example,
we represent the indefinite article by

TTR and unification-based grammar 15

λR1 :( x:Ind )RecType
λR2 :( x:Ind )RecType
⎡
par
:
(⎣ restr
:
scope :

x : Ind
R1 @ par
R2 @ par

⎤
⎦)

Here we use F @ a to represent the result of applying function F to argument
a.
The type theory includes dependent function types. These can be used to
give a classical treatment of universal quantification corresponding to DRT’s
‘⇒’. For example, an interpretation of every man owns a donkey can be the
following record type:
⎤ ⎤
⎡
⎡

y : Ind
⎣ f : (r : x : Ind
) ⎣ c2 : donkey(y) ⎦ ⎦
c1 : man(x)
c3 : own(r.x,y)
Records of the type

x : Ind
(r :
c1 : man(x)

⎡

y
) ⎣ c2
c3

:
:
:

⎤
Ind
donkey(y) ⎦
own(r.x,y)

map records r of type

x : Ind
c1 : man(x)
to records of type
⎤
⎡
y : Ind
⎣ c2 : donkey(y) ⎦
c3 : own(r.x,y)
Our interpretation of every man owns a donkey requires that there exist a
function of this type. Why do we use the record type with the label ‘f’ rather
than the function type itself as the interpretation of the sentence? One reason
is to achieve a uniform treatment where the interpretation of a sentence is always a record type. Another reason is that the label gives us a handle which
can be used to anaphorically refer to the function. This can, for example, be
exploited in so-called paycheck examples (Karttunen 1969) such as Everybody receives a paycheck. Not everybody pays it into the bank immediately,
though.
The final notion we will introduce which is important for the modelling
of HPSG typed feature structures as record types is that of manifest field.

16 Robin Cooper
This notion is introduced in (Coquand et al. 2004). It builds on the notion
of singleton type. If a : T , then Ta is a singleton type and b : Ta iff b = a. A
manifest field in a record type is one whose type is a singleton type, e.g.
x

:

Ta

written for convenience as
x=a

:

T

This notion allows record types to be “progressively instantiated”, i.e. intuitively, for values to be specified within a record type. A record type that only
contains manifest fields is completely instantiated and there will be exactly
one record of that type. We will allow dependent singleton types, where a in
Ta can be represented by a path in a record type. Manifest fields are important
for the modelling of HPSG-style unification in type theory with records.
3.

Dependent types and the subtype relation

We are now in a position to give more detail about the treatment of dependencies in record types. Dependent types within record types are treated as
pairs consisting of functions and sequences of path-names providing corresponding to the arguments required by the functions. Thus the type on p. 12
corresponding to a man owns a donkey is in official, though less readable,
notation:
⎤
⎡
x : Ind
⎥
⎢ c1 : λv :Ind(man(v)), x
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢ y : Ind
⎥
⎢
⎦
⎣ c2 : λv :Ind(donkey(v)), y
c3 : λv :Ind(λw :Ind(own(v, w))), x,y
This enables us to give scope to dependencies outside the object in which the
dependency occurs. Thus if, on the model of the type for a girl believes that
a man owns a donkey on p. 14, we wish to construct a type corresponding to
a girl believes that she owns a donkey (where she is anaphorically related to
a girl), this can be done as follows:
⎤
⎡
x : Ind
⎥
⎢ c1 : λv :Ind(girl(v)), x
⎢
⎤ ⎥
⎡
⎥
⎢
z
: Ind
⎥
⎢
⎢ c2 : λu :Ind(believe(u, ⎣ c4 : λv :Ind(donkey(v)), z ⎦)), ⎥
⎥
⎢
⎦
⎣
c5 : λv :Ind(own(u, v)), z
x

TTR and unification-based grammar 17

There are two kinds of path-names which can occur in such types: relative
path-names which are constructed from labels, 1 . . . . .n , and absolute pathnames which refer explicitly to the record, r in which the path-name is to be
evaluated, r.1 . . . . .n . A dependent record type is a set of pairs of the form
, T where  is a label and T is either a type, a dependent record type or a
pair consisting of a function and a sequence of path-names as characterized
above. An anchor for a dependent record type T of the form
⎡
⎤
1
: T1
⎣ ...
⎦
: Tn
n
is a record, h, such that for each Ti of the form  f , π1 , . . . , πm , πi is either
an absolute path or a path defined in h, and for each Ti which is a dependent
record type, h is also an anchor for Ti . In addition we require that the result
of anchoring T with h as characterized below is well-defined, i.e., that the
anchor provides arguments of appropriate types to functions and provides
objects of appropriate types for the construction of singleton types as required
by the anchoring. The result of anchoring T with h, T [h] is obtained by
replacing
1. each Ti in T of the form  f , π1 , . . . , πm with f (π1 [h]) . . . (πm [h]) (where
πi [h] is the value of h.πi if πi is a relative path-name and the value of πi
if πi is an absolute path-name)
2. each Ti in T which is a dependent record type with Ti [h]
3. each basic type which is the value of a path π in T and for which h.π
is defined, with Ta , where a is the value of h.π, i.e. the singleton type
obtained from T and the value of h.π.
A dependent record type T is said to be closed just in case each path which
T requires to be defined in an anchor for T is defined within T itself. It is the
closed dependent record types which belong to our type universe. If T is a
closed dependent record type then r : T if and only if r : T [r].
Let us return to our type above for a girl believes that she owns a donkey.
An anchor for this type is
x

=

m

(where m is an object of type Ind) and the result of anchoring the type with
this record is

18 Robin Cooper
⎡

x=m
⎢ c1
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣ c2

⎤

:
:

Ind
girl(m)

:

z
believe(m, ⎣ c4
c5

⎡

:
:
:

Ind
λv :Ind(donkey(v)), z
λv :Ind(own(m, v)), z

⎥
⎤ ⎥
⎥
⎥
⎦) ⎦

Notice that the anchor has no effect on dependencies with scope within the
argument type corresponding to that she owns a donkey but only the dependency with scope external to it.
We now turn our attention to the subtype relation. Record types introduce
a notion of subtype which corresponds to what is known as subsumption in
the unification literature. The subtype relation can be characterized model
theoretically as follows:
If T1 and T2 are types, then T1 is a subtype of T2 (T1
case
{a | a :M T1 } ⊆ {a | a :M T2 } for all models M.

T2 ) just in

where the right-hand side of this equivalence refers to sets in the sense of
classical set theory and models as defined in (Cooper 2005a). These models assign sets of objects to the basic types and sets of proofs to proof-types
constructed from predicates with appropriate arguments, e.g. if k is a woman
according to model M then M will assign a non-empty set of proofs to the
type woman(k). Such models correspond to sorted first-order models. If
this notion of subtype is to be computationally useful, we need some way of
computing whether two types stand in the subtype relation without having to
compute the sets of objects which belong to those types in all possible models. Thus we define another relation c which is computed without reference
to the models.
The approach taken to this in the implementation TTR is to instantiate
(dependent) record types, R, recursively as an anchor for R introducing arbitrary formal objects guaranteed to be of the appropriate type. Basic types
and types constructed with predicates are instantiated to arbitrary formal objects guaranteed to be of the type (in the implementation, pairings of gensym
atoms with the type); singleton types are instantiated to the object used to
define the type; record type structures are instantiated to records containing
the instantiations of the types (or anchors for the dependent record types) in
each field; similar instantiations are given for other complex types. Thus the
instantiation of the record type

TTR and unification-based grammar 19

⎡

f
⎢ g=b
⎢
⎣
h

:
:

T1
T
2

:

⎤
i
j

can be represented as:
⎡
f = a0#T1
⎢ g = b
⎢

⎣
i =
h =
j =

:
:

r1 (f,g)
r2 (g,f)

⎥
⎥
⎦

⎤
a1#r1 (a0#T1 , b)
a2#r2 (b, a0#T1 )

⎥
⎥
⎦

We use Inst(T ) to represent such an instantiation of type T . T1 c T2 just in
case Inst(T1 ) : T2 . One advantage of this approach is that the computation of
the subtype relation will be directly dependent on the of-type relation. If T1
is a record type containing a superset of the fields of the record type T2 then
T1 c T2 as desired for the modelling of subsumption in unification systems.
Thus, for example,
⎤
⎡

f:T1
⎣g:T2 ⎦ c f:T1
g:T2
h:T3
This method of computing the subtype relation appears to be sound with
respect to the models but not necessarily complete since it does not take account of the logic associated with predicates. For example, later in the paper
we will make use of an equality predicate. The predicate eq is such that
a : eq(T, x, y) iff a = x, y , x, y : T , and x = y. Now consider that the type
⎡
⎤
x:T
⎣y:T ⎦
c:r(x)
is not a subtype of
⎡
⎤
x:T
⎣y:T ⎦
c:r(y)
whereas according to the model theoretic definition
⎡
⎤
⎡
⎤
x:T
x:T
⎢y:T
⎥
⎢
⎥ ⎣y:T ⎦
⎣c:r(x)
⎦
c:r(y)
d:eq(T ,x,y)

20 Robin Cooper
since anything of the first type must also be of the second type. The instantiation of the first type
⎡
⎤
x=a0#T
⎢y=a1#T
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎣c=a2#r(a0#T )
⎦
d=a3#eq(T, a0#T, a1#T )
will not, however, be computed as being of the second type unless we take
account of the import of the equality predicate. This is easily fixed, for example by normalizing the instantiation so that all arbitrary objects which are
required to be identical are represented by the same symbols, in this case, for
example, substituting a0 for all occurrences of a1:
⎡
⎤
x=a0#T
⎢y=a0#T
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎣c=a2#r(a0#T )
⎦
d=a3#eq(T, a0#T, a0#T )
This will then have the desired effect on the computation of the subtype relation. However, there is no guarantee that it will always be possible to give a
complete characterization of the subtype relation if the logic of the predicates
is incomplete. But we should not let this stop us exploiting those inferences
about subtyping which we can draw in a computational implementation.
4.

Records as linguistic objects

We will consider linguistic objects to be records. Here is a simple linguistic
object which might correspond to the word man.
⎡
⎤
phon = [man]
⎢ cat
⎥
= n
⎢
⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢
⎥
num = sg
⎢
⎥
⎣
⎦
⎣ agr
⎦
gen = masc
=
pers = third
It is a record with three fields. The field for phon(ology) has as value
a (singleton) list of words (following the traditional HPSG simplifying assumption about phonology). For the cat(egory) field we will use atomic categories like n(oun), although nothing in our approach excludes the complex
categories normally used in HPSG analyses. We include three agr(eement)
features: num(ber), in this case with the value s(in)g(ular), gen(der), in this

TTR and unification-based grammar 21

case with the value masc(uline) and pers(on) in this case with the value third
(person).
Not all words correspond to a single linguistic object. For example, the
English word fish can be singular or plural and masculine, feminine or neuter.
This means that there will be six records corresponding to the single record
for man. Here are three of them:
⎡
⎤
phon = [fish]
⎢ cat
⎥
= n
⎢
⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢
⎥
num = sg
⎢
⎥
⎣
⎦
⎣ agr
⎦
gen = neut
=
pers = third
⎡
⎤
phon = [fish]
⎢ cat
⎥
= n
⎢
⎤ ⎥
⎡
⎢
⎥
num = pl
⎢
⎥
⎣ agr
= ⎣ gen = neut ⎦ ⎦
pers = third
⎡
⎤
phon = [fish]
⎢ cat
⎥
= n
⎢
⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢
⎥
num = sg
⎢
⎥
⎣
⎦
⎣ agr
⎦
gen = masc
=
pers = third
Now let us consider types of linguistic objects. Nouns correspond to objects which have a phonology, the category n and the agreement features for
number, gender and person. That is we can define a record type Noun as
follows:
⎡
⎤
phon : Phon
⎢ cat=n : Cat
⎥
⎢
⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢
⎥
num : Number
Noun ≡ ⎢
⎥
⎣ agr
: ⎣ gen : Gender ⎦ ⎦
pers : Person
where:
Phon ≡ [Lex] (i.e. type of list of objects of type Lex)
the, a, fish, man, men, swim, swims, swam, . . . : Lex
n, det, np, v, vp, s, . . . : Cat
sg, pl : Number
masc, fem, neut : Gender
first, second, third : Person
We can further define types for determiners, verbs and agreement:

22 Robin Cooper
⎡

phon
⎢ cat=det
⎢
Det ≡ ⎢
⎢
⎣ agr
⎡

phon
⎢ cat=v
⎢
V≡⎢
⎢
⎣ agr
⎡

num
⎣
Agr ≡ gen
pers

:
:
:

:
:

Phon
Cat
⎡
num
⎣ gen
pers

Phon
Cat
⎡
num
⎣ gen
pers

:
:
:
:

:
:
:
⎤

⎤
:
:
:

⎥
⎤ ⎥
⎥
Number
⎥
⎦
⎦
Gender
Person
⎤

⎥
⎤ ⎥
⎥
Number
⎥
⎦
⎦
Gender
Person

Number
Gender ⎦
Person

Now we can define the type
man.
⎡
phon=[man]
⎢ cat=n
⎢
Man ≡ ⎢
⎢
⎣ agr

of linguistic objects corresponding to the word
:
:
:

Phon
Cat
⎡
num=sg
⎣ gen=masc
pers=third

⎤
:
:
:

⎥
⎤ ⎥
⎥
Number
⎥
⎦
⎦
Gender
Person

This type identifies a unique linguistic object (namely the record corresponding to man which we introduced above). It is a singleton (or fully specified)
type. It is also a subtype (or specification) of Noun in the sense that if an
object is of type Man it is also of type Noun. We define the type for the plural
men in a similar way.
⎤
⎡
phon=[men] : Phon
⎥
⎢ cat=n
: Cat
⎢
⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎥
⎢
num=pl
: Number
Men ≡ ⎢
⎥
⎣
⎦
⎦
⎣ agr
gen=masc : Gender
:
pers=third : Person
The type Fish corresponding to the noun fish is a less specified type, however:
⎡
⎤
phon=[fish] : Phon
⎢ cat=n
⎥
: Cat
⎢
⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎥
num
: Number
Fish ≡ ⎢
⎢
⎥
⎣
⎦
⎣ agr
⎦
gen
: Gender
:
pers=third : Person

TTR and unification-based grammar 23

The objects which are of this type will be the six records which we identified
earlier. Fish is also a subtype of Noun.
We can also define two types IndefArt and DefArt corresponding to the
indefinite and definite articles which have different degrees of specification:
⎡

phon=[a]
⎢ cat=det
⎢
IndefArt ≡ ⎢
⎢
⎣ agr
⎡

phon=[the]
⎢ cat=det
⎢
DefArt ≡ ⎢
⎢
⎣ agr

:
:

Phon
Cat
⎡
num=sg
⎣ gen
pers=third

:
:
:

Phon
Cat
⎡
num
⎣ gen
pers=third

:

⎤
⎥
⎤ ⎥
⎥
Number
⎥
Gender ⎦ ⎦
Person
⎤

:
:
:

⎥
⎤ ⎥
⎥
Number
⎥
⎦
⎦
Gender
Person

:
:
:

Both of these are subtypes of Det. IndefArt is specified for both number and
person whereas DefArt is only specified for person.
Similar differences in specification arise in verbs:4
⎡

phon=[swims]
⎢ cat=v
⎢
Swims ≡ ⎢
⎢
⎣ agr
⎡

phon=[swim]
⎢ cat=v
⎢
Swim ≡ ⎢
⎢
⎣ agr
⎡

phon=[swam]
⎢ cat=v
⎢
Swam ≡ ⎢
⎢
⎣ agr

:
:
:
:
:

Phon
Cat
⎡
num=pl
⎣ gen
pers=third

:
:
:
:

⎤

Phon
Cat
⎡
num=sg
⎣ gen
pers=third

Phon
Cat
⎡
num
⎣ gen
pers=third

These three types are all subtypes of V.

:
:
:

⎥
⎤ ⎥
⎥
Number
⎥
⎦
⎦
Gender
Person
⎤
⎥
⎤ ⎥
⎥
Number
⎥
Gender ⎦ ⎦
Person
⎤

:
:
:

:
:
:

⎥
⎤ ⎥
⎥
Number
⎥
⎦
⎦
Gender
Person

24 Robin Cooper
5.

A type theoretical approach to unification phenomena

The types that we introduced in Section 4 lay the basis for a kind of unification phenomenon in language which has been discussed in the classical literature on unification approaches to natural language grammar (e.g. Shieber
1986). The sentence (1) is underspecified with respect to number.
(1)

The fish swam.

Note, however, that either all the words are singular or all the words are plural.
It cannot be the case that fish is regarded as singular while swam is regarded
as plural, for example. This is because there are requirements that the determiner and the noun agree in number and that the subject noun-phrase and
the verb agree in number. In a unification-based grammar this is expressed
by requiring that the number features of the relevant phrases unify. In the
terms of our previous discussion it means that there are two linguistic objects
corresponding to (1) rather than eight. Note that the sentences in (2) are all
singular.
(2) a. a fish swam.
b. the man swam.
c. the fish swims.
However, the “source” of the singularity is different in each case. It is the
fact that a, man, and swims respectively are specified for singular, together
with the requirements that all the number features unify which have as a consequence that all the words are specified for singular in the single linguistic
object corresponding to each of these sentences. Unification is regarded as
a useful tool in the linguistic analysis because it reflects the lack of “directionality” of the agreement phenomenon, that is, as long as one of the words
is specified for number they all have to be specified for the same number.
Unification is traditionally regarded as partial, that is, it can fail and this is
used to explain why the strings of words in (3) are not sentences of English,
that is, they do not correspond to linguistic objects allowed by the grammar
of English.
(3) a. *a fish swim.
b. *the man swim.
c. *a men swims.

TTR and unification-based grammar 25

On our type theoretical view the intuitive notion of unification is related
to meet (as in the meet, or conjunction, of two types) and equality. In the
definition of our type theory in Cooper(2005b) we introduce meet-types in
the following way:
If T1 and T2 are types, then T1 ∧ T2 is also a type.
a : T1 ∧ T2 iff a : T1 and a : T2
If T1 and T2 are record types then there will always be a record type (not a
meet) T3 which is equivalent to T1 ∧ T2 (in the sense that a : T3 iff a : T1 ∧ T2 ).
Let us consider some examples:

f:T1
f:T1 ∧ g:T2 ≈
g:T2
f:T1 ∧ f:T2 ≈ f:T1 ∧ T2
Below we present some informal pseudocode for a function μ which will simplify meets of records types, returning an equivalent record type. The algorithm is similar in essential respects to the graph unification algorithm used in
classical implementations of feature based grammar systems (Shieber 1986).
One important respect in which it differs from the classical unification algorithm is that it never fails. In cases where the corresponding unification would
have failed it will return a record type which is equivalent to the distinguished
empty type ⊥.5 Another way in which it differs from the classical unification algorithm is that it applies to all types, reducing meets of records types
to non-meet types and recursively performing this reduction within record
types and otherwise returning the original type. The algorithm that is informally presented here is a simplification of the one that is implemented in
TTR which has some additional special cases and also has an additional level
of complication for the handling of dependent types, using the technique of
environments which we referred to in Section 3. In order to understand the
intention of this pseudocode it is important to remember that record types are
considered to be finite sets of ordered pairs (representing the fields) as described above in Section 2. When we write Map(T , λl, v[Φ]) we mean that
each field , T in T is to be replaced by the result of applying the function
λl, v[Φ] to  and T . When we say that T. is defined we mean that for some
T , , T ∈ T . We assume that the type theory will define an incompatibility
relation which holds between certain basic types such that if T1 and T2 are
incompatible then there will be no a such that a : T1 and a : T2 . For example,
one might require that all basic types are pairwise incompatible.

26 Robin Cooper
μ(T ) =
if for some T1 , T2 , T = T1 ∧ T2 then
let
T1 = μ(T1 )
T2 = μ(T2 )
in
T2 then T1
if T1
elseif T2
T1 then T2
elseif T1 and T2 are incompatible, then ⊥
elseif T1 and T2 are record types then
Map(T1 , λl, v[if T2 .l is defined then l, μ(v ∧ T2 .l) else l, v ])
∪
(T2 − {l, v ∈ T2 | T1 .l is defined})
else T1 ∧ T2
end
end
elseif T is a record type, then
Map(T , λl, v[l, μ(v) ])
else T
end

If we know a : T1 and b : T2 and in addition know a = b then we know
a : T1 ∧ T2 and a : μ(T1 ∧ T2 ). Intuitively, equality of objects corresponds
to meet (or “unification”) of types. This can be expressed in terms of the
following rules of inference.

a : T1
b : T2
a=b
a : T1 ∧ T2
a : T1 ∧ T2
a : μ(T1 ∧ T2 )
We can exploit this in characterizing a type NP which allows noun-phrases
consisting of a determiner and a noun which agree in number.

TTR and unification-based grammar 27

NP ≡
⎡
⎤
phon=append(daughters.first.phon, daughters.rest.first.phon):Phon
⎢cat=np:Cat
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎡
⎤
⎢
⎥
first : Det
⎢
⎥

⎢daughters:⎣
⎥
⎦
first
:
Noun
⎢
⎥
rest :
⎢
⎥
rest=nil : [Sign]
⎢
⎥
⎣agr=daughters.rest.first.agr:Agr
⎦
c:eq(Number, daughters.first.agr.num, daughters.rest.first.agr.num)
In the definition of NP, Sign is to be thought of as a recursively defined type
defined by:
1. if a : Det then a : Sign
2. if a : Noun then a : Sign
3. if a : NP then a : Sign
. . . (similarly for other word and phrase types)
n. no object is of type Sign except as required by the above clauses
The predicate eq is as defined in Section 3.
The type NP can be further specified to a type where the first daughter is
of type DefArt and the second daughter is of type Man since these types are
subtypes of Det and Noun respectively.
⎤
⎡
phon=append(daughters.first.phon, daughters.rest.first.phon):Phon
⎥
⎢cat=np:Cat
⎢
⎤⎥
⎡
⎤
⎡
⎥
⎢
phon=[the]:Phon
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎥
⎢cat=det
⎥
⎢
⎢
:Cat
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎡
⎤⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎢ first:⎢
⎢
num
: Number ⎥
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎣agr
: Gender ⎦⎦
:⎣ gen
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
pers=third
:
Person
⎢
⎢
⎡
⎡
⎤⎤⎥⎥
⎥⎥
⎢daughters:⎢
phon=[man]:Phon
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎢cat=n:Cat
⎥ ⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎡
⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
num=sg
: Number ⎥
:⎢
⎢ rest:⎢first
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣agr:⎣ gen=masc : Gender ⎦⎦⎥⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎦⎦⎥
⎣
⎣
pers=third : Person
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢
rest=nil:[Sign]
⎥
⎢
⎦
⎣agr=daughters.rest.first.agr:Agr
c:eq(Number, daughters.first.agr.num, daughters.rest.first.agr.num)
Note that this type represents that the singularity of the phrase has its source

28 Robin Cooper
in man. Similarly we can create the type corresponding to a fish where the
source of the singularity is the determiner.
⎡
⎤
phon=append(daughters.first.phon, daughters.rest.first.phon):Phon
⎢cat=np:Cat
⎥
⎢
⎡
⎡
⎤
⎤⎥
⎢
⎥
phon=[a]:Phon
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢cat=det :Cat
⎥
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥
⎡
⎤⎥
⎢
⎢ first:⎢
⎥⎥
num=sg
: Number ⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥
⎣
⎦
⎣agr
⎦
gen
:
Gender
:
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥
pers=third
: Person
⎢
⎢
⎡
⎡
⎤⎤⎥⎥
⎢daughters:⎢
⎥⎥
phon=[fish]:Phon
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢cat=n:Cat
⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎡
⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥⎥
num
: Number ⎥
:⎢
⎢
⎢ rest:⎢first
⎢
⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥
⎣agr:⎣ gen
: Gender ⎦⎦⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥⎥
⎢
⎣
⎣
⎦⎦⎥
pers=third : Person
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎥
rest=nil:[Sign]
⎢
⎥
⎣agr=daughters.rest.first.agr:Agr
⎦
c:eq(Number, daughters.first.agr.num, daughters.rest.first.agr.num)
A difference between our record types and feature structures is that the
record types preserve the information of the source of the number information
in these examples whereas in feature structures this information is lost once
the feature structures have been unified. An additional difference is that we
are able to form types corresponding to ungrammatical phrases such as *a
men.
⎤
⎡
phon=append(daughters.first.phon, daughters.rest.first.phon):Phon
⎥
⎢cat=np:Cat
⎢
⎤⎥
⎡
⎤
⎡
⎥
⎢
phon=[a]:Phon
⎥
⎢
⎥⎥
⎢cat=det :Cat
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎡
⎤⎥
⎥⎥
⎢ first:⎢
⎢
num=sg
: Number ⎥
⎥⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎣ gen
⎦⎦
⎣agr
:
Gender
:
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
pers=third
:
Person
⎢
⎢
⎡
⎡
⎤⎤⎥⎥
⎥⎥
⎢daughters:⎢
phon=[men]:Phon
⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢cat=n:Cat
⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎡
⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
num=pl
: Number ⎥
:⎢
⎢
⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎢ rest:⎢first
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎣agr:⎣ gen=masc : Gender ⎦⎦⎥⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎦⎦⎥
⎣
⎣
pers=third : Person
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢
rest=nil:[Sign]
⎥
⎢
⎦
⎣agr=daughters.rest.first.agr:Agr
c:eq(Number, daughters.first.agr.num, daughters.rest.first.agr.num)

TTR and unification-based grammar 29

This is a well-formed type but one that cannot have any elements since sg and
pl are not identical. This type is thus equivalent to ⊥. Such types might be
usefully exploited in robust parsing. Note that even though the type is empty
it contains a great deal of information about the phrase. In particular if our
types were to include information about the meaning or content of a phrase
it might be possible to extract information about the meaning of a phrase
even though it does not actually correspond to any well-formed linguistic
object. This could potentially be exploited in a way similar to that suggested
by Fouvry (2003) for weighted feature structures.
6.

Using unification to express generalizations

Unification is also exploited in unification grammars to extract generalities
from individual cases. For example, the noun-phrase agreement phenomenon
that we discussed in Section 5 requires that the agreement features on the
noun be the same as those on the NP. This is an instance of the head feature
principle which requires that the agreement features of the mother be the same
as those of the head daughter. If we identify the head daughter in phrases
then we can extract this principle out by creating a new type HFP which
corresponds to the head feature principle.
HFP
≡

hd-daughter
agr=hd-daughter.agr

:
:

Sign
Agr

We also define a new version of the type NP, NP , which identifies the
head daughter but does not contain the information corresponding to the head
feature principle.
NP
⎡ ≡
⎤
phon=append(daughters.first.phon, daughters.rest.first.phon)
:Phon
⎢cat=np
:Cat ⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢hd-daughter=daughters.rest.first
:Noun ⎥
⎢
⎥
⎡
⎤
⎢
⎥
first
:
Det
⎢
⎥

⎢daughters:⎣
⎥
⎦
first
: Noun
⎢
⎥
rest
:
⎢
⎥
rest=nil : [Sign]
⎢
⎥
⎣agr
:Agr ⎦
c:eq(Number, daughters.first.agr.num, daughters.rest.first.agr.num)
The record type that characterizes noun-phrases is now μ(NP ∧ HFC).

30 Robin Cooper
7.

Conclusions

We have shown how a type theory with records gives us a notion of subtyping
corresponding to subsumption in the unification literature and a way of reducing meets of record types to record types which is similar to the graph unification used in unification-based grammar formalisms. Using record types
instead of feature structures gives us a kind of intensionality which is not
available in feature structures. This intensionality allows us to distinguish
equivalent types which preserve information which is lost in the unification
of feature structures, such as the source of grammatical information associated with a phrase. This intensionality can also be exploited by associating
empty types with ungrammatical phrases. Such types may contain information which could be used in robust parsing. While it may appear odd to refer
to this property of as “intensionality” in the context of parsing, we do so
because it is the same kind of intensionality which is important for our approach to the semantic analysis of attitudes such as know and believe. The
type theory provides us with a level of abstraction which permits us to make
generalizations across phenomena in natural language that have previously
been treated by separate theories. Finally, this approach to unification is embedded in a rich “function-based” type theoretical framework which provides
us with the kind of tools that are needed for semantics while at the same time
allowing us to import unification into our semantic analysis.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Swedish Research Council projects numbers
2002-4879 Records, types and computational dialogue semantics and 20054211 Library-based Grammar Engineering. I am grateful to Thierry Coquand, Dan Flickinger, Jonathan Ginzburg, Erhard Hinrichs, Bengt Nordström and Aarne Ranta for discussion in connection with this work and to an
anonymous referee for this volume for making a number of useful suggestions.

Notes
1. This section contains revised material from (Cooper 2005a).
2. There is a technical sense in which this recursion is non-essential. These records
could also be viewed as non-recursive records whose labels are sequences of
atomic labels. See (Cooper 2005a) for more discussion.

TTR and unification-based grammar 31
3. In order to do this safely we stratify the types. We define the type system as a
family of type systems of order n for each natural number n. The idea is that
types which are not defined in terms of other types are of order 0 and that types
which are defined in terms of types of order n are of order n + 1. We will not
discuss this in detail here but rely on the discussion in (Cooper 2005a). In this
paper we will suppress reference to order in the specification of our types.
4. We are making the simplifying assumption that all the verb forms represented
here are third person.
5. Any record type which has ⊥ in one of its fields will be such that there are no
records of that type and thus the type will be equivalent to ⊥.

References
Barwise, Jon and John Perry
1983
Situations and Attitudes. Bradford Books. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Betarte, Gustavo
1998
Dependent Record Types and Algebraic Structures in Type Theory.
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computing Science, Göteborg University
and Chalmers University of Technology.
Betarte, Gustavo and Alvaro Tasistro
1998
Extension of Martin-Löf’s type theory with record types and subtyping. In Giovanni Sambin and Jan Smith, (eds.), Twenty-Five Years of
Constructive Type Theory, number 36 in Oxford Logic Guides. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, Robin
2005a
Austinian truth, attitudes and type theory. Research on Language and
Computation 3: 333–362.
2005b
Records and record types in semantic theory. Journal of Logic and
Computation 15(2): 99–112.
Coquand, Thierry, Randy Pollack, and Makoto Takeyama
2004
A logical framework with dependently typed records. Fundamenta
Informaticae XX: 1–22.
Fouvry, Frederik
2003
Constraint relaxation with weighted feature structures. In IWPT 03,
International Workshop on Parsing Technologies. Nancy (France).
Gabbay, Dov and Franz Guenthner, (eds.)
1986
Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. III. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Ginzburg, Jonathan
in prep
Semantics and interaction in dialogue.
Draft available from
http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/ginzburg/papers.html.

32 Robin Cooper
Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle
1993
From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Karttunen, Lauri
1969
Pronouns and variables. In Robert I. Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia M. Green, and Jerry L. Morgan, (eds.), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 108–115. Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Kohlhase, Michael, Susanna Kuschert, and Manfred Pinkal
1996
A type-theoretic semantics for λ-DRT. In Paul Dekker and Martin Stokhof, (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium,
479–498. ILLC, Amsterdam.
Larsson, Staffan
2002
Issue-based Dialogue Management. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Gothenburg.
Mönnich, Uwe
1985
Untersuchungen zu einer konstruktiven Semantik für ein Fragment
des Englischen. Habilitationsschrift, Universität Tübingen.
Montague, Richard
1974
Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. New
Haven: Yale University Press. Ed. and with an introduction by Richmond H. Thomason.
Muskens, Reinhard
1996
Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(2): 143–186.
Ranta, Aarne
1994
Type-Theoretical Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sag, Ivan A., Thomas Wasow, and Emily M. Bender
2003
Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2nd edition.
Shieber, Stuart
1986
An Introduction to Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Sundholm, Göran
1986
Proof theory and meaning. In Gabbay and Guenthner (1986), chapter 8, 471–506.
Tasistro, Alvaro
1997
Substitution, record types and subtyping in type theory, with applications to the theory of programming. Ph.D. thesis, Department of
Computing Science, University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology.
van Benthem, Johan and Alice ter Meulen, (eds.)
1997
Handbook of Logic and Language. North Holland and MIT Press.

TTR and unification-based grammar 33
van Eijck, Jan and Hans Kamp
1997
Representing discourse in context. In van Benthem and ter Meulen
(1997), chapter 3, 179–237.

One-letter automata: How to reduce k tapes to one
Hristo Ganchev, Stoyan Mihov, and Klaus U. Schulz

Abstract
The class of k-dimensional regular relations has various closure properties that are interesting for practical applications. From a computational point of view, each closure
operation may be realized with a corresponding construction for k-tape finite state
automata. While the constructions for union, Kleene-star and (coordinate-wise) concatenation are simple, specific and non-trivial algorithms are needed for relational
operations such as composition, projection, and cartesian product. Here we show
that all these operations for k-tape automata can be represented and computed using
standard operations on conventional one-tape finite state automata plus some trivial
rules for tape manipulation. As a key notion we introduce the concept of a one-letter
k-tape automaton, which yields a bridge between k-tape and one-tape automata. We
achieve a general and efficient implementational framework for n-tape automata.

1.

Introduction

Multi-tape finite state automata and especially 2-tape automata have been
widely used in many areas of computer science such as Natural Language
Processing (Karttunen et al. 1996; Mohri 1996; Roche and Schabes 1997)
and Speech Processing (Mohri 1997; Mohri et al. 2002). They provide an uniform, clear and computationally efficient framework for dictionary representation (Karttunen 1994; Mihov and Maurel 2001) and realization of rewrite
rules (Gerdemann and van Noord 1999; Kaplan and Kay 1994; Karttunen
1997), as well as text tokenization, lexicon tagging, part-of-speech disambiguation, indexing, filtering and many other text processing tasks (Karttunen
et al. 1996; Mohri 1996; Roche and Schabes 1995, 1997). The properties of
k-tape finite state automata differ significantly from the corresponding properties of 1-tape automata. For example, for k ≥ 2 the class of relations recognized by k-tape automata is not closed under intersection and complement.
Moreover there is no general determinization procedure for k-tape automata.
On the other side the class of relations recognized by k-tape finite state automata is closed under a number of useful relational operations like composition, cartesian product, projection, inverse etc. It is this latter property that

36 Hristo Ganchev, Stoyan Mihov, and Klaus U. Schulz
makes k-tape automata interesting for many practical applications such as the
ones listed above.
There exist a number of implementations for k-tape finite state automata
(Karttunen et al. 1996; Mohri et al. 1998; van Noord 1997). Most of them
are implementing the 2-tape case only. While it is straightforward to realize
constructions for k-tape automata that yield union, Kleene-star and concatenation of the recognized relations, the computation of relational operations
such as composition, projection and cartesian product is a complex task. This
makes the use of the k-tape automata framework tedious and difficult.
We introduce an approach for presenting all relevant operations for k-tape
automata using standard operations for classical 1-tape automata plus some
straightforward operations for adding, deleting and permuting tapes. In this
way we obtain a transparent, general and efficient framework for implementing k-tape automata.
The main idea is to consider a restricted form of k-tape automata where
all transition labels have exactly one non-empty component representing a
single letter. The set of all k-tuples of this form represents the basis of the
monoid of k-tuples of words together with the coordinate-wise concatenation. We call this kind of automata one-letter automata. Treating the basis
elements as symbols of a derived alphabet, one-letter automata can be considered as conventional 1-tape automata. This gives rise to a correspondence
where standard operations for 1-tape automata may be used to replace complex operations for k-tape automata.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides some formal background. In Section 3 we introduce one-letter k-tape automata. We show that
classical algorithms for union, concatenation and Kleene-star over one-letter
automata (considered as 1-tape automata) are correct if the result is interpreted as a k-tape automaton. Section 4 is central. A condition is given
that guarantees that the intersection of two k-dimensional regular relations is
again regular. For k-tape one-letter automata of a specific form that reflects
this condition, any classical algorithm for intersecting the associated 1-tape
automata can be used for computing the intersection of the regular relations
recognized by the automata. Section 5 shows how to implement tape permutations for one-letter automata. Using tape permutations, the inverse relation
to a given k-dimensional regular relation can be realized. In a similar way,
Section 6 treats tape insertion, tape deletion and projection operations for
k-dimensional regular relations. Section 7 shows how to reduce the computation of composition and cartesian product of regular relations to intersections
of the kind discussed in Section 4. plus tape insertion and projection. In Sec-

One-letter automata 37

tion 8 we add some final remarks. We comment on problems that may arise
when using k-tape automata and on possible solutions.
2.

Formal Background

We assume that the reader is familiar with standard notions from automata
theory (see, e.g., (Aho et al. 1983; Roche and Schabes 1995)). In the sequel,
with Σ we denote a finite set of symbols called the alphabet, ε denotes the
empty word, and Σε := Σ ∪ {ε}. The length of a word w ∈ Σ∗ is written |w|.
If L1 , L2 ⊆ Σ∗ are languages, then
L1 · L2 := {w1 · w2 | w1 ∈ L1 , w2 ∈ L2 }
denotes their concatenation. Here w1 ·w2 is the usual concatenation of words.
Recall that Σ∗ , ·, ε is the free monoid with set of generators Σ.
If v = v1 , . . . , vk and w = w1 , . . . , wk are two k-tuples of words, then
v  w := v1 · w1 , . . . , vk · wk
denotes the coordinate-wise concatenation. With ε̂ we denote the k-tuple
ε, . . . , ε . The tuple (Σ∗ )k , , ε̂ is a monoid that can be described as the
k-fold cartesian product of the free monoid Σ∗ , ·, ε . As set of generators we
consider
Σ̂k := {ε, . . . , a, . . . , ε | 1 ≤ i ≤ k, a ∈ Σ}.
↑
i

Note that the latter monoid is not free, due to obvious commutation rules for
generators. For relations R ⊆ (Σ∗ )k we define
R0 := {ε̂},
Ri+1 := Ri  R,
R∗ :=

∞
[

Ri

(Kleene-star).

i=0

Let k ≥ 2 and 1 ≤ i ≤ k. The relation
R  (i) := {w1 , . . . , wi−1 , wi+1 , . . . , wk | ∃v ∈ Σ∗ :
w1 , . . . , wi−1 , v, wi+1 , . . . , wk ∈ R}
is called the projection of R to the set of coordinates
{1, . . . , i − 1, i + 1, . . . , k}.

38 Hristo Ganchev, Stoyan Mihov, and Klaus U. Schulz
If R1 , R2 ⊆ (Σ∗ )k are two relations of the same arity, then
R1  R2 := {v  w | v ∈ R1 , w ∈ R2 }
denotes the coordinate-wise concatenation. If R1 ⊆ Σ∗ k and R2 ⊆ Σ∗ l are two
relations, then
R1 × R2 := {w1 , . . . , wk+l | w1 , . . . , wk ∈ R1 , wk+1 , . . . , wk+l ∈ R2 }
is the cartesian product of R1 and R2 and
R1 ◦ R2 := {w1 , . . . , wk+l−2 | ∃w : w1 , . . . , wk−1 , w ∈ R1 ,
w, wk , . . . , wk+l−2 ∈ R2 }
is the composition of R1 and R2 . Further well-known operations for relations
are union, intersection, and inversion (k = 2).
Definition 1 The class of k-dimensional regular relations over the alphabet
Σ is recursively defined in the following way:
– ∅ and {v} for all v ∈ Σ̂k are k-dimensional regular relations.
– If R1 , R2 and R are k-dimensional regular relations, then so are
– R1  R2 ,
– R1 ∪ R2 ,
– R∗ .
– There are no other k-dimensional regular relations.
Note 1 The class of k-dimensional regular relations over a given alphabet Σ
is closed under union, Kleene-star, coordinate-wise concatenation, composition, projection, and cartesian product. For k ≥ 2 the class of regular relations
is not closed under intersection, difference and complement. Obviously, every 1-dimensional regular relation is a regular language over the alphabet Σ.
Hence, for k = 1 we obtain closure under intersection, difference and complement.
Definition 2 Let k be a positive integer. A k-tape automaton is a six-tuple
A = k, Σ, S, F, s0 , E , where Σ is an alphabet, S is a finite set of states, F ⊆ S

One-letter automata 39

is a set of final states, s0 ∈ S is the initial state and E ⊆ S × (Σε )k × S is a finite
set of transitions. A sequence
s0 , a1 , s1 , . . . , sn−1 , an , sn ,
where s0 is the initial state, si ∈ S and ai ∈ (Σε )k for i = 1, . . . , n, is a path
for A iff si−1 , ai , si ∈ E for 1 ≤ i < n. The k-tape automaton A recognizes
v ∈ (Σ∗ )k iff there exists a path s0 , a1 , s1 , . . . , sn−1 , an , sn for A such that sn ∈ F
and v = a1  a2 . . . an−1  an . With R(A) we denote the set of all tuples in
(Σ∗ )k recognized by A, i.e., R(A) := {v ∈ (Σ∗ )k | A recognizes v}.
For a given k-tape automaton A = k, Σ, S, F, s0 , E the generalized transition
relation E ∗ ⊂ S × (Σ∗ )k × S is recursively defined as follows:
1. s, ε, . . . , ε , s ∈ E ∗ for all s ∈ S,
2. if s1 , v, s ∈ E ∗ and s , a, s2 ∈ E, then s1 , v  a, s2 ∈ E ∗ , for all v ∈
(Σ∗ )k , a ∈ (Σε )k , s1 , s , s2 ∈ S.
Clearly, if A is a k-tape automaton, then R(A) = {v ∈ (Σ∗ )k | ∃ f ∈ F : s0 , v, f ∈
E ∗ }.
Note 2 By a well-known generalization of Kleene’s Theorem (see Kaplan
and Kay (1994)), for each k-tape automaton A the set R(A) is a k-dimensional
regular relation, and for every k-dimensional regular relation R , there exists
a k-tape automaton A such that R(A ) = R .
3.

Basic Operations for one-letter automata

In this section we introduce the concept of a one-letter automaton. One-letter
automata represent a special form of k-tape automata that can be naturally
interpreted as one-tape automata over the alphabet Σ̂k . We show that basic
operations such as union, concatenation, and Kleene-star for one-letter automata can be realized using the corresponding standard constructions for
conventional one-tape automata.
Definition 3 A k-tape finite state automaton A = k, Σ, S, F, s0 , E is a oneletter automaton iff all transitions e ∈ E are of the form
e = s, ε, . . . , ε , a, ε , . . . , ε , s
↑ ↑ ↑

i−1

for some 1 ≤ i ≤ k and a ∈ Σ.

i

i+1

↑
k

40 Hristo Ganchev, Stoyan Mihov, and Klaus U. Schulz
Proposition 1 For every k-tape automaton A we may effectively construct a
k-tape one-letter automaton A such that R(A ) = R(A).
Proof. First we can apply the classical ε-removal procedure in order to
construct an ε̂-free k-tape automaton, which leaves the recognized relation
unchanged. Let Ā = k, Σ, S, F, s0 , E be an ε̂-free k-tape automaton such that
R(A) = R(Ā). Then we construct A = k, Σ, S , F, s0 , E using the following
algorithm:
S = S, E = ∅
FOR s ∈ S DO:
FOR s, a1 , a2 , . . . , ak , s ∈ E DO
LET I = {i ∈ N | ai = ε} (I = {i1 , . . . , it });
LET S = {si1 , . . . , sit−1 }, SUCH THAT S ∩ S = ∅;
S = S ∪S ;
E = E ∪ {si j , ε, . . . , ε, ai j , ε, . . . , ε , si j+1 | 0 ≤ j ≤ t − 1,
↑

ij

si0 = s and sit = s };
END;
END.
Informally speaking, we split each transition with label a1 , a2 , . . . , ak
with t > 1 non-empty coordinates into t subtransitions, introducing t − 1 new
intermediate states.

Corollary 1 If R ⊆ (Σ∗ )k is a k-dimensional regular relation, then there exists a k-tape one-letter automaton A such that R(A) = R.
Each k-tape one-letter automaton A over the alphabet Σ can be considered
as a one-tape automaton (denoted by Â) over the alphabet Σ̂k . Conversely,
every ε-free one-tape automaton over the alphabet Σ̂k can be considered as
a k-tape automaton over Σ. Formally, this correspondence can be described
using two mappings.
Definition 4 The mapping ˆ maps every k-tape one-letter automaton A =
k, Σ, S, F, s0 , E to the ε-free one-tape automaton
 := Σ̂k , S, F, s0 , E .

One-letter automata 41

The mapping ˇ maps a given ε-free one-tape automaton
A = Σ̂k , S, F, s0 , E
to the k-tape one-letter automaton Ǎ := k, Σ, S, F, s0 , E .
Obviously, the mappings ˆ and ˇ are inverse. From a computational point
of view, the mappings merely represent a conceptual shift where we use another alphabet for looking at transitions labels. States and transitions are not
changed.
Definition 5 The mapping
φ : Σ̂∗k → Σ∗ k : a1 · · · an → a1  · · ·  an , ε → ε̂
is called the natural homomorphism between the free monoid Σ̂∗k , ·, ε and
the monoid Σ∗ k , , ε̂ .
It is trivial to check that φ is in fact a homomorphism. We have the following
connection between the mappingsˆ ,ˇand φ.
Lemma 1 Let A = k, Σ, S, F, s0 , E be a k-tape one-letter automaton. Then
1. ¡ = A.
2. R(A) = φ(L(Â)).
ˆ
Furthermore, if A is an ε-free one-tape automaton over Σ̂k , then Ǎ = A .
Thus we obtain the following commutative diagram:
A

ˇ
ˆ

R
R(A)

Â
L

φ

L(Â)

We get the following proposition as a direct consequence of Lemma 1 and
the homomorphic properties of the mapping φ.
Proposition 2 Let A1 and A2 be two k-tape one-letter automata. Then we
have the following:
1. R(A1 ) ∪ R(A2 ) = φ(L(Â1 ) ∪ L(Â2 )).
2. R(A1 )  R(A2 ) = φ(L(Â1 ) · L(Â2 )).
3. R(A1 )∗ = φ(L(Â1 )∗ ).

42 Hristo Ganchev, Stoyan Mihov, and Klaus U. Schulz
Algorithmic constructions From Part 1 of Proposition 2 we see the following. Let A1 and A2 be two k-tape one-letter automata. Then, to construct
a one-letter automaton A such that R(A) = R(A1 ) ∪ R(A2 ) we may interpret Ai
as a one-tape automaton Âi (i = 1, 2). We use any union-construction for onetape automata, yielding an automaton A such that L(A ) = L(Â1 ) ∪ L(Â2 ).
Removing ε-transitions and interpreting the resulting automaton A as a ktape automaton A := Ǎ we receive a one-letter automaton such that R(A) =
R(A1 ) ∪ R(A2 ). Similarly Parts 2 and 3 show that “classical” algorithms for
closing conventional one-tape automata under concatenation and Kleene-star
can be directly applied to k-tape one-letter automata, yielding algorithms for
closing k-tape one-letter automata under concatenation and Kleene-star.

4.

Intersection of one-letter automata

It is well-known that the intersection of two k-dimensional regular relations is
not necessarily a regular relation. For example, the relations R1 = {an bk , cn |
n, k ∈ N} and R2 = {as bn , cn | s, n ∈ N} are regular, but R1 ∩R2 = {an bn , cn |
n ∈ N} is not regular since its first projection is not a regular language. We
now introduce a condition that guarantees that the classical construction for
intersecting one-tape automata is correct if used for k-tape one-letter automata. As a corollary we obtain a condition for the regularity of the intersection of two k-dimensional regular relations. This observation will be used
later for explicit constructions that yield composition and cartesian product
of one-letter automata. A few preparations are needed.
Definition 6 Let v = b1 . . . bn be an arbitrary word over the alphabet Ξ, i.e.,
v ∈ Ξ∗ . We say that the word v is obtained from v by adding the letter b iff
v = b1 . . . b j bb j+1 . . . bn for some 0 ≤ j ≤ n. In this case we also say that v is
obtained from v by deleting the symbol b.
Proposition 3 Let v = a1 . . . an ∈ Σ̂∗k and φ(v) = a1 a2 · · ·an = w1 , . . . , wk .
Let also a = ε, . . . , b, . . . , ε ∈ Σ̂k . Then, if v is obtained from v by adding the
↑
i

letter a, then
φ(v ) = w1 , . . . , wi−1 , wi , wi+1 , . . . , wk
and wi is obtained from wi by adding the letter b.

One-letter automata 43

Definition 7 For a regular relation R ⊆ (Σ∗ )k the coordinate i (1 ≤ i ≤ k) is
inessential iff for all w1 , . . . , wk ∈ R and any v ∈ Σ∗ we have
w1 , . . . , wi−1 , v, wi+1 , . . . , wk ∈ R.
Analogously, if A is a k-tape automaton such that R(A) = R we say that tape
i of A is inessential. Otherwise we call coordinate (tape) i essential.
Definition 8 Let A be a k-tape one-letter automaton and assume that each
coordinate in the set I ⊆ {1, . . . , k} is inessential for R(A). Then A is in normal
form w.r.t. I iff for any tape i ∈ I we have:
1. ∀s ∈ S, ∀a ∈ Σ : s, ε, . . . , a, . . . , ε , s ∈ E,
↑
i

/ E.
2. ∀s, s ∈ S, ∀a ∈ Σ : (s = s) ⇒ s, ε, . . . , a, . . . , ε , s ∈
↑
1

↑
i

↑
k

Proposition 4 For any k-tape automaton A and any given set I of inessential
coordinates of R(A) we may effectively construct a k-tape one-letter automaton A in normal form w.r.t. I such that R(A ) = R(A).
Proof. Let A = k, Σ, S, F, s0 , E . Without loss of generality we can assume
that A is in one-letter form (Proposition 1). To construct A = k, Σ, S, F, s0 , E
we use the following algorithm:
E =E
FOR s ∈ S DO
FOR i ∈ I DO
FOR a ∈ Σ DO
IF ((s, ε, . . . , ε, a, ε, . . . , ε , s ∈ E ) & (s = s)) THEN
↑
i

E = E \ {s, ε, . . . , ε, a, ε, . . . , ε , s };
↑
i

E = E ∪ s, ε, . . . , ε, a, ε, . . . , ε , s ;
↑
i

END;
END;
END.
The algorithm does not change any transition on an essential tape. Transitions between distinct states that affect an inessential tape in I are erased. For

44 Hristo Ganchev, Stoyan Mihov, and Klaus U. Schulz
each state we add loops with all symbols from the alphabet for the inessential tapes in I. The correctness of the above algorithm follows from the
fact that for any inessential tape i ∈ I we have w1 , . . . , wi , . . . , wn ∈ R(A)

iff w1 , . . . , ε, . . . , wn ∈ R(A).
Corollary 2 Let R ⊆ (Σ∗ )k be a regular relation with a set I of inessential
coordinates. Then there exists a k-tape one-letter automaton A in normal
form w.r.t. I such that R(A) = R.
The following property of k-tape automata in normal form will be useful
when proving Lemma 2.
Proposition 5 Let A = k, Σ, S, F, s0 , E be a k-tape one-letter automaton in
normal form w.r.t. the set of inessential coordinates I. Let i0 ∈ I and let
v = a1 . . . an ∈ L(Â). Then for any a = ε, . . . , b, . . . , ε ∈ Σ̂k and any word
↑
i0

v ∈ Σ̂∗k obtained from v by adding a we have v ∈ L(Â).
Proof. The condition for the automaton A to be in normal form w.r.t. I yields
that for all s ∈ S the transition s, a, s is in E, which proves the proposition.

Now we are ready to formulate and prove the following sufficient condition
for the regularity of the intersection of two regular relations. With K we
denote the set of coordinates {1, . . . , k}.
Lemma 2 For i = 1, 2, let Ai be a k-tape one-letter automaton, let Ii ⊆ K
denote a given set of inessential coordinates for Ai . Let Ai be in normal form
w.r.t. Ii (i = 1, 2). Assume that |K \(I1 ∪ I2 )| ≤ 1, which means that there exists
at most one common essential tape for A1 and A2 . Then R(A1 ) ∩ R(A2 ) is a
regular k-dimensional relation. Moreover R(A1 )∩R(A2 ) = φ(L(Â1 )∩L(Â2 )).
Proof. It is obvious that φ(L(Â1 ) ∩ L(Â2 )) ⊆ R(A1 ) ∩ R(A2 ), because if
a1 . . . an ∈ L(Â1 ) ∩ L(Â2 ), then by Lemma 1 we have a1  · · ·  an ∈ R(A1 ) ∩
R(A2 ). We give a detailed proof for the other direction, showing that
R(A1 ) ∩ R(A2 ) ⊆ φ(L(Â1 ) ∩ L(Â2 )).
For the proof the reader should keep in mind that the transition labels of the
automata Ai (i = 1, 2) are elements of Σ̂k , which means that the sum of the
lengths of the words representing the components is exactly 1.

One-letter automata 45

Let w1 , w2 , . . . , wk ∈ R(A1 ) ∩ R(A2 ). Let j0 ∈ K be a coordinate such that
for each j0 = j ∈ K we have j ∈ I1 or j ∈ I2 . Let E1 = K \ I1 . Recall that for
i ∈ E1 , i = j0 always i ∈ I2 is an inessential tape for A2 . Then by the definition
of inessential tapes the tuples w1 , . . . , wk and w1 , . . . , wk , where
wi =

ε, if i ∈ I1
wi , if i ∈ E1

wi =

ε, if i ∈ E1 and i = j0
wi , otherwise

respectively are in R(A1 ) and R(A2 ). Then there are words
= a1 . . . an ∈ L(Â1 )
= a1 . . . am ∈ L(Â2 )

v
v

such that φ(v ) = w1 , . . . , wk and φ(v ) = w1 , . . . , wk .
Note that n = ∑ki=1 |wi | and m = ∑ki=1 |wi |. Furthermore, w j0 = w j0 = w j0 .
Let l = |w j0 |.
We now construct a word a1 a2 . . . ar ∈ L(Â1 ) ∩ L(Â2 ) such that a1  a2  . . . 
ar = w1 , . . . , wk , which imposes that r = n + m − l. Each letter ai is obtained
copying a suitable letter from one of the sequences a1 . . . an and a1 . . . am . In
order to control the selection, we use the pair of indices ti ,ti (0 ≤ i < n + m −
l), which can be considered as pointers to the two sequences. The definition
of ti ,ti and ai proceeds inductively in the following way. Let t0 = t0 := 1.
Assume that ti and ti are defined for some 0 ≤ i < n + m − l. We show how
to define ai+1 and the indices ti+1 and ti+1 . We distinguish four cases:
1. if ti = n + 1 and ti = m + 1 we stop; else
2. if at = ε, . . . , b, . . . , ε for some j = j0 , then ai+1 := at , ti+1 := ti + 1,
↑

i

i

j

ti+1 := ti ,
3. if at = ε, . . . , b, . . . , ε or ti = n + 1, and at = ε, . . . , c, . . . , ε for some
↑

i

i

j0

↑
j

j = j0 , then ai+1 := at , ti+1 := ti , and ti+1 := ti + 1.
i

4. if at = at = ε, . . . , b, . . . , ε for some b ∈ Σ, then ai+1 := at , ti+1 :=
i

i

↑

i

j0

ti + 1 and ti+1 := ti + 1.
From an intuitive point of view, the definition yields a kind of zig-zag construction. We always proceed in one sequence until we come to a transition

46 Hristo Ganchev, Stoyan Mihov, and Klaus U. Schulz
that affects coordinate j0 . At this point we continue using the other sequence.
Once we have in both sequences a transition that affects j0 , we enlarge both
indices. From w j0 = w j0 = w j0 it follows immediately that the recursive definition stops exactly when i + 1 = n + m − l. In fact the subsequences of
a1 . . . an and a1 . . . am from which w j0 is obtained must be identical.
Using induction on 0 ≤ i ≤ n + m − l we now prove that the word a1 . . . ai
is obtained from a1 . . . at −1 by adding letters in Σ̂k which have a non-ε symbol
i
in an inessential coordinate for R(A1 ). The base of the induction is obvious.
Let the statement be true for some 0 ≤ i < n + m − l. We prove it for i + 1:
The word a1 . . . ai ai+1 is obtained from a1 . . . ai by adding the letter ai+1 =
ε, . . . b, . . . , ε , and according to the induction hypothesis a1 . . . ai is obtained
↑
j

from a1 , . . . ati −1 by adding letters with a non-ε symbol in a coordinate in I1 .
If j ∈ E1 (Cases 2 and 4), then ai+1 = at , ti+1 = ti + 1 and ti+1 − 1 = ti , hence
i
a1 . . . ai ai+1 is obtained from a1 , . . . at −1 at −1 by adding letters satisfying
i
i+1
the above condition. On the other side, if j ∈ I1 (Case 3) we have ai+1 =
at and ti+1 := ti , which means that a1 . . . at −1 = a1 . . . at −1 and ai+1 is a
i
i
i+1
letter satisfying the condition. Thus a1 . . . ai ai+1 is obtained from a1 . . . at −1
i+1
adding letters which have non-ε symbol on an inessential tape for A1 , which
means that the statement is true for i + 1.
Analogously we prove for 0 ≤ i ≤ n + m − l that a1 . . . ai is obtained from
a1 . . . at −1 by adding letters in Σ̂k which have a non-ε symbol in an inessential
i
coordinate for R(A2 ).
By Proposition 5, a1 . . . an+m−l ∈ L(Â1 ) and a1 . . . an+m−l ∈ L(Â2 ). From
Proposition 3 we obtain that a1  · · ·  an+m−l = u1 , . . . , uk , where ui = wi if
i ∈ E1 and ui = wi otherwise. But now remembering the definition of wi and
wi we obtain that a1  · · ·  an+m−l = w1 , . . . , wk , which we had to prove.
Corollary 3 If R1 ⊆ (Σ)k and R2 ⊆ (Σ)k are two k-dimensional regular relations with at most one common essential coordinate i (1 ≤ i ≤ k), then R1 ∩ R2
is a k-dimensional regular relation.
Algorithmic construction From Lemma 2 we see the following. Let A1 and
A2 be two k-tape one-letter automata with at most one common essential tape
i. Assume that both automata are in normal form w.r.t. the sets of inessential
tapes. Then the relation R(A1 ) ∩ R(A2 ) is recognized by any ε-free 1-tape
automaton A accepting L(Â1 ) ∩ L(Â2 ), treating A as a k-tape one-letter automaton A = Ǎ .

One-letter automata 47

5.

Tape permutation and inversion for one-letter automata

In the sequel, let Sk denote the symmetric group of k elements.
Definition 9 Let R ⊆ (Σ∗ )k be a regular relation, let σ ∈ Sk . The permutation
of coordinates induced by σ, σ(R), is defined as
σ(R) := {wσ−1 (1) , . . . , wi , . . . , wσ−1 (k) | w1 , . . . , wk ∈ R}.
↑

σ(i)

Proposition 6 For a given k-tape one-letter automaton
A = k, Σ, S, F, s0 , E ,
let σ(A) := k, Σ, S, F, s0 , σ(E) where
σ(E) := {s, ε, . . . , ai , . . . , ε , s | s, ε, . . . , ai , . . . , ε , s ∈ E}.
↑

↑

σ(i)

i

Then R(σ(A)) = σ(R(A)).
Proof. Using induction over the construction of E ∗ and σ(E)∗ we prove that
for all s ∈ S and w1 , . . . , wk ∈ (Σ∗ )k we have
⇔

s0 , w1 , . . . , wk , s ∈ E ∗
s0 , wσ−1 (1) , . . . , wi , . . . , wσ−1 (k) , s ∈ σ(E)∗ .
↑

σ(i)

“⇒”. The base of the induction is obvious since s0 , ε, . . . , ε , s0 ∈ E ∗ ∩
σ(E)∗ . Now suppose that there are transitions
s0 , w1 , . . . , wi−1 , wi , wi+1 , . . . , wk , s ∈ E ∗
s, ε, . . . , a, . . . , ε , s ∈ E.
↑
i

Then, by induction hypothesis, s0 , wσ−1 (1) , . . . , wi , . . . , wσ−1 (k) , s ∈ σ(E)∗ .
↑

σ(i)

The definition of σ(E) shows that s, ε, . . . , a , . . . , ε , s ∈ σ(E). Hence
↑

σ(i)

s0 , wσ−1 (1) , . . . , wi a, . . . , wσ−1 (k) , s ∈ σ(E)∗ ,
↑

σ(i)

48 Hristo Ganchev, Stoyan Mihov, and Klaus U. Schulz
which we had to prove.
“⇐”. Follows analogously to “⇒”.



Corollary 4 Let R ⊆ (Σ∗ )k be a k-dimensional regular relation and σ ∈ Sk .
Then also σ(R) is a k-dimensional regular relation.
Algorithmic construction From Proposition 6 we see the following. Let A
be a 2-tape one-letter automaton. If σ denotes the transposition (1, 2), then
automaton σ(A) defined as above recognizes the relation R(A)−1 .
6.

Tape insertion, tape deletion and projection

Definition 10 Let R ⊆ (Σ∗ )k be a k-dimensional regular relation. We define
the insertion of an inessential coordinate at position i (denoted R ⊕ (i)) as
R ⊕ (i) := {w1 , . . . , wi−1 , v, wi , . . . , wk |
w1 , . . . , wi−1 , wi , . . . , wk ∈ R, v ∈ Σ∗ }.
Proposition 7 Let A = k, Σ, S, F, s0 , E be a k-tape one-letter automaton.
Let A := k + 1, Σ, S, F, s0 , E where
E :=

{s, ε, . . . , a, . . . , ε, ε , s | s, ε, . . . , a, . . . , ε , s ∈ E}
↑

↑

i

↑
i

k+1

↑
k

∪ {s, ε, . . . , ε, a , s | s ∈ S, a ∈ Σ}.
↑

k+1

Then R(A ) = R(A) ⊕ (k + 1).
Proof. First, using induction on the construction of E ∗ we prove that for all
s ∈ S and w1 , . . . , wk , wk+1 ∈ (Σ∗ )k+1 we have
s0 , w1 , . . . , wk , wk+1 , s ∈ E ∗

⇔

s0 , w1 , . . . , wk , ε , s ∈ E ∗ .

“⇒”. The base of the induction is obvious. Assume there are transitions
s0 , w1 , . . . , wi−1 , wi , wi+1 , . . . , wk , wk+1 , s ∈ E ∗
s, ε, . . . , a, . . . , ε , s ∈ E .
↑
i

First assume that i ≤ k. By induction hypothesis,
s0 , w1 , . . . , wi−1 , wi , wi+1 , . . . , wk , ε , s ∈ E ∗ .

One-letter automata 49

Using the definition of E ∗ we obtain
s0 , w1 , . . . , wi−1 , wi a, wi+1 , . . . , wk , ε , s ∈ E ∗ .
If i = k + 1, then s = s . We may directly use the induction hypothesis to
obtain s0 , w1 , . . . , wk , ε , s ∈ E ∗ .
“⇐”. Let s0 , w1 , . . . , wk , ε , s ∈ E ∗ . Let wk+1 = v1 . . . vn ∈ Σ∗ where vi ∈ Σ.
The definition of E shows that for all vi (1 ≤ i ≤ n) there exists a transition
s , ε, . . . , ε, vi , s ∈ E . Hence s0 , w1 , . . . , wk , wk+1 , s ∈ E ∗ .
↑

k+1

To finish the proof observe that the definition of E yields
s0 , w1 , . . . , wk , s ∈ E ∗

s0 , w1 , . . . , wk , ε , s ∈ E ∗ .

⇔


Corollary 5 If R ⊆ (Σ∗ )k is a regular relation, then R ⊕ (i) is a (k + 1)dimensional regular relation.
Proof. The corollary directly follows from Proposition 7 and Proposition 6
having in mind that R ⊕ (i) = σ(R ⊕ (k + 1)) where σ is the cyclic permutation

(i, i + 1, . . . , k, k + 1) ∈ Sk+1 .
It is well-known that the projection of a k-dimensional regular relation is
again a regular relation. The following propositions show how to obtain a
(k − 1)-tape one-letter automaton representing the relation R  (i) (cf. Section 2) directly from a k-tape one-letter automaton representing the relation
R.
Proposition 8 Let A = k, Σ, S, F, s0 , E be a k-tape one-letter automaton. Let
A := k − 1, Σ, S, F, s0 , E be the (k − 1)-tape automaton where for i ≤ k − 1
we have
s, ε, . . . , a, . . . , ε , s ∈ E
↑
i

↑

⇔

s, ε, . . . , a, . . . , ε , s ∈ E
↑
1

k−1

↑

↑

i

k

and furthermore
s, ε, . . . , ε , s ∈ E
↑

k−1

Then R(A ) = R(A)  (k).

⇔

∃ ak ∈ Σk : s, ε, . . . , ε , ak , s ∈ E.
↑

k−1

↑
k

50 Hristo Ganchev, Stoyan Mihov, and Klaus U. Schulz
Note 3 The resulting automaton A is not necessarily a one-letter automaton
because A may have some ε̂-transitions. It could be transformed into a oneletter automaton using a standard ε-removal procedure.
Proof of Proposition 8. It is sufficient to prove that for all
w1 , . . . , wk−1 , wk ∈ (Σ∗ )k
and s ∈ S we have
s0 , w1 , . . . , wk−1 , wk , s ∈ E ∗

s0 , w1 , . . . , wk−1 , s ∈ E ∗ .

⇔

Again we use an induction on the construction of E ∗ and E ∗ .
“⇒”. The base is trivial since s0 , ε, . . . , ε , s0 ∈ E ∗ and
↑
k

s0 , ε, . . . , ε , s0 ∈ E ∗ .
↑

k−1

Let s0 , w1 , . . . , w j , . . . , wk , s ∈ E ∗ and s, ε, . . . , a, . . . , ε , s ∈ E for some
↑
j

1 ≤ j ≤ k. First assume that j < k.
The induction hypothesis yields s0 , w1 , . . . , w j , . . . , wk−1 , s ∈ E ∗ . Since
s, ε, . . . , a, . . . , ε , s ∈ E
↑

↑

j

k−1

we have s0 , w1 , . . . , w j a, . . . , wk−1 , s ∈ E ∗ .
If j = k, then the induction hypothesis yields s0 , w1 , . . . , wk−1 , s ∈ E ∗ . We
have
s, ε, . . . , ε , s ∈ E ,
↑

k−1

hence s0 , w1 , . . . , wk−1 , s ∈ E ∗ .
“⇐”. Similarly as “⇒”.



Corollary 6 If R ⊆ (Σ∗ )k is a regular relation, then R  (i) is (k − 1)-dimensional regular relation.
Proof. The corollary follows directly from R  (i) = (σ−1 (R))  (k), where

σ is the cyclic permutation (i, i + 1, . . . , k) ∈ Sk and Proposition 6.
Algorithmic construction The constructions given in Proposition 8 and 6
together with an obvious ε̂-elimination show how to obtain a one-letter (k −
1)-tape automaton A for the projection R  (i), given a one-letter k-tape automaton A recognizing R.

One-letter automata 51

7.

Composition and cartesian product of regular relations

We now show how to construct composition and cartesian product (cf. Section 2) of regular relations via automata constructions for standard 1-tape
automata.
Lemma 3 Let R1 ⊆ (Σ∗ )n1 and R2 ⊆ (Σ∗ )n2 be regular relations. Then the
composition R1 ◦ R2 is a (n1 + n2 − 2)-dimensional regular relation.
Proof. Using Corollary 5 we see that the relations
R1 := (. . . ((R1 ⊕ (n1 + 1)) ⊕ (n1 + 2)) ⊕ . . .) ⊕ (n1 + n2 − 1)
R2 := (. . . ((R2 ⊕ (1)) ⊕ (2)) ⊕ . . .) ⊕ (n1 − 1)
are (n1 + n2 − 1)-dimensional regular relations. Using the definition of ⊕ we
see that the essential coordinates for R1 are in the set E1 = {1, 2, . . . , n1 } and
those of R2 are in the set E2 = {n1 , n1 + 1, . . . , n1 + n2 − 1}. Therefore R1 and
R2 have at most one common essential coordinate, namely n1 . Corollary 3
shows that R = R1 ∩ R2 is a (n1 + n2 − 1)-dimensional regular relation. Since
coordinates in E1 (resp. E2 ) are inessential for R2 (resp. R1 ) we obtain
w1 , . . . , wn1 −1 , w, wn1 +1 , . . . , wn1 +n2 −1 ∈ R1 ∩ R2
w1 , . . . , wn1 −1 , w ∈ R1 & w, wn1 +1 , . . . , wn1 +n2 −1 ∈ R2 .

⇔

Using the definition of  and Corollary 2 we obtain that R  (n1 ) is a (n1 +
n2 − 2)-dimensional regular relation such that
w1 , . . . , wn1 −1 , wn1 +1 , . . . , wn1 +n2 −1 ∈ R  (n1 )
∃w ∈ Σ∗ : w1 , . . . , wn1 −1 , w, wn1 +1 , . . . , wn1 +n2 −1 ∈ R.

⇔

↑

n1

Combining both equivalences we obtain
⇔

w1 , . . . , wn1 −1 , wn1 +1 , . . . , wn1 +n2 −1 ∈ R  (n1 )
∃w ∈ Σ∗ : w1 , . . . , wn1 −1 , w ∈ R1 &
w, wn1 +1 , . . . , wn1 +n2 −1 ∈ R2 ,

i.e. R  (n1 ) = R1 ◦ R2 .



Lemma 4 Let R1 ⊆ (Σ∗ )n1 and R2 ⊆ (Σ∗ )n2 be regular relations. Then the
cartesian product R1 × R2 is a (n1 + n2 )-dimensional regular relation over Σ.

52 Hristo Ganchev, Stoyan Mihov, and Klaus U. Schulz
Proof. Similarly as in Lemma 3 we construct the (n1 + n2 )-dimensional
regular relations
R1 := (. . . ((R1 ⊕ (n1 + 1)) ⊕ (n1 + 2)) ⊕ . . .) ⊕ (n1 + n2 )
R2 := (. . . ((R2 ) ⊕ (1)) ⊕ (2)) ⊕ . . .) ⊕ (n1 ).
The coordinates in {1, 2, . . . , n1 } are inessential for R2 and those in {n1 +
1, . . . , n1 + n2 } are inessential for R1 . Therefore R1 and R2 have no common essential coordinate and, by Corollary 3, R := R1 ∩ R2 is a (n1 + n2 )dimensional regular relation. Using the definition of inessential coordinates
and the definition of ⊕ we obtain
⇔

w1 , . . . , wn1 , wn1 +1 , . . . , wn1 +n2 ∈ R
w1 , . . . , wn1 ∈ R1 & wn1 +1 , . . . , wn1 +n2 ∈ R2 ,

which shows that R = R1 × R2 .



Algorithmic construction The constructions described in the above proofs
show how to obtain one-letter automata for the composition R1 ◦ R2 and for
the cartesian product R1 × R2 of the regular relations R1 ⊆ (Σ∗ )n1 and R2 ⊆
(Σ∗ )n2 , given one-letter automata Ai for Ri (i = 1, 2). In more detail, in order
to construct an automaton for R1 ◦ R2 we
1. add n2 −1 final inessential tapes to A1 and n1 −1 initial inessential tapes
to A2 in the way described above (note that the resulting automata are
in normal form w.r.t. the new tapes),
2. intersect the resulting automata as conventional one-tape automata over
the alphabet Σ̂n1 +n2 −1 , obtaining A,
3. remove the n1 -th tape from A and apply an ε-removal, thus obtaining
A , which is the desired automaton.
In order to construct an automaton for R1 × R2 we
1. add n2 final inessential tapes to A1 and n1 initial inessential tapes to A2
in the way described above,
2. intersect the resulting automata as normal one-tape automata over the
alphabet Σ̂n1 +n2 , obtaining A, which is the desired automaton.

One-letter automata 53

At the end we will discuss the problem of how to represent identity relations
as regular relations. First observe that the automaton A := 2, Σ, S, F, s0 , E
where Σ := {a1 , . . . , an }, S := {s0 , s1 , . . . , sn }, F := {s0 } and
E := {s0 , ai , ε si | 1 ≤ i ≤ n} ∪ {si , ε, ai s0 | 1 ≤ i ≤ n}
accepts R(A) = {v, v | v ∈ Σ∗ }. The latter relation we denote with Id Σ .
Proposition 9 Let R1 be 1-dimensional regular relation, i.e., a regular language. Then the set Id R1 := {v, v | v ∈ R1 } is a regular relation. Moreover
Id R1 = (R1 ⊕ (2)) ∩ Id Σ .
8.

Conclusion

We introduced the concept of a one-letter k-tape automaton and showed that
one-letter automata can be considered as conventional 1-tape automata over
an enlarged alphabet. Using this correspondence, standard constructions for
union, concatenation, and Kleene-star for 1-tape automata can be directly
used for one-letter automata. Furthermore we have seen that the usual relational operations for k-tape automata can be traced back to the intersection of
1-tape automata plus straightforward operations for adding, permuting and
erasing tapes.
We have implemented the presented approach for implementation of transducer (2-tape automata) representing rewrite rules. Using it we have successfully realized Bulgarian hyphenation and tokenization.
Still, in real applications the use of one-letter automata comes with some
specific problems, in particular in situations where the composition algorithm
is heavily used. In the resulting automata we sometimes find a large number
of paths that are equivalent if permutation rules for generators are taken into
account. For example, we might find three paths with label sequences
a, ε , a, ε , ε, b
ε, b , a, ε, , a, ε,
a, ε, , ε, b , a, ε, ,
all representing the tuple aa, b . In the worst case this may lead to an exponential blow-up of the number of states, compared to the classical construction for n-tape automaton.
We currently study techniques to get rid of superfluous paths. In many
cases, equivalences of the above form can be recognized and used for eliminating states and transitions. The extension and refinement of these methods
is one central point of current and future work.

54 Hristo Ganchev, Stoyan Mihov, and Klaus U. Schulz
References
Aho, Alfred V., John E. Hopcroft, and Jeffrey D. Ullman
1983
Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gerdemann, Dale and Gertjan van Noord
1999
Transducers from rewrite rules with backreferences. In Proceedings
of the 9th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for
Computational Linguistics (EACL 99), 126–133.
Kaplan, Ronald and Martin Kay
1994
Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics 20(3): 331–279.
Karttunen, Lauri
1994
Constructing lexical transducers. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Coling 9, 406–411.
Kyoto, Japan.
1997
The replace operator. In Emmanuel Roche and Yves Schabes, (eds.),
Finite-State Language Processing, 117–147. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Karttunen, Lauri, Jean-Pierre Chanod, Gregory Grefenstette, and Anne Schiller
1996
Regular expressions for language engineering. Journal of Natural
Language Engineering 2(4): 305–328.
Mihov, Stoyan and Denis Maurel
2001
Direct construction of minimal acyclic subsequential transducers. In
Proceedings of the Conference on Implementation and Application of
Automata CIAA’2000, LNCS 2088, 217–229. Berlin: Springer.
Mohri, Mehryar
1996
On some applications of finite-state automata theory to natural language processing. Journal of Natural Language Engineering 2: 1–20.
1997
Finite-state transducers in language and speech processing. Computational Linguistics 23(2): 269–311.
Mohri, Mehryar, Fernando Pereira, and Michael Riley
1998
A rational design for a weighted finite-state transducer library. In
Derick Wood and Sheng Yu, (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Implementing Automata (WIA ’97), LNCS
1436, 144–158. Berlin: Springer.
Mohri, Mehryar, Fernando C. N. Pereira, and Michael Riley
2002
Weighted finite-state transducers in speech recognition. Computer
Speech and Language 16(1): 69–88.
Roche, Emmanuel and Yves Schabes
1995
Deterministic part-of-speech tagging with finite state transducers.
Computational Linguistics 22(2): 227–253.

One-letter automata 55
1997

Introduction. In Emmanuel Roche and Yves Schabes, (eds.), FiniteState Language Processing, 1–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
van Noord, Gertjan
1997
FSA utilities: A toolbox to manipulate finite-state automata. In Derick Wood Darrell Raymond and Sheng Yu, (eds.), Automata Implementation, LNCS 1260. Berlin: Springer.

Two aspects of situated meaning
Eleni Kalyvianaki and Yiannis N. Moschovakis

Abstract
We introduce two structural notions of situated meaning for natural language sentences which can be expressed by terms of Montague’s Language of Intensional
Logic. Using the theory of referential intensions, we define for a sentence at a particular situation its factual content and its local meaning which express different
abstract algorithms that compute its reference at that situation. With the use of characteristic examples, we attempt to show the distinctive roles of these two notions in
any theory of meaning and to discuss briefly their relation to indexicality, propositional attitudes and translation.

1.

Introduction
If a speaker of the language can rationally believe A and disbelieve B in the same situation, then the sentences A and B do not
have the same meaning—they are not synonymous.

The principle is old (Frege 1892), and it has been used both as a test for
theories of meaning and a source of puzzles about belief and synonymy. We
think that at least some of the puzzles are due to a confusion between two
plausible and legitimate but distinct understandings of situated meaning, the
factual content and