Optimality%20 Theoretic%20 Pragmatics

ZAS Workshop · Berlin

Optimality Theoretic Pragmatics

Maria Aloni
Reinhard Blutner
University of Amsterdam

Reinhard Blutner · University of Amsterdam · May 2007


Part I
Optimality Theoretic Pragmatics:
The Cognitive Grounding

Part II
Fossilized Pragmatics:
Focus and accent



Outline (Part I)

1. Grice and his Followers: Global and
Local Theories of Pragmatics
2. Cognitive Motivation of Symmetry
and Bidirection
3. The Idea of Fossilization



1
Grice and his Followers:
Global and Local Theories
of Pragmatics



Grice (1975)

Neo- OT-Pragmatics
Gricean Relevance Theory
Theories
(Horn, Atlas) Presumptive Meanings
Normative Stance Naturalistic Stance


Rejecting the doctrin of literal
meaning
Semantic Underdetermination (Atlas):
– Linguistic meanings underdetermine the truth-
conditional content
– Ambiguity vs. semantic non-specificity

Contextualism:
– the suggestion that the mechanism of pragmatic
interpretation is crucial both for determining what
the speaker says and what he means.
Linguistic meaning ≠ what is said



Global and local theories of NL
interpretation

• Global theories have a holistic character. Often
they refer to normative theories. They are
problematic as incremental processing models.
• Local theories can account for an incremental
interpretation mechanism. Often they refer to
compositional, automatized projection routines.



Local Global
Syntax Traditional generative OT syntax,
syntax connectionism

Semantics Montague semantics Early structuralism &
lexical field theories
Interpretive optimization Bidirectional optimi-
(Hendriks & de Hoop) zation

Presuppos. Van der Sandt, Zeevat (discourse
Geurts particles)

Implicature Relevance Theory Neo-Gricean theories
Levinson 2000; Chierchia
Optimality Theoretic Pragmatics


Relevance Theory
Communicative
Principle of
Relevance

Utterances convey a
presumption of their
own optimal relevance



What does it mean?
Any given utterance can be presumed:
– to be at least relevant enough to warrant the
addressee’s processing effort
– to be the most relevant one compatible with
the speaker’s current state of knowledge
and her personal preferences and goals.



General Procedure

– test possible inter- EFFECT EFFORT
pretations in their 1 * *
order of accessibility 2 * **
[EFFORT] 3 * ***
– stop once the 4 * ****
5 * *****
expectation of opti-
6 · ******
mal relevance is 7 · *******
satisfied [EFFECT]
(cf. Sperber, Cara & Girotto, 1995: 95)



Optimal Interpretation
Hendriks & de Hoop: The integration of
pragmatic and syntactic/semantic information
in a system of ranked constraints in order to
correctly derive the optimal interpretations

Suggestion by RT: EFFECT >> EFFORT

Zeevat:
Faith >> Consistence >> Do not accommodate >> Strength



Neo-Gricean Theories (Atlas, Horn)

• The Q-Principle (Hearer-based):
– Say as much as you can! (modulo R)
(Grice’s first quantity maxim and the first two manner maxims)

• The R-Principle (Speaker-based):
– Say not more than you must! (modulo Q)
(Grice’s second quantity maxim, relation maxim and the second two
manner maxims)



Weak Bidirectionality
〈f, m〉 is weakly optimal (= super-optimal) iff
a. 〈f, m〉 ∈ GEN
b. there is no weakly optimal 〈f’, m〉 ∈ GEN
such that 〈f’, m〉 > 〈f, m〉
c. there is no weakly optimal 〈f, m’ 〉 ∈ GEN
such that 〈f, m’ 〉 > 〈f, m〉

● This is an abstract scheme (Jäger 2002)
● The content of the ordering relation “>” is
determined by the system of constraints


Example
siF siM m1 m2
〈f1, m1〉 f1
〈f1, m2〉 *
〈f2, m1〉 *
〈f2, m2〉 * * f2

siF: prefer short forms
siM: prefer stereotypical meanings



Levinson‘s Presumptive Meanings
• Presumptive meanings are a matter of
preferred interpretation calculated by a
particular default mechanism
• Presumptive meanings are local
• Three heuristics
– Q-heuristic: What isn’t said is not the case
– I-heuristic: What is expressed simply is
stereotypically exemplified
– M-heuristic: What’s said in an abnormal way
isn’t normal



What are the heuristics?
r. r. i- I i-M
heu heu A nt nt
I- M
- A
siF siM F→M F*→M* F→M* F*→M
〈f1, m1〉 *
〈f1, m2〉 * *
〈f2, m1〉 * *
〈f2, m2〉 * * *

siF: prefer short forms
siM: prefer stereotypical meanings
I-heuristic: What is expressed simply is stereotypically exemplified
M-heuristic: What’s said in an abnormal way isn’t normal


Comparison
Neo-Gricean Levinson (2000)
global theory local theory
bidirection optimization unidirectional optimization
siF,siM I, M
m1 m2 m1 m2
f1 f1

f2 f2


Conclusions

Global Theories Local Theories
Neo-GriceanTheory Relevance Theory
Levinson (2000)
Bidirectional OT Unidirectional OT



2
Cognitive motivation of
symmetry and bidirection



Symmetric OT-systems
• Symmetric system: If f m (optimal
interpretation) then m f (optimal expression)

f1 m1 f1 m1
f2 m2 f2 m2

• For symmetric systems: unidirectional
optimization gives the same solutions as
bidirectional optimization and vice versa



The symmetry test
• A set of pairs of patterns (Ai, Bi) are lop
repeatedly presented. When one
member of the pair is presented raf
the subject has to learn to produce
the other. Assume a 1-1 kas
correspondence between A and B
• If subjects are qualified to match raf
Stimulus A to B and then, without
further training, match B to A, they lop
have passed a test of symmetry
kas


Findings
• Children as young as 2 years pass the
symmetry test! (Green 1990)
• Chimps do not show symmetry (see
Savage-Rumbaugh, 1984).



Symmetry between language
production and comprehension
• Normally, we can understand the sentences we
produce.
– Exceptions are very rare

• In most cases, we can produce the sentences
we understand.
– Typical exceptions in language acquisition: Children‘s
ability in production lags dramatically behind their
ability in comprehension



Two ways of deriving symmetry
• Symmetry as a result of the
network architecture
– In symmetric networks, one
and the same pattern can
be produced starting from
different inputs.
• Symmetry as a result of A→B
learning ∆
A' ← B
– Tesar’s and Smolensky’s
Difference A-A'
learning theory.
triggers learning


Mirror neurons in the premotor cortex
A mirror neuron is a
neuron which fires both
when performing an action
and when observing the
same action performed
by another creature

• Monkey grasp a nut
• Monkey sees how
another creature
grasp a nut



Mirror neurons in the premotor cortex
A mirror neuron is a
neuron which fires both
when performing an action
and when observing the
same action performed
by another creature

• Monkey grasp a nut
• Monkey sees how
another creature
grasp a nut



Weak bidirection and symmetry
• Rather than seeing weak bidirection as a online
interpretation/production mechanism, it should
be understood in terms of (iterated) learning
(resulting in symmetric OT systems).
• Suggestion
– Unidirectional OT (local theories)
⇔ Synchronic perspective
– (Weak) bidirection OT (global theories)
⇔ Diachronic perspective



Zipf 1949
• Two basic and competing forces
– Speaker’s economy: Force of unification R
– Hearer’s economy: Force of diversification Q
• The two opposing economies are evolutionary
forces, i.e. they are balanced during language
evolution.
– Languages are evolving via cultural rather than
biological transmission on a historical rather
than genetic timescale



3
The idea of fossilization



Fossilization
Global Theories Local Theories
bidirectional optimization unidirectional optimization

m1 m2 m1 m2
f1 f1
Fossilization

f2 f2
Markedness constraints Linking constraints
siF,siM I, M


(Iterated) Learning
Speaker Hearer
m f m’

m = m’ ?
If yes, nothing happens

If no, adjustment:
- All constraints that favour (f, m) over (f, m’) are promoted
- All constraints that favour (f, m’) over (f, m) are demoted



Population in pairwise
interaction



All possible strategies
Horn

Smolensky

AntiHorn



General Observations
• Horn and Anti-Horn are the only strategies (OT-
systems) that are stable
• Starting with a uniform Smolensky population
the system will always move into
– a pure Horn population supposed P(m1) > P(m1)
– a pure Anti-Horn population supposed P(m1) < P(m1)

• The same holds for mixed populations



Joost Zwarts: round in English
a. The postman ran round the block (in a circle)
b. The burglar drove round the barrier (to the opposite side)
c. The steeplechaser ran round the corner (to the other side)
d. The captain sailed round the lake
e. The tourist drove round the city centre



Strongest Meaning Hypothesis

round the door Consistence Strength

completeness *
inversion *
orthogonality **
detour ***

Lexicon: round → Approx [Circle]


J.Zwaarts: om and rond in Dutch
a. They sat round the television Ze zaten rond (?om) de televisie
b. A man put his head round the Een man stak zijn hoofd om
door (?rond, ?rondom) de deur
c. The drove round the obstacle De auto reed om (?rond,
?rondom) het obstakel heen
d. the area round the little town het gebied rondom (?om) het
stadje

DETOUR ------------------------------------------------ CIRCLE
om … strengthening → … ← weakening … rond



The interplay between broadening
and narrowing
Zwart’s (2005) rond
• If rond has some inter-
pretation m then it has
each stronger inter-
pretation
• If om has some inter-
pretation m then it has
each weaker interpretation
• there is some overlap
between om and rond om



The puzzle

• the marked form (rond) conforms to the stronger
(= preferred) meanings […. Circle]
• the unmarked form (om) conforms to the weaker
meanings [….. DeTour]
• This conflicts with weak bidirection and iconicity



4
Conclusions

• Local theories – unidirectional optimization
– Synchronic view
• Global theories – bidirectional optimization
– Diachronic view
• Weak bidirection as (lexical) fossilization
– Fossilization = ‘routinization’ of implicatures


Optimality%20 Theoretic%20 Pragmatics

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (7)

Más de Dr. Cupid Lucid

Más de Dr. Cupid Lucid (20)

Último

Último (20)

Optimality%20 Theoretic%20 Pragmatics