1. universiteit van amsterdam | 1 Reinhard Blutner http://www.blutner.de blutner@uva.nl How realistic is bidirectional optimization? Institute for Logic, Language and Computation

2. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 2 1 Introduction Three notations of bidirectionality Relevance for language acquisition

3. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 3 Three kinds of bidirectionality bidirectionality in actual competence / performance bidirectional learning bidirectionality in an evolutionary setting (Zipf’s two economies) Routinizatio n Fossilization

4. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 4 Bidirection in actual competence/?performance Competence: ›O›OT phonology, OT syntax  Speaker’s view ›O›OT semantics  Listener’s view ›O›OT pragmatics  Integration of both views Performance: ›N›Naïve picture (optimal generation/interpretation) ›A›Analysis by synthesis? (interpr. involves generation) ›M›Monitoring mechanisms? (generation involves interpr.) ›F›Full bidirectionality?

5. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 5 Bidirectional learning and language aquisition  F, M  ›Bidirectional learning of constructions (  symmetry) ›Other mechanisms? (endogenous changes of architec- ture, maturation, …) Interpretation Generation

6. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 6 Outline ›OT pragmatics (Motivating the unique role of bidirectional learning) ›The use of bidirectional learning – Routinization – Fossilization ›Example (acquisition of binding principles)

7. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 7 2 OT Pragmatics Grice and his legacy Global and local theories of pragmatics Example of OT pragmatics

8. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 8 Grice and his followers Relevance Theory Presumptive Meanings Neo- Gricean Theories (Horn, Atlas) OT-Pragmatics

9. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 9 OT pragmatics ›Neo-Griceans pragmatics (Horn, Atlas, Levinson, …) can be formulated in terms of bidirectional OT. ›Neo-Griceans normally take a normative stance. ›OT is taken as a cognitive theory (Smolensky, Legendre) which can be used to make prediction about language processing and language acquisition. ›OT pragmatics can be seen as a framework that performs a naturalization of different variants of neo- and post-Gricean pragmatics

10. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 10 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)

11. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 11 Bidirectionality in Gricean pragmatics ›Mc Cawley 1981: Kill and cause to die ›Levinson: Litotes (happy and not unhappy) ›Krifka: Vague and precise interpretations of measure terms ›Reflexives and pronouns ›Aissen (2003): Differential object marking ›Aloni (2001, 2005): Pragmatics for propositional attitudes ›Zeevat (2002; 2004): Discourse particles and presupposition. ›Beaver (2004), De Hoop (2004), Hendriks (2004): Interpretation of stress and focus. ›Henriëtte de Swart (2004): Marking and Interpretation of negation

12. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 12 f F Mm Weak bidirectionality  F, M   F, m  *  f, M  *  f, m  ** F: prefer economic forms M: prefer stereotypical meanings FM

13. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 13 Heuristics FM*F/m*f/M*F/M*f/m  F, M  *  F, m  **  f, M  **  f, m  *** I-heuristic: What is expressed simply is stereotypically exemplified M-heuristic: What’s said in an abnormal way isn’t normal I-heur.M-heur.Anti-I Anti-M

14. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 14 Two types of theories Global theory bidirection optimization F f M m F f M m Local theories (heuristics) unidirectional optimization *F/m *f/M F f M m F f M m Complementary constraints {X, Y}: If constraint X determines a certain interpretation pattern, then Y determines a corresponding generation pattern, and vice versa. Examples: 1. {M, F}, 2. {*F/m, *f/M}

15. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 15 Preliminary conclusions Global TheoryLocal Theories Neo-GriceanTheory Relevance Theory Levinson (2000) Bidirectional OTUnidirectional OT ›Are there systematic relation between the two types of theories? ›The idea of Routinization (conventionalization/ fossilization) of implicatures

16. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 16 The idea of routinization ›‘Invited Inferences’ (Geis & Zwicky 1971). Mechanism of conventionalization for implicatures ›Short-circuited implicatures (Morgan 1978; Horn & Bayer 1984) ›Lexicalization (Cole 1975) ›Fossilization of implicatures (Levinson 2000) ›Traugott (1989…2005) extended the idea to explain language change ›Mattausch (2004): Cultural evolution of binding theory.

17. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 17 3 Bidirectional learning Routinization and bidirectional learning Fossilization and iterated (bidir.) learning

18. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 18 Variants of bidirectional learning F M F ’ Listener Speaker F = F ’ ? 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

19. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 19 F f M m F f M m *F/m *f/M F f M m F f M m Routinization and bidirectional learning bidir. learning Bidirectional learning provides an explication of routinization. In the routinized system unidirectional optimization mechanisms are efficient.

20. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 20 Cultural evolution: 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

21. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 21 Iterated learning and fossillization Population in pairwise interaction

22. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 22 Explaining Universals FunctionalFormal Genetic evolution Evolutionary Psychology (Pinker) Minimalist program (Chomsky) Cultural evolution Recruitment theory (Steels) Iterated learning (Kirby, Hurford)

23. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 23 Preliminary conclusions ›Routinization (individual fossilization) via learning on an ontogenetic time scales (seconds-years) ›Cultural fossilization via iterated learning/cultural evolution on a historical time scale (years-centuries ) ›In the routinized/fossilized system unidirectional optimization mechanisms are efficient.

24. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 24 4 The acquisition of binding behavior for pronouns and reflexives The pronoun interpretation problem Delayed bidirection vs. delayed principle B

25. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 25 The Pronoun Interpretation Problem ›Young children have problems in interpreting pronouns but not in interpreting reflexives. ›In production this asymmetry disappears and both pronouns and reflexives are produced correctly. ›This conflicts with the usual claim that comprehension of a given form precedes production of this form ›Hendriks & Spenader (2004) claim that bidirectional OT taken as an online mechanism can explain these findings.

26. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 26 Children’s Comprehension of Reflexives* ›Here is an elephant and an alligator. The elephant is hitting himself. ›Question: Does the sentence match the picture? ›Children from age 4 on: Yes * I thank Petra Hendriks for allowing me to use her slides

27. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 27 Children’s Interpretation of Pronouns ›Here is an elephant and an alligator. The elephant is hitting him. ›Question: Does the sentence match the picture? ›Children until at least the age of 6 or 7: Yes E.g., Chien & Wexler, 1990; Grimshaw & Rosen, 1990; Jakubowicz, 1984; Koster, 1993; McDaniel, Smith Cairns, & Hsu, 1990; McDaniel & Maxfield, 1992; McKee, 1992.; Spenader, Smits & Hendriks, subm.

28. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 28 Children’s Production of Pronouns ›Task: Describe what you see on the picture. ›Children between 4;6 and 7: The elephant is hitting him. Cf. De Villiers, Cahillane, & Altreuter, 2006; Spenader, Smits, & Hendriks, subm.

29. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 29 Children’s Production of Reflexives ›Task: Describe what you see on the picture. ›Children between 4;6 and 7: The elephant is hitting himself *The elephant is hitting him

30. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 30 Two Alternative Explanations within OTP 1.Hendriks‘ & Spenader‘s Delayed Bidirection -Tue proposal is that children begin with unidirectional optimization, and only later acquire the ability to optimize bidirectionally. Principle B of BT is an epiphenomenon. 2.Bidirection Learning and the delay of principle B -Rather than stipulating a change from unidirect- ional to bidirectional processing the effects of bidirectionality are handled by a mechanism of learning/ automatization (reranking the constraint)

31. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 31 ›PRINCIPLE A >> REFERENTIAL ECONOMY ›Hearer‘s perspective: one optimal interpretation for self but two optimal interpretations for pro. ›Speaker‘s perspective: correct unique form for each interpretation. pro self disjconj pro self disj conj Alternative 1: Delayed bidirection - I

32. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 32 ›Unidirectional Optimization ›Bidirectional Optimization ›What‘s essential for this solution is that the hearer has to take a potential speaker into account pro self disjconj pro self disj conj Alternative 1: Delayed bidirection - II

33. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 33 pro self disj conj pro self Constraint B promoted disj conj conj Speaker self Hearer nothing happens conj Speaker pro Hearer nothing happens disj Alternative 2: Delayed principle B

34. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 34 Conceptual problems with both alternatives ›The constraints are partly stipulated ›No constraint grounding!

35. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 35 5 Two simulation experiments Early principle A – delayed principle B Mattausch & Gülzow Blutner

36. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 36 Hendriks & Rij (2009) Mattausch & Gülzow (2008), Part I ›Hypothetical corpus of modern English ›All constraints equally ranked in the initial state. ›Predicts early principle B! A B _A_A _B_B A B _A_A _B_B

37. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 37 Mattausch’s trick ›Principle A and principle B are complementary ›Contrary to the facts, the old model predicts early principle B effects in interpretation and late principle A effects in generation ›In order to get the effects of late principle B in interpretation reverse interpretation and generation:  Analysis by synthesis (motor theory of perception)

38. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 38 Mattausch & Gülzow (2008), Part II Revised bidirectional optimality a. A meaning m is recoverable from a form f iff there is no form-meaning pair ‹f,m’› such that ‹f,m’› > ‹f,m›. b. A form-meaning pair ‹f,m› is speaker optimal iff either (i) m is recoverable from f and there is no pair ‹f ’,m› such that m is recoverable from f’ and ‹f ’,m› > ‹f,m›, or (ii) no form x is such that m is recoverable from x and there is no pair ‹f ’,m› such that ‹f ’,m› > ‹f,m›. c. A form-meaning pair ‹f,m› is hearer optimal iff there is no pair ‹f ’,m› such that ‹f ’,m› > ‹f,m›.

39. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 39 Present simulation: general conditions ›Full set of bias constraints: -Principle A, Principle -Principle B, Principle ›Full set of markedness constraints: -Pro (prefer pronouns; *Struct), -Di (prefer disjoint interpretation), ›Bidirectional learning, unidirectional optimization -Use 98% pronouns and 2% reflexives with correct interpretations (2 % errors only). -Harmony Theory with constraint demotion _A_A _B_B __ Pro __ Di

40. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 40 Present simulation: identical initial weights _ B – B _ A – A Dashed lines: error display __ pro – pro __ di – di Strength of constraints Weights bias constraints: 0.01 markedness constraints: 0.01

41. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 41 Present simulation: different initial weights _ B – B _ A – A Dashed lines: error display __ di – di __ pro – pro Strength of constraints Weights bias constraints: 0.01 markedness constraints: 0.02 21 3

42. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 42 Three stages 1.Initial state: markedness ›› bias 2.{A, } ›› … 3.{A, B} ›› … prodisj conj __ Pro pro self disj conj pro self disj conj

43. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 43 6 Conclusions Bidirectional learning can explain the acquisition of binding principles without stipulating a change of the architecture (unidirectional  bidirectional) “Early principle A – delayed principle B” is a consequence of general assumptions about the initial state. We don’t need bidirectionality for describing actual competence/performance Errors in actual performance can be derived along the lines developed by T. Biro.

44. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 44

45. universiteit van amsterdam | 45 Appendix

46. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 46 A Production Problem for R-Expressions ›Hendriks, Englert, Wubs & Hoeks (to appear): Age differences in adults’ use of referring expression ›Children and very old adults produce pronouns where R-expressions are more appropriate

47. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 47 Sentence Elicitation Study A woman hold-ing an ice cream cone is walking past a road sign. The woman comes across a girl. She gives the girl an ice cream cone. The girl is eating from the ice cream cone. Well, the woman passes again an ice cream van. The woman buys another ice cream come. Topic shift Target Picture she

48. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 48 Results ›Elderly adults produce (non-recoverable) pronouns significantly more often than young adults when refer- ring to the old topic in the presence of a new topic. ›With respect to the comprehension task, no significant differences were found between elderly and young adults.

49. universiteit van amsterdam Amsterdam July 3d, 2009 | 49 Different time scales Online processing Offline processing Learning including routinization Cultural evolution Biological evolution performance languages UB performance milliseconds years centuries seconds UG