Abstract
In this paper, we discuss some formal properties of the model ofbidirectional Optimality Theory that was developed inBlutner (2000). We investigate the conditions under whichbidirectional optimization is a well-defined notion, and we give aconceptually simpler reformulation of Blutner's definition. In thesecond part of the paper, we show that bidirectional optimization can bemodeled by means of finite state techniques. There we rely heavily onthe related work of Frank and Satta (1998) about unidirectionaloptimization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blutner, R., 1998, “Lexical pragmatics, ” Journal of Semantics 15, 115–162.
Blutner, R., 2000, “Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation, ” Journal of Semantics 17, 189–216.
Frank, R. and Satta, G., 1998, “Optimality theory and the generative complexity of constraint violability, ” Computational Linguistics 24, 307–315.
Gécseg, F. and Steinby, M., 1997, “Tree languages, ” pp. 1–68 in Handbook of Formal Languages, Vol. III, G. Rozenberg and A. Salomaa, eds., Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Heim, I., 1990, “On the projection problem for resuppositions, ” pp. 397–405 in Pragmatics, S. Davis, ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horn, L., 1984, “Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicatures, ” pp. 11–42 in Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, D. Schiffrin, ed., Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Joshi, A., 1985, “How much context-sensitivity is necessary for characterizing structural descriptions– tree adjoining grammars, ” pp. 206–250 in Natural Language Processing. Theoretical,Computational and Psychological Perspectives, D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A. Zwicky, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kager, R., 1999, Optimality Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karttunen, L., 1998, “The proper treatment of optimality in computational phonology, ” manuscript, Xerox Research Centre Europe.
Levinson, S.C., 1987, “Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora, ” Journal of Linguistics 23, 379–434.
Morawietz, F. and Cornell, T., 1997, “Representing constraints with automata, ” pp. 468–475 in 35 th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Madrid, Spain, P. Cohen and W. Wahlsterl, eds., ACL.
Prince, A. and Smolensky, P., 1993, “Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar, ” Technical Report TR-2, Rutgers University Cognitive Science Center, New Brunswick, NJ.
Roche, E. and Schabes, Y., 1997, “Introduction, ” pp. 1–65 in Finite-State Language Processing, E. Roche and Y. Schabes, eds., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shieber, S., 1985, “Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language, ” Linguistics andPhilosphy 8, 333–343.
van der Sandt, R., 1992, “Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution, ” Journal of Semantics 9, 333–377.
Wartena, C., 2000, “A note on the complexity of optimality systems, ” pp. 64–72 in Studies in Optimality Theory, R. Blutner and G. Jäger, eds., Universität Potsdam. (Also available at Rutgers Optimality Archive as ROA 385-03100.)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jäger, G. Some Notes on the Formal Properties of Bidirectional Optimality Theory. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11, 427–451 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019969702169
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019969702169