Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimality Theoretic Semantics

  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this article is to elucidate the processes that characterize natural language interpretation. The basic hypothesis is that natural language interpretation can be characterized as an optimization problem. This innovative view on interpretation is shown to account for the crucial role of contextual information while avoiding certain well-known problems associated withcompositionality. This will become particularly clear in the context of incomplete expressions. Our approach takes as a point of departure total freedom ofinterpretation in combination with the parallel application of soft constraints on possible interpretations. These constraints can be contextual, intonational or syntactic in nature. The integration of pragmatic andsyntactic/semantic information in a system of ranked constraints is proposed to correctly derive the optimal interpretations in cases of nominal anaphorization, determiner quantification and elliptical comparatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Accuosto, Pablo and Dina Wonsever: 1997, ‘An Analysis for Spanish Comparatives in Categorial Grammar’. Paper presented at WOLLIC 4, Fortaleza.

  • Beaver, David: 1997, ‘Presuppositions’, in J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 939–1008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, Joan: 1975, ‘Comparative Deletion and Constraints on Transformations’, Linguistic Analysis 1.1, 25–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao, Wynn: 1987, On Ellipsis, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, Guglielmo: 1993, ‘A Null Theory of Phrase and Compound Stress’, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 239–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corver, Norbert: 1990, The Syntax of Left Branch Extractions, PhD dissertation, Tilburg University.

  • Dalrymple, Mary, Stuart M. Shieber, and Fernando Pereira: 1991, ‘Ellipsis and Higher-Order Unification’, Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 399–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckardt, Regine: 1999, ‘Focus and Nominal Quantifiers’, in P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 166–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, A. K. and R. M. Harnish: 1987, ‘Communicative Reference with Pronouns’, in J. Verschueren and M. Bertucelli-Papi (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiengo, Robert and Robert May: 1994, Indices and Identity, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawron, Jean Mark: 1995, ‘Comparatives, Superlatives, and Resolution’, Linguistics and Philosophy 18, 333–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geilfuß, Joachim: 1995, Ñber gewisse Fälle von Assoziation mit Fokus, PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen.

  • Hardt, Dan: 1992, ‘VP Ellipsis and Semantic Identity’, in S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Stuttgart.

  • Hardt, Dan: 1993, Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning and Processing, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Hazout, Ilan: 1995, ‘Comparative Ellipsis and Logical Form’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene: 1985, ‘Notes on Comparatives and Related Matters’, Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas.

  • Hendriks, Herman: in preparation, ‘A Strong Theory of Link and Focus Interpretation’, Unpublished manuscript, Utrecht/Amsterdam.

  • Hendriks, Herman and Paul Dekker: 1996, ‘Links without Locations. Information Packaging and Non-Monotone Anaphora’, in P. Dekker and M. Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, Amsterdam, pp. 339-358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, Petra: 1994, ‘Multiple Head Comparison and Infinite Regress’, in J. Ashmore Nevis and V. Samiian (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 92), Vol. 5, California State University, Fresno, pp. 117–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, Petra: 1995, Comparatives and Categorial Grammar, PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.

  • Hendriks, Petra and Helen de Hoop: 1997, ‘On the Interpretation of Semantic Relations in the Absence of Syntactic Structure’, in P. Dekker, M. Stokhof, and Y. Venema (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, Amsterdam, pp. 157–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herburger, Elena: 1997, ‘Focus and Weak Noun Phrases’, Natural Language Semantics 5, 53–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, Jerry R. and Andrew Kehler: 1997, ‘A Theory of Parallelism and the Case of VP Ellipsis’, in Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Madrid, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 394–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoop, Helen de: 1995, ‘Only a Matter of Context?’, in M. den Dikken and K. Hengeveld (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, Benjamins, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoop, Helen de and Jaume Solà: 1996, ‘Determiners, Context Sets, and Focus’, in J. Camacho, L. Choueiri, and M. Watanabe (eds.), The Proceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, CSLI, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, Gerhard: 1997, ‘Anaphora and Ellipsis in Type-Logical Grammar’, in P. Dekker, M. Stokhof, and Y. Venema (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, pp. 175–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Kyle: 1996, ‘When Verb Phrases Go Missing’, Glot International 2(5), 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle: 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehler, Andrew: 1993, ‘The Effect of Establishing Coherence in Ellipsis and Anaphora Resolution’, in Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Columbus, Ohio, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 62–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Christopher: 1997, Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison, PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Christopher and Jason Merchant: 1997, Attributive Comparatives and Bound Ellipsis, Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa Cruz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krahmer, Emiel and Kees van Deemter: 1997, ‘Presuppositions as Anaphors: Towards a Full Understanding of Partial Matches’, in P. Dekker, J. van der Does, and H. de Hoop (eds.), De Dag. Proceedings of the Workshop on Definites, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred: 1995, ‘A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions’, in Proceedings of SALT 1, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, pp. 159–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuppevelt, Jan van: 1996, ‘Directionality in Discourse: Prominence Differences in Subordination Relations’, Journal of Semantics 13, 363–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leusen, Noor van: 1994, ‘The Interpretation of Corrections’, in P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt (eds.), Focus and Natural Language Processing, Vol. 3, IBM, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobeck, Anne C.: 1995, Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, Robert: 1985, Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, James D.: 1998, The Syntactic Phenomena of English, 2nd edn, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrill, Glyn: 1994, Type Logical Grammar. Categorial Logic of Signs, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrill, Glyn and Teresa Solias: 1993, ‘Tuples, Discontinuity and Gapping’, in Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Utrecht, pp. 287–297.

  • Murphy, Gregory L.: 1985, ‘Processes of Understanding Anaphora’, Journal of Memory and Language 24, 290–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerbonne, John, Masayo Iida, and William Ladusaw: 1990, ‘Semantics of Common Noun Phrase Anaphora’, in A. L. Halpern (ed.), The Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, CSLI, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, Barbara: 1995, ‘Quantificational Structures and Compositionality’, in E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, and B. H. Partee (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkham, Jessie: 1982, The Formation of Comparative Clauses in French and English, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky: 1997, ‘Optimality: From Neural Networks to Universal Grammar’, Science 275, 1604–1610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prüst, Hub:1992, On Discourse Structuring, VP Anaphora and Gapping, PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Rayner, Manny and Amelie Banks: 1990, ‘An Implementable Semantics for Comparative Constructions’, Computational Linguistics 16(2), 86–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya: 1995, ‘Interface Economy: Focus and Markedness’, Manuscript, Utrecht/Tel Aviv.

  • Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland: 1993, ‘Reflexivity’, Linguistic Inquiry 24(4), 657–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, Mats: 1985, Association with Focus, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, Mats: 1992, ‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, David E., James J. McClelland, and the PDP Research Group: 1986, Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sag, Ivan and Jorge Hankamer: 1984, ‘Towards a Theory of Anaphoric Processing’, Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 325–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandt, Rob van der: 1992, ‘Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution’, Journal of Semantics 9, 333–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, Anthony, Linda Moxey, and Kevin Paterson: 1994, ‘Psychological Studies of Quantifiers’, Journal of Semantics 10, 153–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, William, Kenneth Wexler, and Dolon Das: 1995, ‘The Syntactic Representation of Degree and Quantity: Perspectives from Japanese and Child English’, in Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics XIII, Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, Ron: 1994, ‘Grammatical Determinants of Ambiguous Pronoun Resolution’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23(3), 197–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stechow, Arnim von: 1984, ‘Comparing Semantic Theories of Comparison’, Journal of Semantics 3,1–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, Michael and Greg Carlson: 1990, ‘Comprehension of Deep and Surface Verbphrase Anaphors’, Language and Cognitive Processes 5(4), 257–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallduví, Enric: 1990, The Informational Component, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerståhl, Dag: 1985, ‘Determiners and Context Sets’, in J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Edwin: 1997, ‘Blocking and Anaphora’, Linguistic Inquiry 28, 577–628.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dutch Cognitive Science & Engineering (TCW), University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Petra Hendriks

  2. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, Trans 10, 3512 JK, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Helen de Hoop

Authors
  1. Petra Hendriks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen de Hoop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hendriks, P., de Hoop, H. Optimality Theoretic Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 24, 1–32 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005607111810

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005607111810

Keywords

Search

Navigation