54
1 Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ESSLLI 2007

Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair is weakly optimal iff 1. is a member of GEN. 2

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

1

�������������

����� �����������

������������� ��

Atle GrønnUniversity of Oslo

Language, Games & EvolutionESSLLI 2007

Page 2: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

2

�������

� Partial blocking in Bidirectional OT (and GT)

� A diachronic view on Russian aspect� A ”diachronic” explanation of aspectual

competition and implicatures in thesynchronic system

Page 3: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

3

���� ��� ���� ������ ���� ��

� ”kill” (f1) > ”cause to die” (f2)� direct killing (m1) > indirect killing (m2)

(1) Black Bart caused the sheriff to die.

Page 4: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

4

���� ��� ����

��������������

� Graphicalrepresentation(Dekker & van Rooy)

� <f1,m1> is (weakly) optimal

� <f2,m2> is weaklyoptimal

�←•f2

↑↑

•←�f1

m2m1

Page 5: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

5

����������������������������������������������������

����� ����������� ��������� ����������� ��������� ����������� ��������� ����������� ����

A form-meaning pair <F,M> is weakly optimal iff� 1. <F,M> is a member of GEN.� 2. there is no pair <F’,M> in GEN such that (2.1) <F’,M> > <F,M> and (2.2) <F’,M> is weakly optimal.� 3. there is no pair <F,M’> in GEN such that (3.1) <F,M’> > <F,M> and (3.2) <F,M’> is weakly optimal.

Page 6: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

6

������ ��� �

Every Russian verb form is� Perfective (Pf) or� Imperfective (Ipf)

Page 7: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

7

��������� ��

!�"� ��� ������

� markedness� competition� underspecification� context sensitivity� pragmatic implicatures

Page 8: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

8

#���

� Truth-conditional approaches to Russianaspect fail because they don’t consideralternative forms which the speaker could have used.

� The competition perspective suggests an OT/GT analysis.

Page 9: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

9

$��� �� ��

��� ������ ������ �������

� The perfective (”complete eventinterpretation”): e C t

[[Pf]] = �P�t�e[P(e) ∧ eCt]

� The progressive imperfective(”incomplete event interpretation”): t C e

[[Ipf_prog]] = �P�t�e[P(e) ∧ tCe]

Page 10: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

10

%�� �� ���� ��"� ��� �

��������"��������

(2) Kogda my vstretilis’,when we met_PAST.PFon chital "Vojnu i Mir".he read_PAST.IPF “War and Peace”

“When we met, he was reading “W&P”.”� i.e. the time of our meeting is temporally

included in an event of him reading W&P

Page 11: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

11

$��� ��� �� ��������

(3) Ja chital "Vojnu i Mir" v šestom klasse,I read_PAST.IPF “W&P” in sixth gradeprochital polnost’ju za 6 dnej. (internet)read_PAST.PF completely in 6 days

“I read “W&P” in the 6th grade, read it through in 6 days.”

Page 12: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

12

$��� ��� �� �������� � ���&�

� The perfective prochital in (3):the event of reading W&P is temporallyincluded in an interval of 6 days: e C t� The imperfective in (3):the event of reading W&P is temporallyincluded in an interval of 1 year: e C t

Page 13: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

13

%�� �� ���� � ����� �

� Many synchronic semantic and syntacticfacts can be analyzed from an evolutionary perspective as frozenpragmatics (Blutner 2006).

Page 14: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

14

%�'�� ��(��� ����� �#�� �

!�"��� )�����������

� atelic activities � chitat’ (to read)

� progressive accomplishments(incomplete events) � chitat’ pis’mo (to read the letter)

� non-progressive accomplishments(complete events) � prochitat’ pis’mo (to ”through-read” the letter)

Page 15: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

15

���� ��� ���� ������%

�*���� ������� ��� ����

Was prochitat’ pis’mo (”through-read” the letter)originally compatible with an incomplete eventinterpretation?

(4) Als ich den Brief durchlas, den meineFreundin Katja für ihre Tochter Anna schrieb, musste ich weinen. (google)“As I was reading the letter (lit.: `the letter through-read'), which my friend Katjahad written to her daughter, I had to cry”

Page 16: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

16

%�� ��(��� ��� ������

������ ����+�+��� �

� f1 = (in)transitive simplex V� f2 = prep + V� m1 = incomplete events� m2 = complete events� GEN = M X F� Rankings: f1 > f2 (complexity);

m1 > m2 (stereotypical)

Page 17: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

17

���� ��� ���� ������ ��(

��� ��� ������ ���������

�←•Prep + V (f2)

↑↑

•←�Simplex V (f1)

Completeevent (m2)

Incompleteevent (m1)

Page 18: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

18

,-��.� ���% �������

� Given a situation corresponding to m1, the preferred form of S will be f1, hence the alternative <f2,m1> is blocked.

� Given the input form f1, H will choose the interpretation m1, hence the alternative <f1,m2> is also blocked.

� The pair <Ipf,m1> is considered optimal from both perspectives.

� Remove the pairs which are blocked.� The only remaining pair <f2,m2>, itself not

being blocked, is weakly optimal.

Page 19: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

19

/�������� ���� ��� ���� ������ ��

����� ���"� ������ ����0�+112�

� At stage 1, the 1-1 mapping between intransitive simplex verbs and atelic activities is the external factor which triggers f1 to be associated with incomplete events (progressivity, the subinterval property etc.).

� Through associative learning, the pair <f1,m1> gets strengthened at stage 2.

Page 20: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

20

$��� ���"� ������ � ���&�

� If the speaker then, at stage 3, wants to emphasize the complete event interpretation, he should choose the marked form f2.

� At stage 4, this invites a strengthening of the pair <f2,m2>.

� Finally, at stage 5, prefixation develops into perfectivization, giving rise to a new aspectual system.

Page 21: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

21

3� � �� ��0���� ����4

� Pragmatics � frozen pragmatics �semantics

� GEN = M X F – {<Pf, tCe>}� Secondary imperfectivization (16th

century): chitat‘_IPF (f1) >prochitat‘_PF (f2) > prochityvat‘_IPF (f3)

� Complexity of form does not produce a linear ranking of Pf and Ipf!

Page 22: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

22

����� ���� ���� �����������

� Not obvious that the new system can be modeled as a game

� A 2x2 game with three solutions, preserving ambiguity, cannot be modeled in terms of bidirectional optimization (two-solutions games)…

Page 23: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

23

5������������� ���&��

� What are the rankings in modernRussian?

� How and when does the complete eventreading of Ipf survive?

Page 24: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

24

$���� ����6������ ���� ���

#�� ����� �������

�”beef”

Hindus arenot allowedto eat cow

←�”cow”

cow-meat animal

Page 25: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

25

%��� ����� �� �������

Basic idea: � Aspect is a temporal phenomenon� Global reasoning – without compositionality

� Class 1: Small reference time� Class 2: Big reference time� Class 3: No reference time

Page 26: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

26

#��� �6��� �������� � ��� �

Example: f1 = Ipf+past+punctual_temporal_adverbialf2 = Pf+past+punctual_temporal_adverbial

m1 = tCe ∧ Tadv(t)m2 = eCt ∧ t = the interval preceding Tadv

Page 27: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

27

#��� �6��������"��"�&�7���

���� �7 �����������

(2’) Kogda my vstretilis’,when we met_PAST.PFon ?? "Vojnu i Mir".he ?? “War and Peace”

� chital_IPF (”was reading/had read”) or� prochital_Pf (”had read”)?

Page 28: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

28

���������� ��� �

� Ranking on F (harmony, frequency, salience…):f1 > f2

� Ranking on M (stereotypical interpretation):m1 > m2

Page 29: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

29

#�����6�3�����0����

A complete eventinterpretation is notavailable for Ipfwhenever aprogressiveinterpretation is possible.

�Pf…(f2)

•←

�Ipf…(f1)

eCt(m2)

tCe(m1)

Page 30: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

30

8 ��������� ��������� ��� �

(2’’) … on uže pro�ital "Vojnu i Mir".… he already read_PAST.PF “W&P”

“(when we met), he had already read “W&P””

� <Ipf_when_clause, “the time of meeting C e>� <Pf_when_clause, e C “the whole past

preceding the time of our meeting”>

Page 31: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

31

#��� +6���� ����� � ��� �

Example: � f1 = Ipf+past� f2 = Pf+past

� m1 = eCt ∧ t = the whole intervalpreceding the utterance time.

� m2 = ??

Page 32: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

32

���������� ��� +

� Ranking on F (harmony, frequency, salience…):f2 > f1

� Ranking on M (stereotypical interpretation):m1 > m2

Page 33: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

33

#��� +6����� ��� ����

�←•f1 (Ipf_past)

↑↑

•←�f2 (Pf_past)

m2m1(eCt ∧t = past)

Page 34: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

34

!����������� ������� ��� +

By associative learning (Benz 2006) it isexpected that the interpretation of Pf getsstrengthened to include an implicature ofthe current relevance of the result state.

Page 35: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

35

!����������� ������� ��� +�

� ���&�

(5) Kto otkryl okno? who open_PAST.PF window.

“Who has opened the window?”(the window is currently open)

Page 36: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

36

9�� ������ ����

����������� ����

� What about m2?� “The unemployed form may soon find anew job, generally expressing somethingclosely related to but subtly different fromthe canonical interpretation that one mighthave expected” (Beaver & Lee, 2003:140).

Page 37: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

37

:�������� ��"�������

�����������������

(5’) Kto otkryval okno? who open_PAST.IPF window.

“Who had the window open?”(the window is currently closed)

Page 38: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

38

!������� ����� �������

IpfIpfS4

PfPfS3

PfIpfS2

IpfPfS1

closedopen

closedclosedH4

openopenH3

openclosedH2

closedopenH1

IpfPf

Page 39: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

39

�&�����.� 3%(� ����

���� ����� ���"������+11;�

� Determine expected utility for each profile(S,H) given the hearer’s probability function:

EU(S,H) = � P(m) x U(m,S,H)m

� Utility function of successful communication:

U(m,S,H) = 1, if H(S(m)) = m= 0 otherwise

Page 40: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

40

�&�����.� 3%(� ����

���� ��� ���&�

Assumptions (part of the common ground):� Probability of window being open at the

utterance time: 0.6� Probability of window being closed at the

utterance time: 0.4

Page 41: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

41

#�� ������ ��������

�' ������ �� ������������ �

0.40.60.60.4S4

0.40.60.40.6S3

0.40.610S2

0.40.601S1

H4H3H2H1Partial

Page 42: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

42

�&�����.� 3%(� ����

� ���&�

� U(m,S,H) = 1/Complexity(S(m)), if H(S(m)) = m

= 0 otherwise

Assumptions (part of the common ground):� Complexity of ”Pf+past”: 1� Complexity of ”Ipf+past”: 2

Page 43: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

43

#�� ������ ��������

�' ��� �� ������������ �

0.20.60.60.2S4

0.20.60.20.6S3

0.20.60.70S2

0.20.600.8S1

H4H3H2H1Partial

Page 44: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

44

������"�&��&�����

� <S1,H1> (Horn) and <S2,H2> (anti-Horn) arestrict Nash equilibria.

� <S1,H1> is Pareto optimal (highest expectedutility) – Parikh’s unique solution.

� Blutner’s BiOT and Parikh’s GT model bothaccount for partial blocking in these simple cases.

Page 45: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

45

#��� <6��� ����� � ��� �

Example: imperatives under negation� f1 = Ipf_neg_imperative� f2 = Pf_neg_imperative

� m1 = S wants H not to perform action a� m2 = S warns H against accidentally

performing action a

Page 46: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

46

���������� ��� <

� Ranking on F (harmony, frequency, salience…):f1 > f2

� Ranking on M (stereotypical interpretation):m1 > m2

Page 47: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

47

#��� <�

���� ��� ��� )� ������

(6) Ty, požalujsta, ne opazdyvaj. you please not be_lateIMP.IPF

“Please don’t be late.” (internet)

Page 48: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

48

#��� <�

�� ������� )� ������

(6’) [�erez 10 minut budet uže pozdno.]Smotri, ne opazdaj! lookIMP.IPF not become_late IMP.PF

“In 10 minutes it’ll already be too late. Be careful not to be late.” (internet)

Page 49: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

49

���� ��� ���� ��� ��� <�

�←•f2 (Pf_imp)

↑↑

•←�f1 (Ipf_imp)

m2m1

Page 50: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

50

#�� ������

� GT and BiOT approaches can providenew insights into aspectual competitionin Russian

� A principled explanation for variousimplicatures associated with Ipf and Pf

� The temporal dimension of aspect playsa crucial role in the rankings of F and M.

� GT, BiOT or associative learning?

Page 51: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

51

������ ��

� Beaver, David, and Hanjung Lee. 2003. Form-Meaning Asymmetries and Bidirectional Optimization. In Variation within Optimality Theory, ed. J. Spenader, A. Eriksson, Ö. Dahl. 138–148. University of Stockholm.

� Benz, Anton. 2001. Towards a framework for bidirectional optimality theory in dynamic contexts. Ms.

� Benz, Anton. 2006. Partial blocking and associative learning. Linguistics and Philosophy 29:587–615.

Page 52: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

52

������ �� � ���&�

� Blutner, Reinhard. 2000. Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17:189–216.

� Blutner, Reinhard. 2006. Embedded implicatures and optimality theoretic pragmatics. In A Festschrift for Kjell Johan Sæbø, ed. T. Solstad, A. Grønn, and D. Haug, 11–29. Oslo.

� Dekker, Paul and Robert van Rooy. Bi-directional optimality: An application of game theory. Journal of Semantics 17:217–242.

Page 53: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

53

������ �� � ���&�

� Grønn, Atle. 2004. The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Russian Factual Imperfective. dr. art. thesis, published in Acta Humaniora 199. Oslo.

� Grønn, Atle. 2006. Information structure and aspectual competition. In Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Logic and Language, ed. B. Gyuris, L. Kalman, C. Piñon, and K. Varasdi, 70–77. Budapest

� Jäger, Gerhard. 2002. Some notes on the formal properties of bidirectional optimality theory. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11(4):427–451.

Page 54: Atle Grønn University of Oslo Language, Games & Evolution ... · 5 ˘ ˇ ˆ˙ ˝˛ ˚ A form-meaning pair  is weakly optimal iff 1.  is a member of GEN. 2

54

������ �� � ���&�

� Parikh, Prashant. 2000. Communication, meaning, and interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 23:185–212.

� van Rooy, Robert. 2004. Signalling games select Horn strategies. Linguistics and Philosophy 27:493–527.