Learning optimality-theoretic grammars

Lingua

Volumn 106, Issue 1-4, 1998, Pages 161-196

  Tesar, Bruce B ^a   Smolensky, Paul ^b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Acquisition; Learnability; Optimality Theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 0009310271     PISSN: 00243841     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0024-3841(98)00033-3     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. (Rutgers Optimality Archive = http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html)
2. Bahl, L.R., F. Jelinek and R.L. Mercer, 1983. A maximum likelihood approach to continuous speech recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence PAMI-5, 179-190.
3. Baković, E., 1998. Optimality and inversion in Spanish. In: P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis, and D. Pesetsky (eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, 35-58. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press and MITWPL.
4. Baum, L. E., and T. Petrie, 1966. Statistical inference for probabilistic functions of finite state Markov chains. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 37, 1559-1563.
5. Boersma, P., to appear. Learning a grammar in Functional Phonology. In: J. van de Weijer, J. Dekkers and F. van der Leeuw (eds.) Optimality Theory: Phonology, syntax, and acquisition.
6. Brown, P.F., J. Cocke, S.A. Della Pietra, V.J. Della Pietra, F. Jelinek, J.D. Lafferty, R.L. Mercer and P.S. Roossin, 1990. A statistical approach to machine translation. Computational Linguistics 16, 79-85.
7. Clark, R., 1990. Papers on learnability and natural selection. Technical reports in formal and computational linguistics, No. 1, Université de Genève.
8. Dempster, A.P., N.M. Laird and D.B. Rubin, 1977. Maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B (39), 1-38.
9. Demuth, K., 1995. Markedness and the development of prosodic structure. In: J. Beckman (ed.), NELS 25, 13-25. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts. Rutgers Optimality Archive 50.
10. Dresher, B.E., and J. Kaye, 1990. A computational learning model for metrical phonology. Cognition 34, 137-195.
11. Eisner, J., 1997. Efficient generation in primitive Optimality Theory. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Rutgers Optimality Archive 206.
12. Ellison, T.M., 1994. Phonological derivation in Optimality Theory. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1007-1013. Rutgers Optimality Archive 75.
13. Frank, R. and S. Kapur, 1996. On the use of triggers in parameter setting. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 623-660.
14. Frank, R. and G. Satta, in press. Optimality Theory and the generative complexity of constraint violability. Computational Linguistics. Rutgers Optimality Archive 228.
15. Gibson, E. and K. Wexler, 1994. Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 407-454.
16. Gnanadesikan, A., 1995. Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts. Rutgers Optimality Archive 67.
17. Grimshaw, J., 1991. Extended projection. Manuscript, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.
18. Grimshaw, J., 1993. Minimal projection, heads, and optimality. Manuscript, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Rutgers Optimality Archive 68.
19. Grimshaw, J, 1995. Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373-422.
20. Grimshaw, J. and V. Samek-Lodovici, 1995. Optimal subjects. In: J. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey and S. Urbanczyk (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, 589-605. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
21. Grimshaw, J. and V. Samek-Lodovici, 1998. Optimal subjects and subject universals. In: P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis and D. Pesetsky (eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, 193-219. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press and MITWPL.
22. Hale, M. and C. Reiss., 1997. Grammar Optimization: The simultaneous acquisition of constraint ranking and a lexicon. Manuscript, Concordia University. Rutgers Optimality Archive 231.
23. Hammond, M., 1997. Parsing in OT. Manuscript, University of Arizona. Rutgers Optimality Archive 222.
24. Hinton, G., 1989. Connectionist learning procedures. Artificial Intelligence 40, 185-234.
25. Jakobson, R., 1962. Selected writings 1: Phonological studies. The Hague: Mouton.
26. Karttunen, L., 1998. The proper treatment of optimality in computational phonology. Manuscript, Xerox Research Centre Europe. Rutgers Optimality Archive 258.
27. Legendre, G., Y. Miyata and P. Smolensky, 1990a. Can connectionism contribute to syntax? Harmonic Grammar, with an application. In: Proceedings of the 26th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
28. Legendre, G., Y. Miyata and P. Smolensky, 1990b. Harmonic Grammar - A formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: Theoretical foundations. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 388-395. Cambridge, MA: Erlbaum.
29. Legendre, G., P. Smolensky and C. Wilson, 1998. When is less more? Faithfulness and minimal links in wh-chains. In: P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis and D. Pesetsky (eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, 249-289. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press and MITWPL. Rutgers Optimality Archive 117.
30. Levelt, C., 1995. Unfaithful kids: Place of articulation patterns in early child language. Paper presented at the Department of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, September.
31. Levelt, C. and R. van de Vijver, 1998. Syllable types in cross-linguistic and developmental grammars. Paper presented at the Third Biannual Utrecht Phonology Workshop, June 11-12, 1998. Rutgers Optimality Archive 265.
32. McCarthy, J. and A. Prince, 1993. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Manuscript University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, and Rutgers University. New Brunswick, NJ. To appear as Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
33. McCarthy, J. and A. Prince, 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In: J. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey and S. Urbanczyk (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, 249-384. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Rutgers Optimality Archive 60.
34. Nadás, A. and R.L. Mercer, 1996. Hidden Markov Models and some connections with artificial neural nets. In: P. Smolensky, M.C. Mozer and D.E. Rumelhart (eds.), Mathematical perspectives on neural networks, 603-650. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Niyogi, P. and R.C. Berwick, 1993. Formalizing triggers: A learning model for finite spaces. A.I. Memo No. 1449. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT.
36. Pater, J. and J. Paradis, 1996. Truncation without templates in child phonology. In: Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 20, 540-552. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
37. Prince, A., 1993. Internet communication, September 26.
38. Prince, A., and P. Smolensky, 1991. Notes on connectionism and Harmony Theory in linguistics. Technical Report CU-CS-533-91. Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
39. Prince, A. and P. Smolensky, 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Manuscript, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, and University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. To appear as Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
40. Pulleyblank, D. and W.J. Turkel, 1995. Traps in constraint ranking space. Paper presented at Maryland Mayfest 95: Formal Approaches to Learnability.
41. Pulleyblank, D. and W.J. Turkel, 1998. The logical problem of language acquisition in Optimality Theory. In: P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis and D. Pesetsky (eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, 399-420. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press and MITWPL.
42. Safir, K., 1987. Comments on Wexler and Manzini. In: T. Roeper and E. Williams (eds.), Parameter setting, 77-89. Dordrecht: Reidel.
43. Samek-Lodovici, V., 1994. Structural focusing and subject inversion in Italian. Manuscript, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Presented at the XXIV Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Los Angeles.
44. Samek-Lodovici, V., 1996. Constraints on subjects: An Optimality Theoretic analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Rutgers Optimality Archive 148.
45. Smolensky, P., 1983. Schema selection and stochastic inference in modular environments. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 378-382.
46. Smolensky, P., 1986. Information processing in dynamical systems: Foundations of harmony theory. In: D.E. Rumelhart, J.L. McClelland and the PDP Research Group (eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Volume 1: Foundations, 194-281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford.
47. Smolensky, P., 1996a. Statistical perspectives on neural networks. In: P. Smolensky, M.C. Mozer and D. E. Rumelhart (eds.), Mathematical perspectives on neural networks, 453-495. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Smolensky, P., 1996b. On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 720-731.
49. Smolensky, P., forthcoming. The initial state and 'richness of the base' in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry. [Previous version: Technical Report JHU-CogSci-96-4, Department of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 1996. Rutgers Optimality Archive 154.]
50. Tesar, B., 1994. Parsing in Optimality Theory: A dynamic programming approach. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, CO.
51. Tesar, B., 1995a. Computing optimal forms in Optimality Theory: Basic syllabification. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, CO. Rutgers Optimality Archive 52.
52. Tesar, B., 1995b. Computational Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, CO. Rutgers Optimality Archive 90.
53. Tesar, B., 1996. Computing optimal descriptions for Optimality Theory grammars with context-free position structures. In: proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 101-107.
54. Tesar, B., 1997. An iterative strategy for learning metrical stress in Optimality Theory. In proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Boston University Conference on Language Acquisition, 615-626. Rutgers Optimality Archive 177.
55. Tesar, B., 1998a. Error-driven learning in Optimality Theory via the efficient computation of optimal forms. In: P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis and D. Pesetsky (eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, 421-435. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press and MITWPL.
56. Tesar, B., (1998b). An iterative strategy for language learning. Lingua. 104(1-2) 131-145.
57. Tesar, B., in press. Robust Interpretive Parsing in metrical stress theory. In: Proceedings of WCCFL XVII. Rutgers Optimality Archive 262.
58. Tesar, B. and P. Smolensky, 1993. The learnability of Optimality Theory: An algorithm and some basic complexity results. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, CO. Rutgers Optimality Archive 2.
59. Tesar, B. and P. Smolensky, 1996. Learnability in Optimality Theory (long version). Technical Report JHU-CogSci-96-3, Department of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. Rutgers Optimality Archive 156.
60. Tesar, B. and P. Smolensky, 1998. Learnability in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 229-268.
61. Wexler, K., and M.R. Manzini, 1987. Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In: T. Roeper and E. Williams (eds.), Parameter setting, 41-76. Dordrecht: Reidel.