Abstract
Production/comprehension asymmetries have often been explained in terms of pragmatic problems, task effects or processing difficulty. However, such extra-linguistic explanations are unlikely for three reasons. First, asymmetries display linguistic systematicity, within a single language as well as across languages. Second, asymmetries occur at all levels of language, from phonology and morphosyntax to semantics and pragmatics. And third, their disappearance with age is dependent on linguistic development. These three reasons suggest that an explanation for the observed asymmetries must be sought within rather than outside the grammar. This supports the view that natural language grammars are asymmetric and have different effects for speakers than for listeners. Natural languages are symmetric in their use because mature language users have learned to coordinate the competing perspectives of speaker and listener.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Barbosa, Pilar, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky (eds.). 1998. Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Beaver, David I. 2004. The optimization of discourse anaphora. Linguistics & Philosophy 27: 3–56.
Benz, Anton, and Jason Mattausch. 2011. Bidirectional optimality theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Blutner, Reinhard. 2000. Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17: 189–216.
Blutner, Reinhard, and Anatoli Strigin. 2011. Bidirectional grammar and bidirectional optimization. In Bidirectional optimality theory, ed. Anton Benz and Jason Mattausch, 221–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Blutner, Reinhard, and Henk Zeevat (eds.). 2004. Optimality theory and pragmatics. Houndmills/Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Blutner, Reinhard, Helen de Hoop, and Petra Hendriks. 2006. Optimal communication. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Bresnan, Joan. 2000. Optimal syntax. In Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax, and acquisition, ed. Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw, and Jeroen van de Weijer, 334–385. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bresnan, Joan, and Jennifer Hay. 2008. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118: 245–259.
Cannizzaro, Gisi. 2012. Early word order and animacy. Dissertation, University of Groningen.
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Herbert H., and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22: 1–39.
Conroy, Anastasia, Eri Takahashi, Jeffrey Lidz, and Colin Phillips. 2009. Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 446–486.
Epley, Nicholas, Carey K. Morewedge, and Boaz Keysar. 2004. Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40: 760–768.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projections, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–422.
Hayes, Bruce. 1999. Phonetically-driven phonology: The role of optimality theory and inductive grounding. In Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, Vol. 1: General papers, ed. Michael Darnell, Edith A. Moravcsik, Michael Noonan, Frederick J. Newmeyer, and Kathleen Wheatley, 243–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hendriks, Petra, and Charlotte Koster. 2010. Production/comprehension asymmetries in language acquisition. Introduction to special issue on asymmetries in language acquisition. Lingua 120: 1887–1897.
Hendriks, Petra, Helen de Hoop, Irene Krämer, Henriëtte de Swart, and Joost Zwarts. 2010. Conflicts in interpretation. London: Equinox Publishing.
Hendriks, Petra, Charlotte Koster, and John Hoeks. in press. Referential choice across the lifespan: Why children and elderly adults produce ambiguous pronouns. Language and Cognitive Processes. Published online: 03 Apr 2013. DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2013.766356.
Keysar, Boaz. 2007. Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics 4: 71–84.
Keysar, Boaz, Dale J. Barr, and William S. Horton. 1998. The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science 7: 46–50.
Legendre, Géraldine, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner (eds.). 2001. Optimality-theoretic syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993. Prosodic morphology: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Technical Report #3 Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, New Brunswick.
Noveck, Ira A. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78: 165–188.
Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Technical Report CU-CS-696-93, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, and Technical Report TR-2, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, April 1993.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2004. The processing cost of reference set computation: Acquisition of stress shift and focus. Language Acquisition 12: 109–155.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2011. Processing or pragmatics? Explaining the coreference delay. In The processing and acquisition of reference, ed. Edward Gibson and Neal J. Pearlmutter, 157–194. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sells, Peter (ed.). 2001. Formal and empirical issues in optimality theoretic syntax. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Tesar, Bruce, and Paul Smolensky. 1998. Learnability in optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 229–268.
Tesar, Bruce, and Paul Smolensky. 2000. Learnability in optimality theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thornton, Rosalind, and Kenneth Wexler. 1999. Principle B, VP ellipsis and interpretation in child grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Unsworth, Sharon. 2007. L1 and L2 acquisition between sentence and discourse: Comparing production and comprehension in child Dutch. Lingua 117: 1930–1958.
van Bergen, Geertje, and Peter de Swart. 2010. Scrambling in spoken Dutch. Definiteness versus weight as determinants of word order variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6: 267–295.
van Rij, Jacolien, Hedderik van Rijn, and Petra Hendriks. 2010. Cognitive architectures and language acquisition: A case study in pronoun comprehension. Journal of Child Language 37: 731–766.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hendriks, P. (2014). Competing Perspectives. In: Asymmetries between Language Production and Comprehension. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 42. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6901-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6901-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6900-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6901-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)