Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-ndmrv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-20T07:01:21.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On stochastic grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Brady Clark
Brady Clark*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
*
Northwestern University 2016 Sheridan Rd. Evanston, IL 60208-2150 [bzack@northwestern.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Discussion Notes
Information
Language , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 207 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abney, Steven. 1996. Statistical methods and linguistics. The balancing act: Combining symbolic and statistical approaches to language, ed. by Klavans, Judith and Resnik, Philip, 1–26. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: konicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 435–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 1997. Variation in Finnish phonology and morphology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Bender, Emily M. 2001. Syntactic variation and linguistic competence: The case of AAVE copula absence. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 2000. Learning a grammar in functional phonology. Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax, and acquisition, ed. by Dekkers, Joost, van, Frank Leeuw, der, and van, Jeroen Weijer, de, 465–523. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 2004. A stochastic OT account of paralinguistic tasks such as grammaticality and prototypicality judgments. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, ms.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2000. Pidgin genesis and optimality theory. Processes of language contact: Case studies from Australia and the Pacific, ed. by Siegel, Jeff, 145–73. Montreal: Les éditions Fides.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Aissen, Judith. 2002a. Optimality and functionality: Objections and refutations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 81–95.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Aissen, Judith. 2002b. Optimality theory and typology. (Course notes from summer school on formal and functional linguistics.) Duesseldorf: University of Duesseldorf, ms.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Deo, Ashwini. 2001. Grammatical constraints on variation: ‘Be’ in the survey of English dialects and (stochastic) optimality theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Dingare, Shipra; and Manning, Christopher D.. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, ed. by Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy H., 13–32. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Nikitina, Tatiana. 2003. On the gradience of the dative alternation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Brew, Chris, and Moens, Marc. 2000. Data-intensive linguistics. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, ms.Google Scholar
Clark, Brady Z. 2004. A stochastic optimality theory approach to syntactic change. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa, Jusczyk, Peter; and Smolensky, Paul. 2004. The initial and final states: Theoretical implications and experimental explorations of richness of the base. Constraints in phonological acquisition, ed. by René, Kager, Joe Pater, and Zonneveld, Wim, 321–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dick, Frederic, and Elman, Jeffrey L.. 2001. The frequency of major sentence types over discourse levels: A discourse analysis. Newsletter of the Center for Research in Language, University of California, San Diego 13. 3–19.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and Rickford, John R. (eds.) 2001. Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2003. Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Language 79. 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, and Pullum, Geoffrey. 1981. Subcategorization, constituent order and the notion ‘Head’. The scope of linguistic rules, ed. by Moortgat, Michael, van, Harry Hulst, der, and Hoekstra, Teun, 107–223. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 2004. Review of Postverbal behavior, by Wasow, Thomas. Language 80. 327–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles, 303–33. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank, and Asudeh, Ash. 2002. Probabilistic learning algorithms and optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 225–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45. 715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1974. Interview. Discussing language: Dialogues with Wallace L. Chafe, Noam Chomsky, Algirdas J. Greimas [and others], ed. by Parret, Herman, 151–78. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2002. Referential accessibility and stylistic variation in OT: A corpus study. Chicago Linguistic Society 38. 361–78.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. 2003. Probabilistic syntax. Probabilistic linguistics, ed. by Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer, and Jannedy, Stefanie, 289–341. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, Christopher D., and Schūtze, Hinrich. 1999. Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, April. 2000. Change, chance, and optimality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Philip H. 2001. Discourse constraints on (non)extraposition from subject in English. Linguistics 39. 683–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 2003. Objects of inquiry, theories, data, and methodology in linguistics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Nagy, Naomi, and Reynolds, Bill. 1997. Optimality theory and variable word-final deletion in Faetar. Language Variation and Change 9. 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2002. A rejoinder to Bresnan and Aissen. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 97–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79. 682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolillo, John C. 2002. Analyzing linguistic variation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. (Report no. RuCCS-TR-2.) New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, ms.Google Scholar
Schūtze, Carson T. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 1997. A typology of contact languages. The structure and status of pidgins and creoles, ed. by Spears, Arthur K. and Winford, Donald, 71–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G., and Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William; and Herzog, Marvin. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles D. 2003. Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar