Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 1–5 | Cite as

The Interplay Between the Speaker’s and the Hearer’s Perspective

  • Petra Hendriks
  • Helen de Hoop
  • Henriëtte de Swart
Open Access


The neutralization of contrasts in form or meaning that is sometimes observed in language production and comprehension is at odds with the classical view that language is a systematic one-to-one pairing of forms and meanings. This special issue is concerned with patterns of forms and meanings in language. The papers in this special issue arose from a series of workshops that were organized to explore variants of bidirectional Optimality Theory and Game Theory as models of the interplay between the speaker’s and the hearer’s perspective.


Communication Speaker–hearer interaction Bidirectional Optimality Theory Game Theory 



As guest editors of this special issue we wish to thank the reviewers for their thorough and helpful reviews of the submitted manuscripts and the participants of the workshops for interesting and inspiring discussions. Furthermore, we gratefully acknowledge the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research (NWO) for financial support.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.


  1. Beaver D., Lee H. (2004) Input-output mismatches in OT. In: Blutner R., Zeevat H. (eds) Optimality theory and pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, pp 112–153Google Scholar
  2. Benz A., Mattausch J. (2011) Bidirectional optimality theory: An introduction. In: Benz A., Mattausch J. (eds) Bidirectional optimality theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 1–31Google Scholar
  3. Blutner R. (2000) Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17: 189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blutner R., de Hoop H., Hendriks P. (2006) Optimal communication. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. de Hoop H., Haverkort M., van den Noort M. (2004) Variation in form versus variation in meaning. Lingua 114: 1071–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Swart H. (2010) Expression and interpretation of negation. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hendriks, P., & Spenader, J. (2005/2006). When production precedes comprehension: An optimization approach to the acquisition of pronouns. Language Acquisition, 13, 319–348.Google Scholar
  8. Hendriks P., de Hoop H., Krämer I., de Swart H., Zwarts J. (2010) Conflicts in interpretation. Equinox Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Levinson S.C. (2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Parikh P. (2001) The use of language. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell. (Also appeared as Technical Report TR-2, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, April 1993).Google Scholar
  12. van Rooij R. (2004) Signaling games select Horn strategies. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 393–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Williams E. (1997) Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 577–628Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petra Hendriks
    • 1
  • Helen de Hoop
    • 2
  • Henriëtte de Swart
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Groningen, Center for Language and Cognition Groningen (CLCG)GroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Radboud University Nijmegen, Centre for Language Studies (CLS)NijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Utrecht University, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS (UiL OTS)UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations