Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T01:50:41.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indeterminacy by underspecification1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2009

MARY DALRYMPLE ,
TRACY HOLLOWAY KING  and
LOUISA SADLER
MARY DALRYMPLE*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics, University of Oxford
*
Authors' addresses: Centre for Linguistics and Philology, University of Oxford, Walton St., OxfordOX1 2HG, UK[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the formal encoding of feature indeterminacy, focussing on case indeterminacy as an exemplar of the phenomenon. Forms that are indeterminately specified for the value of a feature can simultaneously satisfy conflicting requirements on that feature and thus are a challenge to constraint-based formalisms which model the compatibility of information carried by linguistic items by combining or integrating that information. Much previous work in constraint-based formalisms has sought to provide an analysis of feature indeterminacy by departing in some way from ‘vanilla’ assumptions either about feature representations or about how compatibility is checked by integrating information from various sources. In the present contribution we argue instead that a solution to the range of issues posed by feature indeterminacy can be provided in a ‘vanilla’ feature-based approach which is formally simple, does not postulate special structures or objects in the representation of case or other indeterminate features, and requires no special provision for the analysis of coordination. We view the value of an indeterminate feature such as case as a complex and possibly underspecified feature structure. Our approach correctly allows for incremental and monotonic refinement of case requirements in particular contexts. It uses only atomic boolean-valued features and requires no special mechanisms or additional assumptions in the treatment of coordination or other phenomena to handle indeterminacy. Our account covers the behaviour of both indeterminate arguments and indeterminate predicates, that is, predicates placing indeterminate requirements on their arguments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 31 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

Thanks for feedback and helpful discussion to Anne Abeillé, Doug Arnold, Jim Blevins, Ron Kaplan, Ingo Mittendorf, Irina Nikolaeva, and two anonymous JL reviewers, none of whom, of course, are responsible for anything we have made of their comments. The work reported here was carried out with the support of the Arts and Humanities Research Board under project AN10939/APN17606, which we gratefully acknowledge.

References

REFERENCES

Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan & Corbett, Greville G.. 2005. The syntax–morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Samuel. 1996. The coordination of unlike categories. Language 72, 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2000. Markedness and agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 98, 233–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2005. Remarks on gerunds. In Orgun, Orhan & Sells, Peter (eds.), Morphology and the web of grammar: Essays in memory of Steven G. Lapointe, 19–40. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. To appear. Feature-based grammar. In Borsley, Robert D. & Börjars, Kersti (eds.), Nontransformational syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (ed.). 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar (Syntax and Semantics 34). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Kaplan, Ronald M.. 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76, 759–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald M. & King, Tracy Holloway. 2004. Linguistic generalizations over descriptions. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy (eds.), LFG04 Conference, 199–208. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://www-csli.stanford.edu/publications.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald M., Maxwell, John T. III & Zaenen, Annie (eds.). 1995. Formal issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Daniels, Michael W. 2001. On a type-based analysis of feature neutrality and the coordination of unlikes. In Eynde, Frank van, Hellan, Lars & Beermann, Dorothee (eds.), HPSG '01 Conference, 137–147. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2/hpsg01-toc.html.Google Scholar
Dyła, Stefan. 1984. Across-the-board dependencies and case in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 701–705.Google Scholar
Groos, Anneke & van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1979. Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. In Belletti, Adriana, Brandi, Luciana & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), Theory of markedness in Generative Grammar: 1979 GLOW Conference, 171–216. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa.Google Scholar
Ingria, Robert J. P. 1990. The limits of unification. 28th Annual Meeting of the ACL, 194–204. Pittsburgh, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1958. Morphological observations on Slavic declension: The structure of Russian case forms. In Russian and Slavic grammar: Studies, 1931–1981, 105–133. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark & Bayer, Samuel. 1995. Features and agreement in Lambek categorial grammar. In Morrill, Glyn V. & Oehrle, Richard T. (eds.), Formal grammar: The Conference of the European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, 123–137. Barcelona: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In , Bresnan (ed.), 173–281. [Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. 1995, pp. 29–130.]Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Maxwell, John T. III. 1988. Constituent coordination in Lexical-Functional Grammar. 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 88), Budapest, vol. 1, 303–305. [Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. 1995, pp. 199–210.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Zaenen, Annie. 1989. Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In Baltin, Mark & Kroch, Anthony (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 17–42. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. 1995, 137–165.]Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway. 1995. Configuring topic and focus in Russian (Dissertations in Linguistics). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [Revised and corrected version of 1993 Stanford University Ph.D. dissertation.]Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway & Dalrymple, Mary. 2004. Determiner agreement and noun conjunction. Journal of Linguistics 40, 69–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2001. Feature indeterminacy and the coordination of unlikes in a totally well-typed HPSG. Ms., Stanford University. http://www.stanford.edu/rog/papers/feature-indet.ps.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger & Pollard, Carl. 2001. Coordination and neutralization in HPSG. In Eynde, Frank van, Hellan, Lars & Beermann, Dorothee (eds.), HPSG '01 Conference, 221–234. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2/hpsg01-toc.html.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol. 1982. Case agreement in Russian. In , Bresnan (ed.), 391–426.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 1999. Case assignment and the complement–adjunct dichotomy: A non-configurational constraint-based approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Arnold, M. Zwicky. 1986. Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 62, 751–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2003. Coordination and underspecification. HPSG '03 Conference, 267–291. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://www-csli.stanford.edu/publications.Google Scholar
Vogel, Ralf. 2001. Case conflict in German free relative constructions: An Optimality-theoretic treatment. In Müller, Geroen & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Competition in syntax, 341–375. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie & Karttunen, Lauri. 1984. Morphological non-distinctiveness and coordination. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.), ESCOL '84, 309–320. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar