Indeterminacy by underspecification

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.

Indeterminacy, complex features and underspecification

“…Because agreeing forms never serve to restrict (or narrow down) the set-valued feature, the transitivity problem results. Dalrymple et al (2009) also discuss a further problem with the way in which Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) model syntactic underspecification, which we will not illustrate here. Features that are indeterminate (and thus set-valued) may have indeterminate requirements placed on them.…”

“…The first is what Dalrymple et al (2009) call the transitivity problem. As discussed by Levy (2001), modifiers and predicates must impose compatible agreement requirements.…”

“…Such interactions require a non-null intersection between the set of case values specified by the noun and the set required by the verb, a requirement that is not possible to impose within the standard formal assumptions of LFG. Dalrymple et al (2009) replace sets as values by a structured representation in which potentially indeterminate morphosyntactic features (such as CASE) are themselves treated as bundles of (potentially underspecified) boolean valued features. 5 On this view, (i) the value of the CASE attribute is a feature structure which allows specification and differentiation of each (core) case by means of a separate attribute for each case possibility: NOM, ACC, DAT, and so forth; (ii) nouns and their modifiers specify negative values for the cases they do not express; and (iii) verbs specify positive values for the case(s) they require to be realised.…”

“…2 was originally developed as part of a collaboration funded by an AHRC grant (APN17606/AN10939) for the project Noun Phrase coordination and agreement, and I gratefully acknowledge the support of the AHRC in enabling this collaboration with Mary Dalrymple and Tracy Holloway King (Dalrymple et al 2009). We are grateful for feedback on this work to participants at LFG2006 (Konstanz) and in particular to Ron Kaplan, Jim Blevins and Helge Dyvik.…”

Preface: on the morphosemantics of agreement features

“…She examines a Preface 137 range of cases of what might be considered non-canonical agreement configurations (indeterminacy, resolution, superclassing, and optional disagreement), some wellknown, others less so, covering a variety of languages from Scandinavia to Australia. Sadler argues that a simple matching of features between agreement target and controller is insufficient, and develops proposals (extending ideas in Dalrymple et al, 2009) for a particular logic to the decomposition of features and their interaction. Like the article by Wechsler and Hahm in this volume, Sadler's paper is set within a constraint-based syntactic framework (LFG), but the proposals amount to an important revision of the standard approach to agreement in that framework, in addition to having implications for feature logics in approaches to agreement generally.…”