Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Indeterminacy by underspecification1


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.

Corresponding author
Authors' addresses: Centre for Linguistics and Philology, University of Oxford, Walton St., OxfordOX1 2HG,
Powerset, Inc., a Microsoft company, 475 Brannan St., San Francisco, CA94107,
Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, ColchesterCO4 3SQ,
Hide All

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.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Samuel Bayer . 1996. The coordination of unlike categories. Language 72, 579616.

James P. Blevins 2000. Markedness and agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 98, 233262.

Mary Dalrymple . 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar (Syntax and Semantics 34). New York: Academic Press.

Mary Dalrymple & Ronald M. Kaplan . 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76, 759798.

Geoffrey K. Pullum & M. Zwicky. Arnold 1986. Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 62, 751773.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Linguistics
  • ISSN: 0022-2267
  • EISSN: 1469-7742
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 18 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 86 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.