Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T07:58:04.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feature Indeterminacy and Feature Resolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Mary Dalrymple  and
Ronald M. Kaplan
Mary Dalrymple*
Affiliation:
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
Ronald M. Kaplan*
Affiliation:
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
*
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Palo Alto, CA 94304 [dalrymple@parc.xerox.com] [kaplan@parc.xerox.com]
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Palo Alto, CA 94304 [dalrymple@parc.xerox.com] [kaplan@parc.xerox.com]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Syntactic features like case, person, and gender are often assumed to have simple atomic values that are checked for consistency by the standard predicate of equality. The case feature has values such as nom or acc, and values like masc and fem are assumed for the feature gender. But such a view does not square with some of the complex behavior these features exhibit. It allows no obvious account of feature indeterminacy (how a particular form can satisfy conflicting requirements on a feature like case), nor does it give an obvious account of feature resolution (how person and gender features of a coordinate noun phrase are determined on the basis of the conjuncts). We present a theory of feature representation and feature checking that solves these two problems, providing a straightforward characterization of feature indeterminacy and feature resolution while sticking to structures and standard interpretations that have independent motivation. Our theory of features is formulated within the LFG framework, but we believe that similar solutions can be developed within other syntactic approaches.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 76 , Issue 4-Part1 , December 2000 , pp. 759 - 798
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 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

Andrews, Avery III, . 1983. Constituent coordination in LFG. Canberra: Australian National University, ms.Google Scholar
Arnott, D. W. 1970. The nominal and verbal systems of Fula. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bayer, Samuel. 1996. The coordination of unlike categories. Language 72. 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, Judith. 1999. Does German satisfy the subject condition? On-line proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, ed. by Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/4/lfg99.html.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2000. Markedness and agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 98. 233–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1911. Introduction to the Handbook of American Indian languages. Washington: Government Printing Office. Republished in 1991.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (ed.) 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Kaplan, Ronald M.; and Peterson, Peter. 1985. Coordination and the flow of information through phrase structure. Palo Alto, CA: Xerox PARC, ms.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1983a. Hierarchies, targets, and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1983b. Resolution rules: Agreement in person, number, and gender. Order, concord, and constituency, ed. by Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 175–206. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., and Mtenje, Alfred D. 1987. Gender agreement in Chichewa. Studies in African Linguistics 18. 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, and Kaplan, Ronald M. 1997. A set-based approach to feature resolution. On-line proceedings of the LFG97 Conference, ed. by Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/2/lfg97.html.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald M., Maxwell, John T. III; and Zaenen, Annie (eds.) 1995. Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar. Stanford University: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
DuPlessis, J.A., and Visser, M. 1992. Xhosa syntax. Pretoria: Via Afrika.Google Scholar
Dyla, Stefan. 1984. Across-the-board dependencies and case in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 701–5.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 1973. A note on ‘identity of constituents’. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 417–20.Google Scholar
Elson, Benjamín. 1960. Gramatica Popoluca de la Sierra. Xalapa, Mexico: Universidad Veracruzana.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka, and Ojeda, Almerindo. 1983. Agreement and coordinate NPs. Linguistics 21. 659–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forchheimer, Paul. 1953. The category of person in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, Mary L., and Foster, George M. 1948. Sierra Popoluca speech. Smithsonian Institution. Institute of Social Anthropology, publication 8.Google Scholar
Groos, Anneke, and Reimsdijk, Henk van. 1979. Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. Theory of markedness in generative grammar: Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference, ed. by Belletti, Adriana, Brandi, Luciana, and Rizzi, Luigi, 171–216. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore de Pisa.Google Scholar
Ingria, Robert J. P. 1990. The limits of unification. Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the ACL, Pittsburgh, 194–204.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark, and Bayer, Samuel. 1995. Features and agreement in Lambek categorial grammar. Proceedings of the Formal Grammar Workshop.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 173–281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. 1995. 29–130.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Maxwell, John T. 1988. Constituent coordination in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING88), Budapest, vol. 1, 303–5. Reprinted in Dalrymple et al. 1995. 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Maxwell, John T. 1996. LFG grammar writer's workbench. Technical report, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. URL ftp://ftp.parc.xerox.com/pub/lfg/lfgmanual.ps.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1984. Features and values. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING84), Stanford, 28–33.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French Syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maxwell, John T. III, , and Manning, Christopher D. 1996. A theory of non-constituent coordination based on finite-state rules. On-line proceedings of the 1st LFG conference, Rank Xerox, Grenoble, August 26–28, 1996, ed. by Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway. URL http://csli-publications.stanford.edU/LFG/l/lfgl.html.Google Scholar
McGregor, R. S. 1972. Outline of Hindi grammar. Oxford and Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 1999. An HPSG-analysis for free relative clauses in German. Grammars 2. 53–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Peterson, Peter G. 1982. Conjunction in LFG. Cambridge, MA and New South Wales, Australia: MIT and University of Newcastle, ms.Google Scholar
Peterson, Peter G. 1986. Establishing verb agreement with disjunctively conjoined subjects: Strategies vs. principles. Australian Journal of Linguistics 6. 231–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 62. 751–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Linda, and Wolontis, Marjorie. 1974. Conjunction and concord in Bantu. Third annual conference on African linguistics, ed. by Voeltz, Erhard, 231–42. Indiana University, 7–8 April 1972.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa. 1999. Non-distributive features and coordination in Welsh. On-line Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, ed. by Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway. http://csli-publications.stanford.edU/LFG/4/lfg99.html.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Gazdar, Gerald, Wasow, Thomas; and Weisler, Steven. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 117–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sgall, Petr, Hajičová, Eva; and Panevová, Jarmila. 1986. The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Shieber, Stuart M. 1989. Parsing and type inference for natural and computer languages. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W., 112–71. Canberra: Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Steinberg, Elisa, and Caskey, Alexander F. 1988. The syntax and semantics of gender (dis)agreement: An autolexical approach. Chicago Linguistic Society 24. 291–303.Google Scholar
Voeltz, Erhard. 1971. Surface constraints and agreement resolution: Some evidence from Xhosa. Studies in African Linguistics 2. 37–60.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 1999. ‘Elsewhere’ in gender resolution. Austin: University of Texas, ms.Google Scholar
Yu, Ella Ozier. 1988. Agreement in left dislocation of coordinate structures. Chicago Linguistic Society 24.2.322–36.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, and Karttunen, Lauri. 1984. Morphological non-distinctiveness and coordination. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 309–20.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. Hierarchies of person. Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 714–33.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1991. Systematic versus accidental phonological identity. Paradigms: The economy of inflection, ed. by Plank, Frans, 113–31. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar