Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T19:36:46.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonological Resolution of Syntactic Feature Conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Geoffrey K. Pullum and
Arnold M. Zwicky
Geoffrey K. Pullum
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
Arnold M. Zwicky
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Agreement and government can give rise to syntactic feature conflicts; e.g., a verb may have to agree in gender with a coördinate NP composed of NP's of differing genders. The resolution of such conflicts is to some extent determined by general semantic or syntactic principles (‘principled resolution‘). In addition, the existence of a governed or agreeing form that is neutral with respect to the features in question always permits a conflict to be resolved. There is idiolectal variation as to when principled resolution occurs, and also as to which neutral forms appear in the lexicon. But there are also cases (examples are provided from English, Xhosa, and German) in which resolution is permitted on the basis of a purely phonological resemblance; i.e., the fact that the conflicting morphosyntactic requirements lead accidentally to similar phonological consequences is sufficient to prevent the conflict from causing ungrammaticality.

Four major claims are made here about the phenomenon of phonological resolution. First, it does not imply that there can be language-particular phonological conditions on syntactic rules; a universal statement is involved. Second, phonological identity cannot compensate for syntactic feature distinctness in general, even in those languages that clearly exemplify phonological resolution; the conflicting items must also differ only in syntactically imposed features. Third, it is not the underlying phonological form of an item that determines whether it can count as phonologically identical to another item in cases of true phonological resolution; these items must be identical at a more superficial level (conjectured to be identical to the ‘lexical stratum’ of lexical phonology). Fourth, a small sampling of data (from Icelandic and Finnish, as well as the languages already listed) suggests variation with respect to the number of syntactic feature differences that can be surmounted in phonological resolution.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , December 1986, pp. 751 - 773
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 by 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

Footnotes

*

This research was supported in part by a gift from the System Development Foundation to the Center for the Study of Language and Information at Stanford University. An earlier version of this paper, delivered at the 1984 Annual Meeting of the LSA in Baltimore, was completed during the summer of 1984, when both authors were visiting at CSLI. Another version was completed in February and March 1985 at the Syntax Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz. Our thanks go to the SRC for assistance, and to the Ohio State University for Zwicky's financial support during this period. We are grateful to Sandra Chung and Scott DeLancey for their comments on the second version.

References

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1983a. Hierarchies, targets, and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1983b. Resolution rules: Agreement in person, number, and gender. Order, concord, and constituency, ed. by Gazdar, Gerald et al., 175–206. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R., Karttunen, Lauri; and Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985 (eds.) Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 1973. A note on ‘identity of constituents’. LI 4. 417–20.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K.; and Sag, Ivan A. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. 1975. Homonymy in the English verbal paradigm. Lingua 37. 151–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1984. Features and values. Proceedings of Coling84, Association for Computational Linguistics, 28–33. Morristown, NJ: Bell Communications Research.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
King, Margaret. 1983 (ed.) Parsing natural language. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. The structure of phonological representations, I, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der & Smith, Norval, 131–75. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1982. Lexical phonology. MIT dissertation. [Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.].Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1972. Verb agreement as a rule of English. CLS 8. 278–86.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1984a. Some problems of agreement in English and Albanian. BLS 10. 233–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1984b. Some problems of determination in English number agreement. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 1. 69–78.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1974. General conditions on reduced coördinations. Paper read at the spring meeting of the Linguistic Association of Great Britain, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa, and Walker, Douglas C. 1976. Surface structure and the centrality of syntax. Theoretical Linguistics 3. 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Gazdar, Gerald, Wasow, Thomas; and Weisler, Steven. 1985. Coördination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 117–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1977. Constraints on coördination. Lg. 53. 86–103.Google Scholar
Voeltz, Erhard. 1971. Surface constraints and agreement resolution: Some evidence from Xhosa. Studies in African Linguistics 2. 37–60.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, and Karttunen, Lauri. 1984. Morphological non-distinctiveness and coördination. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 1. 309–20.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1969. Phonological constraints in syntactic descriptions. Papers in Linguistics 1. 411–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. Hierarchies of person. CLS 13. 714–33.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1983. An expanded view of morphology in the syntax-phonology interface. Proceedings, International Congress of Linguists, 13. 198–208.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. How to describe inflection. BLS 11. 372–86.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M., and Sadock, Jerrold M. 1975. Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. Syntax and semantics, 4, ed. by Kimball, John P., 1–36. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar