Feature
PHONOLOGY: a property of a sound segment. Segments can be
considered to be composed of more elementary characteristics, i.e. a
finite set of features with (preferably) a phonetic correlate. Distinctive
features are used to explain that phonological rules apply to
°natural classes of sounds,
i.e. sounds which share certain (phonetic) properties. Features are
introduced in phonological theory by Trubetzkoy and Jacobson ('the Prague
School'); Chomsky & Halle (1968) (SPE) proposed a major revision of the
theory of distinctive features. In SPE, features are considered to be binary,
i.e. a feature has two values + (present) or - (absent). For instance, [p]
is (among other things) [-°voiced] and
[-°nasal] while [m] is [+voiced] and
[+nasal]. After SPE different feature inventories have been proposed.
Some features have been replaced with structure (for instance
[°stress] and
[°syllabic]). Furthermore, the binarity
of features is under debate: multi-valued features and single-valued or unary
features have been proposed. The development of feature geometry (cf. Clements
1985), in which natural classes are represented by hierarchical structure as
well as by features themselves has been a major revision of the theory
proposed by Chomsky & Halle (1968). For a detailed summary of various
segmental features and their current status, see
Keating (1988) and
references cited there.
LIT.
Jacobson, Fant & Halle (1963),
Chomsky & Halle (1968),
Clements (1985),
Sagey (1986).
SYNTAX: the syntactic features encompass lexical and grammatical
features. The lexical features N,V define the four lexical categories
(N=+N,-V; V=-N,+V; A=+N,+V; P=-N,-V). See
°X-bar theory. Among the grammatical
features we find features for person, number and gender (Phi-features); the
verbal features {+,-}past,{+,-}tense; and the binding features {+,-}anaphoric
and {+,-}pronominal introduced in
Chomsky (1981).
LIT.
Muysken & van Riemsdijk
(1986),
Kerstens (1993).
Feature analysis
°X-bar theory.
Feature checking
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) feature checking is a relation between
two elements such that one or more designated features they share are
eliminated. EXAMPLE: in who did you see the +wh feature of
who is checked in the specifier position of CP (spec,CP) against
the +wh feature of C. If who or C do not check their +wh feature,
the derivation °crashes
(cf. *you saw who).
Feature matrix
PHONOLOGY: the complete set of specified
°features of a sound segment.
Feature Percolation
MORPHOLOGY: a mechanism proposed in Lieber (1980) and Williams
(1981a) which copies features of one of the members of a morphological
construction (usually features of the head) to the node that immediately
dominates both members. As a consequence, a complex form inherits the
properties of its head. EXAMPLE: the English verb stand
is a strong verb, which can be indicated by assigning the
°diacritic feature [+ablaut]
to this verb. The complex verb withstand also is a strong verb.
This can be accounted for if one assumes that the feature [+ablaut] will
percolate up to the node dominating both with and stand,
as illustrated below:
V V
/ \ [+abl]
/ \ / \
P V P V
with stand => with stand
[+abl] [+abl]
Feature Percolation
Conventions
MORPHOLOGY: a set of four mechanisms originally proposed in
Lieber (1980) that copy the properties of words to the node that
immediately dominates them. Lieber assumes that morphemes are inserted
into unlabeled trees, and these trees are then labeled by means of the
following FPCs:
(i) FPC I: All features of a stem morpheme, including category
features, percolate to the first non-branching node
dominating that morpheme.
(ii) FPC II: All features of an affix morpheme, including category
features, percolate to the first branching node
dominating that morpheme.
(iii) FPC III: If a branching node fails to obtain features by FPC II,
features from the next lowest labeled node automatically
percolate up to the unlabeled branching node.
(iv) FPC IV: If two stems are sisters (i.e. they form a compound),
features from the right-hand stem percolate up to the
branching node dominating the stems.
Slightly different FPCs are proposed in Selkirk (1982) and DiSciullo &
Williams (1987). These alternative versions make use of the notions
°head and
°underspecification.
Felicity condition
SEMANTICS: convention regulating the appropriate use of
°performative utterances. The felicity
conditions for the utterance in (i) say - among other things - that the speaker
must have the authority to marry two people:
(i) I hereby declare you husband and wifeLIT. Austin (1962), Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet (1990).
Filter
SEMANTICS: a particular type of
°generalized quantifier
Q, (Q is not empty), which obeys condition (i) in a domain of entities E:
(i) for all X,Y subset E: (X in Q and Y in Q) <=> intersection(X,Y) in QAll N, both N and the N are examples of filters, but some N and most N are not. This accounts for the contrast between (ii) and (iii):
(ii) All dogs bark and all dogs run <=> all dogs bark and run (iii) Some dogs bark and some dogs run <=/=> some dogs bark and run.LIT. Zwarts (1981).
First Order Projection Condition (FOPC)
MORPHOLOGY: a condition proposed in Selkirk (1982) which says that
All non-SUBJ arguments of a lexical category Xi must be satisfied within the first order projection of Xi (where the first order projection of a category Xi is the category that immediately dominates it, whether in word structure or in syntactic structure).The FOPC is Selkirk's (1982) counterpart of Roeper & Siegel's (1978) °First Sister Principle (FSP). The FOPC as well as the FSP are intended to account for (i) the relationship between he drives a truck, truck driver, and driver of trucks, (ii) the difference in well-formedness between the compounds truck driver, on the one hand, and *quick driver (next to drive a truck quickly), and *child driver (next to a child drives a truck) on the other. The FOPC and the FSP are not equivalent. The difference has to do with the data in (i)-(iii):
(i) eater of pasta in trees (ii) * tree eater of pasta (iii) * pasta eater in treesThe FOPC accounts for the ungrammaticality of both (ii) and (iii), since one of the non-SUBJ arguments of eat is not realized within its first order projection (= tree eater in (ii) and pasta eater in (iii)). The FSP has no explanation for the ungrammaticality of (iii).
First Sister Principle (FSP)
MORPHOLOGY: a generalization formulated in Roeper & Siegel (1978)
which says that All °verbal
compounds are formed by incorporation of a word in first sister
position of the verb (where first sister position means that the non-head
of the verbal compound must be a word which can appear immediately after
the verb in a corresponding verb phrase).
The FSP is intended to account for (i) the relationship between he drives
a truck, truck driver, and driver of trucks, (ii) the
difference in well-formedness between truck driver, on the one hand,
and *quick driver (next to drive a truck quickly), and
*child driver (next to a child drives a truck) on the other.
Roeper & Siegel propose that synthetic compounds (e.g. truck driver)
are derived from lexical representations which resemble verbal phrases (in
our example drive a truck) by means of a number of
°lexical transformations.
See °First Order
Projection Condition.
LIT.
Roeper & Siegel (1978),
Spencer (1991).
Fixed-context assumption
SEMANTICS: the simplifying assumption often made in model-theoretic
semantics that one particular context is chosen for the interpretation of
context dependent expressions, which does not change in the course of the
interpretation process. This assumption is dropped in those semantic
frameworks that interpret expressions in terms of their potential to change
the context.
LIT.
Barwise & Cooper (1981),
Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet
(1990).
Flap
PHONOLOGY: a sound articulated in such a way that one articulator,
usually the tongue tip, is drawn back and then allowed to strike against
another articulator in returning to its rest position (cf.
Ladefoged (1975))
EXAMPLE: in American English /r/ in mirror or /t/ in
dirty are often flaps.
Floating quantifier
SYNTAX: a °quantifier that is
not immediately near the NP it quantifies. French tous (all) is the
exemplary case:
(i) a Tous les étudiants ont lu ce livre
All the students have read that book
b Les étudiants ont tous lu ce livre
In (i)a the quantifier tous immediately precedes the NP les
étudiants it quantifies, but in (i)b tous has
'floated' off, as it were, into the sentence. Sportiche (1988) has
claimed that tous in examples such as (i)b is stranded in the
(VP-internal) D-structure subject position.
Focus
SYNTAX: an element or phrase which contains new information is put
in focus. This can be done phonologically by assigning focal stress
(cf. I saw JOHN), and/or syntactically by
°preposing (cf. John, I saw) and
°scrambling
(cf. ik gun zoietsi niemand ti 'I don't wish that upon anyone').
The focused phrase is interpreted at
°LF in a way similar to the interpretation of
°quantifiers and
°wh-phrases.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981).
Foot
PHONOLOGY: a °prosodic constituent/unit introduced by
Selkirk (1981).
Syllables are combined in a higher level constituent, i.e. the foot.
There are two types of metrical feet:
°bounded feet (binary) and
°unbounded feet (n-ary). Bounded
feet contain at most two syllables and unbounded ones may contain an
indefinite number of syllables. Within feet, one of the syllables is
dominant, i.e. the head which can be at the left-edge or the right-edge
of the foot. Languages may vary as to whether bounded or unbounded feet
are used and may vary w.r.t. direction of dominance. Bounded/unbounded
and direction of °dominance are
considered to be two parameters of stress systems and combine freely.
The way feet are represented depends on the framework used (cf. grids
or trees). In a °tree framework feet
are represented as in (i) where heads are labeled Strong and non-heads
Weak.
(i)
Unbounded: Bounded:
F F
/ \ / \
s \ / s
/ \ \ / / \
s \ \ / / s F F
/ \ \ \ / / / \ / \ / \
s w w ..w w...w w s s w w s
left-dom. right-dom. left-dom. right-dom.
In a °bracketed grid framework feet
could be represented as in (ii).
(ii) Unbounded: Bounded: * * * * (* * * * * *) (* * * * * *) (* *) (* *) left-dom. right-dom. left-dom. right-dom.LIT. Liberman & Prince (1977), Hayes (1981)), Prince (1983)), Selkirk (1984), Halle & Vergnaud (1987), Kager (1989), Hayes (1987), 1991).
Formula
SEMANTICS: every expression defined by the syntactic rules of
°propositional logic and
°predicate logic in a finite
number of steps.
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
Free
SYNTAX: not °bound.
Free morpheme
MORPHOLOGY: morphological object which can function as an
independent word. In this respect free morphemes oppose
°bound morphemes.
EXAMPLE: the English word dog is a free morpheme.
LIT.
Bloomfield (1933),
Spencer (1991).
Free relative
SYNTAX: °relative clause
that occurs without an antecedent. EXAMPLE: the subject in (i),
who finishes first, is a free relative.
(i) [who finishes first] wins the prizeUsually one assumes that free relatives are NPs with an empty head noun: [NP 0 [S who finishes first]].
Fricative
PHONOLOGY: a sound that is articulated in such a way that the
articulators are brought very close together; the air is forced through
this narrow opening. A hissing sound is the result. EXAMPLE:
English [s] in sea or [f] in flow.
Frozen Structure Constraint
SYNTAX: constraint formulated in Ross (1967) which says that if a
clause has been extraposed from a NP whose head noun is lexical, this NP may
not be moved, nor may any element of the clause be moved out of that clause.
The first part is illustrated in (i), the second part in (ii).
(i) * [NP Which packages ti ]j didn't Sam pick up tj until it had
stopped raining [which are to be mailed tomorrow]i
(ii) * The coat [whichi a girl tj came in [Sj who had worn ti]] was torn
The second part of the constraint can now be subsumed under the
°Adjunct Condition, given that
°extraposition is an adjunction
operation.
Fuckin' insertion
PHONOLOGY/MORPHOLOGY: a process in English by which a restricted
class of °infixes (fuckin', bloody,
bloomin') is inserted between two
°metrical feet of which the latter
one contains the syllable that carries the main stress. EXAMPLE:
(i) mònonga-fuckin-héla
fàn-bloody-tástic
àbso-bloomin'-lútely
(ii) * monòng-fuckin-ahéla
* chíco-fuckin-pèe
* chi-fuckin-cágo
Another term for this process is Expletive Infixation.
Full Interpretation (principle of)
SYNTAX: principle that requires that every element of
°PF and °LF
(more generally: of any interface) must receive an appropriate interpretation,
that is, must be °licensed in the relevant
sense.
LIT.
Chomsky (1986a).
Function Chain
SYNTAX: the associated sequence of °GFs
of the members of the °chain created by
movement. EXAMPLE: in (i) John is assigned the function
chain (GF1, GF2, GF3), where GF1 = [NP,IP1], GF2 = [NP, IP2] and GF3 =
[NP,VP]. This entails that John is assigned the theta-role of
the object of killed.
(i) [IP1 Johni was believed [IP2 ti to have been [VP killed ti]]]LIT. Chomsky (1981).
Function composition
MORPHOLOGY: an algebraic notion which DiSciullo & Williams (1987)
adopt from °Categorial Grammar
to account for an important difference between compounding and affixation.
In compounding the non-head satisfies a theta-role of the head. The non-head
of a complex word headed by an affix, however, does not satisfy a theta-role
of the affix; rather the affix and the stem form a composed argument
structure. In order to be able to relate the argument structure of an affixal
head to its non-head, they propose that suffixes are
°functors with respect to their
complements. EXAMPLE: the English adjective complete has a
Theme as its the external argument, and the nominal suffix -ness
the "degree" argument R, as in (i). Since -ness is assumed to be
a functor, function composition yields the composed argument structure in (ii):
(i) complete -ness => (ii) completeness
(Th) (R) ((Th) R)
functor
LIT.
Di Sciullo & Williams (1987),
Spencer (1991).
Functional Projection
SYNTAX: The syntactic Xbar projection of a functional head,
such as COMP (°CP),
INFL (°IP), or
Det (°DP). The underlying assumption is
that, like lexical heads N, A, V and P, functional heads have a syntactic
projection as dictated by °X-bar
theory. A fundamental question is whether there is a limit to the
number of functional categories. It seems reasonable to assume that their
projection is in some sense parasitic on, or an extension of, a lexical
projection.
LIT.
Chomsky (1986b),
Abney (1987),
Ouhalla (1990).
Functor
MORPHOLOGY: a notion which DiSciullo & Williams adopt from
Categorial Grammar to express relationships between entities.
EXAMPLE: if one wishes to express the idea that y is the
sister of x, the property 'sister of' can be formalized by using
a functor, say F, and write 'y=F(x)'.
°Function composition.
LIT.
Di Sciullo & Williams (1987).
Fusional morphology
MORPHOLOGY: a term which is used for a morphological system in
which one morpheme, usually an inflectional affix, expresses several
different meanings or grammatical functions. EXAMPLE: the
components '3rd person possessive' and 'plural' are fused together in
the English word their, while Turkish uses two morphemes for
these components: evleriden 'from their house'
(Lit. 'house-PLURAL-POSSESSIVE-ABLATIVE').
LIT.
Bloomfield (1933),
Spencer (1991).