Introduction to double issue 41.1–2 on Features

This special double issue (41.1 and 41.2) contains 11 articles on the formal properties of linguistic feature systems, all of which were presented at a conference in Tromsø in the fall of 2013.The issue was jointly edited by Martin Krämer, Sandra Ronai, and Peter Svenonius.A version of the original...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Nordlyd
Main Authors: Svenonius, Peter, Krämer, Martin
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Septentrio Academic Publishing 2015
Subjects:
Online Access:https://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlyd/article/view/3415
https://doi.org/10.7557/12.3415
id ftunitroemsoe:oai:ojs.henry.ub.uit.no:article/3415
record_format openpolar
institution Open Polar
collection University of Tromsø: Septentrio Academic Publishing
op_collection_id ftunitroemsoe
language English
description This special double issue (41.1 and 41.2) contains 11 articles on the formal properties of linguistic feature systems, all of which were presented at a conference in Tromsø in the fall of 2013.The issue was jointly edited by Martin Krämer, Sandra Ronai, and Peter Svenonius.A version of the original call for papers posted in 2013 follows.All formal models of linguistics assume sets of features in terms of which generalizations can be stated. But the nature of the features themselves is often not explicitly addressed. In this special double issue of Nordlyd we focus on the nature of features across phonology and syntax and related domains of linguistics. One group of questions concerns the ‘grounding’ of features in substance or content. For example, phonological features may be grounded in phonetics, and syntactic features may be grounded in semantics. Innatist traditions have sometimes posited innate universal inventories of grounded features. The ‘substance-free’ movement in phonology argues instead that the formal properties of features can and should be radically dissociated from their grounding in content. Sign language phonology would seem to support this position, as the featural system of sign language phonology operates with a completely different set of articulators from those used in spoken languages. Minimalist syntax also frequently promotes the dissociation of formal properties of features from their content (as in the proposal that tense is simply one of a variety of ways in which Infl may be ‘grounded,’ favored in Indo-European languages but with various other languages opting for other content for Infl). Such proposals raise many questions concerning how feature systems are constrained to be uniform across languages and to what extent they are free to vary. The radically opposing view in phonology denies the existence of categorical features altogether and attempts to model phonological patterns as statistical computation of phonetic data.The formal structure of features raises another set of questions. Complex patterns of feature locality gave rise to feature geometries in phonology, and these have been developed further to account for dependencies among features, not only in phonology but also in syntax. Cartographic work typically assumes linear hierarchies. To what extent are the various geometries and hierarchies motivated, and how might they be grounded in a broader explanatory theory?Interacting with these questions about the “geometric” relations among features is the algebraic structure of the features. For example, it is often assumed that privativity, in which opposition is marked by presence versus absence, is conceptually simplest and therefore the zero hypothesis. While in phonology the pendulum currently swings towards privativity, recently arguments have come from morphosyntax that features have binary values. While apparent ternary patterns in phonology have been taken as arguments in favor of binarity, such patterns have more recently been accounted for by reference to class nodes. Theories such as HPSG or Government Phonology assume much more complex relations among features (with HPSG even allowing feature-value matrices in which the values are feature-value matrices, extending to a kind of feature recursion, and GP positing government and licensing relations between features and positions).In this volume, a selection of researchers address these and other questions about the nature of features in linguistic theory.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Svenonius, Peter
Krämer, Martin
spellingShingle Svenonius, Peter
Krämer, Martin
Introduction to double issue 41.1–2 on Features
author_facet Svenonius, Peter
Krämer, Martin
author_sort Svenonius, Peter
title Introduction to double issue 41.1–2 on Features
title_short Introduction to double issue 41.1–2 on Features
title_full Introduction to double issue 41.1–2 on Features
title_fullStr Introduction to double issue 41.1–2 on Features
title_full_unstemmed Introduction to double issue 41.1–2 on Features
title_sort introduction to double issue 41.1–2 on features
publisher Septentrio Academic Publishing
publishDate 2015
url https://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlyd/article/view/3415
https://doi.org/10.7557/12.3415
geographic Tromsø
geographic_facet Tromsø
genre Tromsø
genre_facet Tromsø
op_source Nordlyd; Vol 41 No 1 (2014): Special Issue on Features
Nordlyd; Årg 41 Nr 1 (2014): Special Issue on Features
1503-8599
op_relation https://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlyd/article/view/3415
doi:10.7557/12.3415
op_rights Copyright (c) 2015 Peter Svenonius, Martin Krämer
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
op_rightsnorm CC-BY-NC
op_doi https://doi.org/10.7557/12.3415
container_title Nordlyd
container_volume 41
container_issue 1
_version_ 1766220350595530752
spelling ftunitroemsoe:oai:ojs.henry.ub.uit.no:article/3415 2023-05-15T18:35:10+02:00 Introduction to double issue 41.1–2 on Features Svenonius, Peter Krämer, Martin 2015-04-08 https://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlyd/article/view/3415 https://doi.org/10.7557/12.3415 en eng Septentrio Academic Publishing https://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlyd/article/view/3415 doi:10.7557/12.3415 Copyright (c) 2015 Peter Svenonius, Martin Krämer http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ CC-BY-NC Nordlyd; Vol 41 No 1 (2014): Special Issue on Features Nordlyd; Årg 41 Nr 1 (2014): Special Issue on Features 1503-8599 info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion introduction 2015 ftunitroemsoe https://doi.org/10.7557/12.3415 2021-08-16T14:14:17Z This special double issue (41.1 and 41.2) contains 11 articles on the formal properties of linguistic feature systems, all of which were presented at a conference in Tromsø in the fall of 2013.The issue was jointly edited by Martin Krämer, Sandra Ronai, and Peter Svenonius.A version of the original call for papers posted in 2013 follows.All formal models of linguistics assume sets of features in terms of which generalizations can be stated. But the nature of the features themselves is often not explicitly addressed. In this special double issue of Nordlyd we focus on the nature of features across phonology and syntax and related domains of linguistics. One group of questions concerns the ‘grounding’ of features in substance or content. For example, phonological features may be grounded in phonetics, and syntactic features may be grounded in semantics. Innatist traditions have sometimes posited innate universal inventories of grounded features. The ‘substance-free’ movement in phonology argues instead that the formal properties of features can and should be radically dissociated from their grounding in content. Sign language phonology would seem to support this position, as the featural system of sign language phonology operates with a completely different set of articulators from those used in spoken languages. Minimalist syntax also frequently promotes the dissociation of formal properties of features from their content (as in the proposal that tense is simply one of a variety of ways in which Infl may be ‘grounded,’ favored in Indo-European languages but with various other languages opting for other content for Infl). Such proposals raise many questions concerning how feature systems are constrained to be uniform across languages and to what extent they are free to vary. The radically opposing view in phonology denies the existence of categorical features altogether and attempts to model phonological patterns as statistical computation of phonetic data.The formal structure of features raises another set of questions. Complex patterns of feature locality gave rise to feature geometries in phonology, and these have been developed further to account for dependencies among features, not only in phonology but also in syntax. Cartographic work typically assumes linear hierarchies. To what extent are the various geometries and hierarchies motivated, and how might they be grounded in a broader explanatory theory?Interacting with these questions about the “geometric” relations among features is the algebraic structure of the features. For example, it is often assumed that privativity, in which opposition is marked by presence versus absence, is conceptually simplest and therefore the zero hypothesis. While in phonology the pendulum currently swings towards privativity, recently arguments have come from morphosyntax that features have binary values. While apparent ternary patterns in phonology have been taken as arguments in favor of binarity, such patterns have more recently been accounted for by reference to class nodes. Theories such as HPSG or Government Phonology assume much more complex relations among features (with HPSG even allowing feature-value matrices in which the values are feature-value matrices, extending to a kind of feature recursion, and GP positing government and licensing relations between features and positions).In this volume, a selection of researchers address these and other questions about the nature of features in linguistic theory. Article in Journal/Newspaper Tromsø University of Tromsø: Septentrio Academic Publishing Tromsø Nordlyd 41 1