Thomas Graf, Stony Brook University<\/p>\n
Do contemporary syntactic theories rely on too many features? Decades of computational research have culminated in two contradictory answers:<\/p>\n
The source of this confusing state of affairs is the intimate relation between features and constraints. Features can be replaced by constraints, to a point where the grammar is completely feature-free. And constraints can be compiled down into the feature system until no constraints are left and everything is done by feature checking.<\/p>\n
Proposition 1<\/strong>: Features and constraints are interchangeable.<\/p>\n The power to express arbitrary constraints causes massive overgeneration, which must be curtailed. There is a substantive body of computational work on how constraints can be limited in a linguistically natural fashion, whereas it is largely unclear how the same can be achieved with restrictions on feature systems. I will sketch what options have been explored so far and why constraints are easier to rein in than features.<\/p>\n Proposition 2<\/strong>: The power of constraints is easy to restrict, that of features is not.<\/p>\n In the absence of meaningful restrictions on features, then, constraint-based accounts should be preferred. I present small case studies on successive-cyclic movement, selection, and morphosyntax that illustrate what this approach looks like in practice and how it can yield new theoretical and empirical insights.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Thomas Graf, Stony Brook University Do contemporary syntactic theories rely on too many features? Decades of computational research have culminated in two contradictory answers: Yes, there are too many features because having at least two features is already one too … Continue reading