Auxiliary inversions and the notion ‘default specification’

Bibliographic Data

ID10140336
AuthorsGeorgia M Green (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, corresponding author), Jerry L Morgan (0000-0002-6014-9478, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)
Year1996
Volume32
Issue1
Pages43-56
Publication date1996-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Linguistics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-2267 • E-ISSN: 1469-7742
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s002222670000075x
OpenAlexW1966877377
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited12

It is commonly thought that (1) the description of English auxiliary inversions requires a feature with a default value, (2) that non-default values must be stipulated and learned as exceptions and (3) that when languages exhibit different values for a feature in different contexts, learning theory requires grammars to stipulate a default value. Distinguishing two perniciously confused uses of the term DEFAULT enables a demonstration that the first and third assumptions are incorrect. Conseqently, any argument that depends on them is invalid, and the absence in a theory of a mechanism for default-value declarations is not a deficiency. It is then shown that a comprehensive account of inverted structures has to encompass considerably more diversity of structural types than is generally recognized, but is entirely possible in a constraint-based grammar with monotonic multiple-inheritance and no overridable default specifications

Argument (complex analysis · Constraint (computer-aided design · Default · Default rule · Economics · Epistemology · Feature (linguistics · Grammar · Linguistics · Machine learning · Mechanism (biology · Monotonic function · Operator (biology · Value (mathematics · Computer Science · Historical Linguistics and Language Studies · Mathematics · Natural Language Processing Techniques · Philosophy · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub