THE LIMITS OF UNIFICATION 
Robert J. P. Ingria 
BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation 
10 Moulton Street, Mailstop 6/4C 
Cambridge, MA 02138 
Intemet: ingria@BBN.COM 
ABSTRACT 
Current complex-feature based grammars use a sin- 
gle procedure--unification--for a multitude of pur- 
poses, among them, enforcing formal agreement 
between purely syntactic features. This paper 
presents evidence from several natural languages that 
unification--variable-matching combined with variable 
substitution--is the wrong mechanism for effecting 
agreement. The view of grammar developed here is 
one in which unification is used for semantic interpre- 
tation, while purely formal agreement involves only 
a check for non-distinctness---i.e, variable-matching 
without variable substitution. 
1 Introduction 
In recent years, a great deal of attention has been de- 
voted to complex-feature based grammar formalisms-- 
i.e. grammar formalisms in which syntactic elements 
are not atomic symbols, but rather complex elements, 
such as value-attribute or term structu~s; see Shieber 
(1986) for an overview. Typically such formalisms use 
a single mechanism--variable substitution--for all pur- 
poses, and the most widely used variable substitution 
mechanism is unification) Such complex-feature based 
grammars, then, axe viewed as systems in which partial 
feature structures are built up, by the process of unifica- 
tion, into successively more specified structures. While 
it is formally elegant to use a single mechanism for a 
number of purposes, this theoretical elegance is real- 
ized in practice only if the mechanism does not require 
the other modules of the system to be complicated to 
achieve this "elegance". Currently, unification is used 
for at least four puq3oses: 
1 In the rest of this paper, for convenience I will use the term 
"unification" instead of "variable substitution", since it is the most 
commonly used type of variable substitution, but it should be borne 
in mind that the point being made here holds for variable substitution, 
in general. 
• to enforce formal agreement between purely syn- 
tactic features 
• to "percolate" features between a pre-terminal cat- 
egory and the phrase which it heads 
• to pass features between a dislocated element-- 
such as a WH-phrase--and its trace 
• to build up semantic representations 
This paper will focus on the use of unification to 
enforce agreement and will present evidence from sev- 
eral natural languages which argues against its use in 
the case of purely formal syntactic features: when such 
features are lexically or morphologically underspecified, 
they remain so, even under agreement, contrary to the 
predictions of a system using unification for agreement. 
Moreover, it is worthwhile stressing at the outset that 
the main argument of this paper is not that there are 
certain constructions that present a problem for unifica- 
lion, and, hence, require some technical solution. The 
point is much stronger:, even if some elaborate analy- 
sis can be devised that allows unification to be used to 
effect agreement, this would be the wrong tack to take. 
Rather, the argument will go, using unification to effect 
agreement is incorrect both for theoretical reasons--it 
presents a view of language which is contradicted by 
the facts--and for practical reasons---using unification 
to effect agreement can impede a system's robustness 
and transportability. 
2 The Paradox 
A typical paradigm thin is presented to show the almost 
transparent application of unification to agreement phe- 
nomena is the following: 
(I) a. The sheep is ready. 
b. The sheep are ready. 
c. The sheep is there. 
d. The sheep are there. 
e. *The sheep that is ready are there. 
194 
Sentences (la) through (ld) are taken to indicate 
that "sheep" is underspecified with regard to number;, it 
can be either singular or plural. (le), on the other hand, 
shows that "sheep" cannot be both singular and plural 
at the same time. In the relative clause, "is" is marked 
as singular, and "sheep", interpreted as its subject via 
the relative connector "that", must also be singular. On 
the other hand, "are" in the matrix clause is marked 
as plural, and "sheep", its subject, must also be plural. 
Under a unification analysis, these facts are explained 
in the following way: "sheep" is syntactically unspeci- 
fied for the feature number. The process of subject-verb 
agreement is effected by unification. Therefore, when 
"sheep" appears as the subject of a finite verb, unifica- 
tion will fix its number as singular or plural (unless the 
finite verb itself is ambiguous). (le) is ungrammatical, 
then, since the values singular and plural cannot unify 
and the fact that "sheep" must agree with both "is" and 
"are" in number would require their unification. 
This illegal feature configuration is shown in (2). 
(2) IV \[num:sg\]\] --. \[N \[num:{sg,pl}\]\] ,-- IV \[num:pl\]\] 
("is") ("sheep") ("are") 
Here, the arrows indicate the notional flow of informa- 
tion under agreement, but have no theoretical status. 
They indicate that agreement between "sheep" and "is" 
would set "sheep" 's number feature to singular, while 
agreement with "axe" would set it to plural More gen- 
erally, the unification approach to agreement rules out 
the following configuration: 
(3) *\[X \[F:a\]\] -~ \[36 \[F:{a, ;3}\]\] #- \[Z \[F:~\]\] 
Here \[F : z\] denotes feature F, with value z, and 
\[F : {z,g}\] indicates feature F with value either z or 
V, z and Y distinct. Thus, this schema indicates that a 
category which is specified for the values a and B for 
feature F cannot simultaneously agree in this feature 
with categories that specify distinct values for F. In the 
rest of this section, I will show cases of constructions 
which match this schema but are still grammatical. 
2.1 Case 1: German Free Relatives 
In German, as Groos and van Riemsdijk (1979) demon- 
strate, free relative clauses require that the relative pro- 
noun agree in Case both with the position of the rela- 
five clause as a whole and also with the position with 
which the relative pronoun is construed (i.e. with the 
gap which the relative pronoun fills). This is shown 
in (4) and (5), where the matrix verb and the verb in 
the flee relative are annotated with the Case the relative 
pronoun must bear in that clause. 
(4) a. Wer nicht stark ist, muss klug sein. 
who not strong is must clever be 
NOM NOM NOM 
'whoever isn't strong must be clever.' 
b. *Wen Gott schwach geschaffen hat, muss klug sein. 
Ace ACC NOM 
*Wer Gott schwach geschaffen hat, muss klug sein. 
NOM ACC NOM 
who God weak created has must clever be 
'Who(m)ever God has created weak must be clever.' 
(5) a. Ich nehme, wen du mir empfiehlst. 
I take who you me recommend 
ACC ACC ACC 
'I take whomever you recommend to me.' 
b. *Ich nehme, wen du vertraust. 
ACC ACC DAT 
*Ich nehme, were du vertraust. 
ACC DAT DAT 
I take who you trust 
'I take whomever you trust.' 
Assuming that "Case assignment" is actually a form 
of agreement between a verb and a noun phrase that it 
governs, the data in (4)-(5) seems to fit nicely into 
a unification approach. However, the neuter fee rel- 
ative pronoun was, which is both nominative and ac- 
cusative, can seemingly agree with both nominative and 
accusative Case assigning elements at the same time: 
(6) Was du mix gegeben hast, ist p~chtig. 
What you me given have is wonderful 
NOM/ACC ACC NOM 
'What you have given to me is wonderful.' 
(7) Ich habe gegessen was noch tlbrig war. 
I have eaten what still left was 
Ace NOM/ACC NOM 
'I ate what was left.' 
Note that sentences (6) and (7) are precisely in- 
stances of schema (3), just as (le) is. Hence, if the 
explanation of the ungrammaticality of (le) is correct, 
we should expect (6) and (7) to be ungrammatical. 
(8) a. \[V \[case:ACC\]\] --, \[N \[case:{N,A}\]\] ,-- \[V \[case:NOM-\]\] 
("gegeben") ("was") Cist") 
h. IV \[case:ACC\]\] -~ IN \[case:{Y~}\]\] ~- IV \[case:NOM\]\] 
("gegessen") ("was") ("war") 
195 
A possible solution to this seeming paradox, 
which still uses unification to effect agreement, is the 
following. 2 Assume that Case in German is not a 
single-valued feature, but rather an array of the differ- 
ent Cases of the language, each of which takes on one 
of the values T or NIL. We can then handle the data 
above with the following feature specifications. (The 
(a) representations use a "path" notation, consisting of 
attribute-value pairs, like that in Shieber (1986); while 
the (b) representations use a term notation, with posi- 
tional features, like that in Definite Clause Grammars 
(Pereira and Warren (1980)).) 
(9) wer: 
a. \[case: \[nom: T\] \[gen: NIL\] 
\[dat: NIL\] \[acc: NIL\]\] 
b. (CASE T NIL NIL NIL) 
(10) wem: 
a. \[case: \[nom: NIL\] \[gem NIL\] 
\[dat: T\] \[acc: NIL\]\] 
b. (CASE NIL NIL T NIL) 
(11) wen: 
a. \[case: \[nom: NIL\] \[gem NIL\] 
\[dat: NIL\] \[ace: T\]\] 
b. (CASE NIL NIL NIL T) 
(12) was: 
a. \[case: \[nora: T\] \[gem NIL\] 
\[dat: NIL\] \[acc: T\]\] 
b. (CASE T NIL NIL T) 
Assuming that a verb is only specified for the Case 
it assigns and is unspecified for the others, the Case 
specifications for verbs that take nominal complements 
would be: 
(13) geschaffen,nehme,empfiehlst,gegehen,gegessen: 
a. \[case: \[ace: T\]\] 
b. (CASE ?val ?val ?val T) 
(14) vertraust: 
a. \[case: \[dat: T\]\] 
b. (CASE ?val ?val T ?val) 
Similarly, the Case specification for nominative 
Case assignment, whether this is a property of syntactic 
structures or of particular lexical items, would be: 
(15) a. \[case: \[nom: T\]\] 
b. (CASE T ?val ?val ?val) 
This solution works, then, because was, and no 
other free relative pronouns, specifies the value T for 
2This possibility was pointed out to me by Andy Haas. 
more than one element in its Case array and because 
verbs and other Case "assigning" elements only specify 
a value for the Case they "assign", and for no others. 
This solution of factoring out seemingly contradictory 
values for a single feature into values of different fea- 
tures allows us to get around the superficial violation of 
the schema in (3). However, there axe other construc- 
tions which are harder to decompose in this fashion. 
2.2 Case 2: Hungarian WH Movement 
and Topicalization 
Let us now turn to a more complicated example, from 
Hungarian, described in Szamosi (1976). In Hungarian, 
WH words, like full NPs, are marked as either definite 
or indefinite. The verb in Hungarian is also marked as 
definite or indefinite, in agreement with its complement. 
When the complement is an accusative noun phrase, the 
definiteness marking on verb and noun phrase is the 
same. 
(16) a. Akart egy kOnyvet. 
he-wanted a book 
-DEF -DEF 
b. *Akarta egy kSnyvet. 
he-wanted a book 
+DEF -DEF 
'He wanted a book.' 
c. *Akart a k0nyvet. 
he-wanted the book 
-DEF +DEF 
d. Akarta a kSnyvet. 
he-wanted the book 
+DEF +DEF 
'He wanted the book.' 
e. Egy k0nyv amit akart 
a book which he-wanted 
-DEF -DEF 
f. *Egy kt~nyv arnit akarta 
a book which he-wanted 
-DEF +DEF 
'A book which he wanted 
g. *Ez az a k0nyv amelyiket akart 
this that the book which he-wanted 
+DEF -DEF 
h. Ez az a k0nyv amelyiket akarta 
thisthat thebook which he-wanted 
+DEF +DEF 
'This book is the one which he wanted.' 
When the complement is a finite clause, the verb bears 
definite agreement. 
196 
(17) a. J/lnos akarta, hogy elhozzak egy k0nyvet. 
John wanted that I-bring a book 
+DEF +DEF 
b. *Janos akart, hogy elhozzak egy kOnyvet. 
John wanted that I-bring a book 
-DEF +DEF 
'John wanted me to bring a book.' 
Finally, WH phrases and topicalized constituents in 
Hungarian typically appear immediately preceding the 
verb; verb and WH word or topic~ized noun phrase 
must agree in definiteness. 3 From these constraints, it 
follows that WH phrases and topicalized noun phrases 
extracted from complement clauses must be marked 
definite. Since the clausal complement forces the verb 
to bear definite agreement, and since the WH word or 
topicalized N-P must agree with the verb in definiteness, 
the WH word or topicalized NP can only be definite. 
This is shown in the following examples: 
b. \[NP \[def.'-\] --, IV \[def.-{+,-}\] ,-- \[c \[def:+\] 
("egy kt~nyv") ("akartam') ("hogy") 
Let us consider the consequences of expanding out 
the definiteness feature into an array of separate values, 
analogous to the German example. First, this would 
require the underspecified verb forms to be represented 
as in (23). 
(23) akam{u~,akartam: 
a. \[definiteness: \[definite: T\] \[indefinite: T\]\] 
b. (DEFINITENESS T T) 
Next, it would require that the WH pronouns be speci- 
fied as in (24) and (25): 
(24) amelyiket: 
a. \[definiteness: \[definite: T\]\] 
b. (DEFINITENF~S T ?val) 
(25) amit 
(18) Ez az a k/~nyv amelyiket akarta 
this that thebook which he-wanted that I-bring 
+DEF +DEF +DEF +DEF 
'This is the book which he wanted me to bring.' 
(19) *Egy k0nyv amit akarta hogy elhozzak. 
a book which he-wanted that I-bring 
-DEF +DEF +DEF-DEF 
'A book which he wanted me to bring.' 
However, certain Hungarian verb forms 4 bear an 
ending which is ambiguous between definite and indef- 
inite. In sentences involving such verbs, the WH word 
may be indefinite. 
(20) A k0nyv amit akarn~mk, hogy elhozzon. 
the book which we-would-want that he-brings 
-DEF ~DEF +DEF-DEF 
'The book which we would want him to bring.' 
(21) Egy kOnyv akartam, hogy elhozzon. 
a book 1-wanted that he-brings 
-DEF +DEF +DEF-DEF 
'It was a book that I wanted him to bring.' 
Once again, the grammatical (20) and (21) match 
the prohibited schema (3) Cc" = "complementizer"): 
(22) a. IN \[def.'-\] ---, IV \[def:{+,-}\] ~ \[c \[dd:+\] 
("amit") CakarnCmk") ("bogy") 
3Th¢ situation is actually somewhat more complex; s¢~ Szamosi 
(1976) fo¢ full details. 
4The first person singular past indicative and the first person plural 
present conditional. 
hogy elhozzam, a. \[definiteness: \[indefinite: T\]\] 
b. (DEFINITENESS ?val T) 
Note that when either of these pronouns appeared 
with an underspecified definite and indefinite verb, such 
as those in (23), it would wind up with the definiteness 
specification in (23). This would totally neutralize the 
definiteness~ndefiniteness contrast in such cases. But, 
in fact, no such ambiguity of interpretation is reported: 
a definite or indefinite WH phrase or topicalized noun 
phrase that appears in the suitable configuration with 
one of these ambiguously definite or indefinite verbs is 
interpreted as uniquely definite or indefinite, as is con- 
sistent with its overt maddng, and not as ambiguous 
between definite and indefinite, as the proposed unifi- 
cation analysis would require. Thus, this unification 
based solution to a problem of a morphological ambi- 
guity entails an ambiguity of interpretation that is not 
attested. 
Moreover, aside from the empirically incorrect pre- 
dictions about semantic interpretation, there is a more 
fundamental problem with the unification account of 
agreement. As was pointed out above, treating agree- 
ment as unification implies that structures meeting the 
schema in (3) should be superficially ungrammatical. In 
fact, this seems to be universally false: in every case in 
natural language in which an element does not molpho- 
logically distinguish between two or more values of a 
featureqa situation often referred to as morphological 
neutralization---it behaves as if this distinction is also 
neutralized for purposes of agreement. That is, instead 
of the configuration in (3) being universally ruled out, 
197 
it is universally attested. This creates a paradox, since 
the ungrammaticality of (le) seems to depend on the 
ungrammaticality of structures matching the configura- 
tion in (3). To demonstrate that this seeming paradox is 
supported by the data, in the rest of this section, other 
examples will be presented to show that the configura- 
tion ruled out in (3) recurs again and again across the 
languages of the world. 
2.3 Case 3: Objects of Conjoined VPs 
In French, as Kayne (1975) points out, it is possible to 
conjoin past participles following the past auxiliary and 
a weak Cclitic") object pronoun which is the common 
object of the conjoined participles, under the require- 
ment that the verbs of the conjuncts assign the pronoun 
the same Case. This is shown in (26) and (27): 
(26) Paul l'a insuR~ et mis ~t la porte. 
Paul him-hasinsulted andput to the door 
ACC ACC ACC 
'Paul insulted him and threw him out.' 
(27) *Paul l'a frapp~ et doun¢ des coups de pied. 
Paul him-hasstmck andgiven blows of foot 
ACC ACC DAT 
'Paul struck him and gave him some kicks.' 
However, once again, if the object pronoun is 
marked for more than one Case, the conjunction of par. 
ticiples assigning those Cases is allowed. 
b. Harm stal og bor0aOi kOku. 
he stole and ate a cookie 
ACC DAT ACC/DAT 
'He stole and ate a cookie.' 
And German also has similar data, as Pullum and 
Zwicky (1986) show: 
(31) a. *Sie findet und hilft Manner/M~nem. 
she finds and helps men 
ACC DAT ACC DAT 
'She finds and helps men.' 
b. Er findet und hilft Frauen. 
he finds and helps women 
ACC DAT ACC/DAT 
'He finds and helps women.' 
The French, Icelandic, and German examples fall into 
the now familiar configuration. 
(32) \[V \[case:A\]\] --~ \[NP \[case:{A,D}\]\] ,-- \[V \[case:D\]\] 
2.4 Case 4: Elided Verbs in German 
Eisenberg (1973) points out that in conjoined German 
subordinate clauses, the verb in all the non-final clauses 
can be elided, under identity of person and number 
agreement. 
(33) ...weft Hans Bier und Franz Milch trinkt. 
because Hans beer and Franz milk drinks 
3rd 3rd 3rd 
(28) Paul nous a frapp~ et 
Paul us has struck andgiven blows 
ACC/DAT ACC DAT 
'Paul struck us and gave us some kicks.' 
(29) On salt que la police t'a frapl~ 
one knows that thepolice you-has struck 
ACC/DAT ACC 
et donn~ des coups de pied. 
andgiven blows of foot 
DAT 
'Everybody knows that the police struck you 
and gave you some kicks.' 
donnd des coups de pied. '...because Hans drinks beer and Franz, Milk.' 
of foot (34) *...weft ich Bier und du Milch trinkst/trinke. 
becauseI beerandyou milk drinks 
1st 2nd 2nd 1st 
'...because I drink beer and you, Milk.' 
Similar facts hold for Icelandic, as well, as Zaenen and 
Karttunen (1984) point out. 
However, in forms which neutralize the person marking 
on the verb, elision is fine: 
(30) a. *Harm stal og bor0a0i k6kuna/k0kunni. 
he stole and ate the cookie 
ACC DAT ACC DAT 
'He stole and ate the cookie.' 
(35) ...weft wir das Hans und die Muellers den Garten kaufet 
because we the house and the Muellers the garden buy 
1st 3rd lst/3rc 
'...because we buy the house and the Muellers, the garden 
(36) ...weft Franz das Hans und ich den Garten kaufen k0nn! 
because Franz the house and I the garden buy could 
3rd I st I st/3J 
'...because Franz could buy the house and I, the garden.' 
This 
(37) 
is yet another instance of our infamous schema: 
\[NP \[per:l\]\] --, \[V \[per:{1,3}\]\] ~- \[NP \[per:3\]\] 
198 
3 Resolving the Paradox 
The previous section presented a paradox. There seems 
to be evidence, in the form of ungramatical utterances 
such as (le), that the configuration in (3) is ungram- 
matical. However, the rest of the section presented 
evidence from different constructions and different lan- 
guages which strongly indicates that (3) is the stan- 
dard agreement configuration throughout the languages 
of the world. In this section, I will resolve this paradox 
by proposing that agreement is not effected by unifi- 
cation and but rather by a test for non-distinctness of 
feature values. 
3,1 Neutralization versus Ambiguity 
First, let us return to example (le), repeated here for 
convenience 
(38) *The sheep that is ready are there. 
Recall that the analysis of this utterance which argued 
for the ungrammaticality of configuration (3) was based 
on the assumption that "sheep" is unspecified or under- 
specified for number. Note that this analysis is tenable 
if syntactic features alone are considered: syntactically, 
it seems plausible that "sheep" either has no number 
feature or that it has a variable, rather than a constant, 
as the value of this feature. However, when the ramifi- 
cations of this analysis for semantics are considered, it 
becomes less tenable: while syntactic frameworks have 
been constructed in which features can take on under- 
specified values, most semantic frameworks require fea- 
tures such as singular/plural to be fully specified. That 
is, semantically, "sheep" can denote an individual or 
a set of individuals 5 but it cannot denote something 
indeterminate. This suggests that "sheep" is not un- 
derspe¢ified, or vague, but rather ambiguous. That is, 
there is not a single representation for "sheep", which 
is underspecified for number, but rather two distinct 
entries, fully specified for number in both its syntactic 
and semantic aspects. If this is the case, the reason that 
(38) is ungrammatical is not that unification has filled 
in the underspecified value for number, but rather that 
subject-verb agreement disambiguates which of the two 
senses of "sheep" has been encountered and once one of 
5Nothing in the present argument hinges on this being the correct 
Ueatrnent of the singular/plural distinction. It does not matter which 
of the various proposals about the semantic interpretation of number is 
chosen. All that matters is that semantic theories require that singular 
and plural have different denotations, and do not allow indeterminate 
representations. 
the fully specified entries is chosen, it naturally cannot 
agree with a constituent which bears a distinct number. 
Once utterances like (38) are analyzed as not match- 
ing the agreement configuration in (3), it is possible 
to handle all the cases of morphological neutralization 
discussed in the previous section. Note that the feature 
involved in each example of neutralization discussed-- 
Case in German and French, and definiteness on verbs 
in Hungarian---is either inherently formal, without se- 
mantic content (Case) or a feature that does not have 
any semantic ramification for the category in which it 
is neutralized: definiteness does affect the interpretation 
of noun phrases, but it serves purely as a formal agree- 
ment marker on verbs. If this observation is correct, 
then the solution to the apparent paradox runs along 
the following lines: 
• Syntactic features which have semantic ramifica- 
tions, such as number on nouns, tense on verbs, 
degree on adjectives, are never neutralized (under- 
specified). They are always fully specified and 
items which seem to be underspecified with re- 
gard to them are, in fact, ambiguous items with 
distinct, fully specified representations. (But see 
the discussion in the Section 4.) 
• Purely formal syntactic features, on the other hand, 
can be neutralized, producing truly underspecified 
representations, either through the use of value dis- 
junction or through the use of a variable, rather 
than a constant, as a feature value. 6 
• Agreement is effected not by unification but rather 
by a non.distinctness check. 
That is, since we can view unification as logically 
composed of two parts---variable checking and variable 
substitution---agreement should be analyzed as involv- 
ing only variable-matching, but not variable substitu- 
tion. This would explain why constituents that neutral- 
ize a syntactic feature distinction are universally able to 
behave as if they are simultaneously marked for all the 
values of the feature that they neutralize: since agree- 
ment only involves variable matching, but not variable 
substitution, the original, underspecified representation 
is always available for agreement. 
To make this proposal clearer, I will present an 
analysis of the German and Hungarian facts, 7 using a 
6Pullum and Zwicky (1986, p. 766) make a similar distinction be- 
tween features "freely chosen" vs. those "syntactically imposed...by 
rules of agreement ... or govemmenf'. 
7For concreteness, I have analyzed nominative Case assignment 
as being a property of verbs in German. It is possible that this is a 
199 
term structure type notation, and adding the :OR op- 
erator, which introduces disjunctions of variable-free 
terms, s 
German: 
Item: Case: 
wer (nom) 
wem (dat) 
wen (arc) 
was (:or (nora) (acc)) 
empfiehlst... (arc) 
vertraust (dat) 
ist,war... (nom) 
Hungarian: 
Item: Definite: 
amit (-) 
amelyiket 
hogy 
(+) 
(+) 
akart (-) 
akarta (+) 
akarn@~k,akartam ?val 
These representations are matched by a non- 
distinctness check, which performs the same tests as 
unification. However, the non-distinctness check dif- 
fers from unification in what it returns. Unification, 
when applied to two expressions, typically returns ei- 
ther a distinguished symbol, such as Fail, if they do not 
unify, or a single substitution expression, which is the 
most general unifier of its input; see e.g. Pereira and 
Shieber (1987, pp. 63-64). When two expressions are 
identical, this substitution expression is empty, since no 
substitutions need to be performed. In this case, then, 
unification effectively leaves its input unchanged. Thus, 
unification can be viewed as returning a single indicator 
of failure and an unbounded set of substitution expres- 
sions. Non-distinctness checking, on the other hand, 
returns a single indicator of failure but also a single 
indicator of success--an empty substitution expression. 
Alternatively, non-distinctness checking may be view- 
ing as determining that two expressions are unifiable, 
without actually unifying them. 
The following table contrasts the behavior of unifi- 
cation (U) and non-distinctness (~): 
property of structures instead; however, the Case specification of the 
appropriate structure would be the same as here. A similar consider- 
ation holds for Hungarian, where the property of a direct sentential 
complement triggering definite verb agreement might be either a lex- 
ical or structural property. 
SFor a full discussion of the issues involved in adding disjunction 
to complex-fealm'e based formalisms, see Karttamen (1984), Kasper 
and Rounds (1986), Kasper (1987), and Iohnson (1989). 
Case: 
1. z, y are variable-free 
and non-disjunctive: 
a. z=y 
b. otherwise: 
2. ~, y contain variables 
but are non-disjunctive: 
a. 3MGU(z, y) 
b. otherwise: 
3. ;~, y are both disjunctions: 
a. zny40 
b. otherwise: 
z is a disjunction: 
a. y is a term in 
b. otherwise: 
y is a disjunction: 
NIL NIL 
Fail Fail 
MGU(a~, y) NIL 
Fail Fail 
(z,-- z Ny, 
y *-- zfly) 
Fail 
4. 
Fail 
5. 
NIL 
Fail 
(z *--- y) NIL 
Fail 
a. z is a term in y (y ,-- z) NIL 
b. otherwise: Fail Fail 
where MGU(z, y) is the most general unifier of z, y; 
NIL is the empty substitution expression; 
and (a ,--- t) indicates a substitution expression in 
which fl substitutes for a. 9 
In examples (4) and (5) in German, and (16)-- 
(19) in Hungarian, clause 1 applies. Since the terms 
involved in the agreements in all these examples are 
variable-fi'ee, the results are identical under the unifi- 
cation and non-distincmess analyses. In the German 
examples (6) and (7), which involve was, clauses 4 and 
5 are the relevant ones, and it is here that the difference 
between the unification approach to agreement and the 
non-distinctness approach is apparent. Under the unifi- 
cation approach, once the disjunctive Case feature value 
associated with was unifies with a fully specified Case 
feature, a substitution list is produced that replaces the 
disjunction with one of its values: 
(39) (:or (nom) (arc)) U (nom) 
((:or (nom) (arc)),--(nom)) 
On the other hand, the non-distincmess check returns a 
null subsitution, so that the disjunction remains, allow- 
ing the Case feature of was to agree with distinct values 
of Case on different applications of non-distinctness. 
(40) a. (:or (nom) (acc)) ~ (nom)) =~ NIL 
b. (:or (nom) (acc)) ~ (arc)) => NIL 
9Note that this is an extension of the standard conception of sub- 
stitution" in systems without disjunction, in which a term substitutes 
for a variable, but not for a variable-free term. However, the addition 
of disjunction requires such an extension. 
200 
A similar analysis holds for examples (20) and (21) 
in Hungarian; in these cases, it is clause 2 which is 
relevant. 
The treatment of the conjoined verb phrase facts in 
Section 2.3 is analogous to that of the cases already dis- 
cussed. However, one point is worth discussing here. 
It has not yet been made clear how it is that the object 
of the conjoined verb phrase is able to agree separately 
with each verb in the conjunct. While it might be pos- 
sible to handle this mechanically by postulating some 
special percolation rule that combines the features of 
the conjuncts together into some underspecified or dis- 
junctive form, there is a much more straightforward 
solution, namely, to postulate that the examples in Sec- 
tion 2.3 are generated by ellipsis. Certainly, given the 
strong lexical thrust of recent grammatical frameworks, 
in which syntactic structures, such as verbal comple- 
ment structures, are projected from lexical representa- 
tions, it is hard to see how such examples could not be 
analyzed as cases of ellipsis, at least in conligurational 
languages. Thus, example (28) would be analyzed as 
in (42) rather than (41). 
(41) nous a \[vP \[vp frappe\] et 
\[vP donn~ des coups de pied\]\] 
(42) \[vP \[vP nous a frapp4\] et 
\[vF, \[xP e\] \[v e\] donn4 des coups de pied\]\] 
In non-configurational languages, since comple- 
ments may not be localized in any fixed position, some 
other mechanism for associating a head with its com- 
plements is needed, independent of these neutralization 
facts. In an active-objects approach to syntax, such as 
that outlined in Ingria and Pustejovsky (1990), message- 
passing would be the logical way of associating a head 
with its complements and would extend to the conjunc- 
tion cases, as well. In any event, whatever mechanism 
is operative in the non-conjunctive case should also ap- 
ply to the conjoined case. 
3.2 Related Work 
This paper is not the first to consider the problem that 
neutralization facts pose for theories of agreement. In 
particular, Zaenen and Karttunen (1984) and Pullum 
and Zwicky (1986) consider data of the type presented 
in Sections 2.3 and 2.4. However, the analysis of agree- 
ment proposed here seems more general in a number of 
ways. 1° 
loin all fairness, Zaenen and Karttunen and Pullum and Zwicky 
also consider aspects of conjunction and agreement that fall outside 
the scope of the present paper. 
While the earlier analyses only considered neutral- 
ization in the context of conjoined structures, as in Sec- 
tions 2.3 and 2.4, this paper has examined the problem 
in general. In particular, the solutions proposed by Za- 
enen and KartOmen and Pullum and Zwicky crucially 
depend on the neutralized item standing in an agreement 
relation with a conjunction and, hence, cannot extend to 
cases of neutralization that do not involve conjunction. 
While Zaenen and Karttunen and Pullum and 
Zwicky agree with the present analysis in associating 
the neutralized constisment with each conjunct of the 
conjunction directly, rather than through the conjunc- 
tion as a whole, both of their analyses require this asso- 
ciation to be stated as a separate principle. If the brief 
sketch presented at the end of the preceding section is 
correct, no such stipulation is necessary. Rather, the 
behavior of neutralization with respect to conjunction 
follows from the interaction of the general agreement 
procedure with the way in which heads are associated 
with their complements. 
Zaenen and Karttunen leave the bulk of the ques- 
tion of what features can be neutralized as a research 
topic. Pullum and Zwicky, on the other hand, limit 
neutralization to those features imposed by agreement. 
This is essentially the position argued for here, although 
there are subtle differences between the two proposals 
and some problematic data (which we will return to in 
Section 4). However, this proposal does seem to be 
fundamentally correct, and, combined with the view of 
agreement as non-distinctness, yields a more empiri- 
cany valid theory of agreement than one which equates 
unification with agreement or which limits the effects 
of neuWalization to conjoined structures. 
Moreover, this view of agreement should contribute 
to the portability of natural language systems across 
languages. While it might be possible to reconcile the 
type of agreement behavior discussed here with a for- 
realism in which unification is used for agreement by 
the use of arrays of feature values or some even more 
byzantine mechanism, such an approach would increase 
the fragility of any system embodying it. In a theory 
such as the one here, it should be possible to distin- 
guish cases of ambiguity firom cases of neutralization 
straightforwardly and to assign the appropriate repre- 
sentation accordingly. In a system that tried to maintain 
the use of unification for agreement by means of elab- 
orated representations, the designer of a grammar for a 
new language would be faced with the problem of either 
using the elaborated representation for all cases of mor- 
phological underspecification, and, perhaps, blowing up 
the size and complexity of the grammar, or reserving 
201 
the elaborated representation for just those forms which 
enter into an agreement relation. This would require a 
thorough study of all the morphological forms of the 
language and the constructions they enter into before 
feature structures could be designed and might entail 
large scale changes later if previously unnoticed cases 
of neutralization were discovered. 
3.3 The Place of Unification in Grammar 
The proposal that agreement is not effected by unifica- 
tion does not, however, mean that unification plays no 
role in grammar. On the contrary: in most complex- 
feature based systems, semantic features axe also full- 
fledged parts of syntactic representations and unifica- 
tion is used to build up more complex terms out of 
simpler or less specified terms and to build up formu- 
las out of terms, n There is no argument at all in the 
data presented here that unification does not continue 
to play this role. In fact, there is a certain histori- 
cal niceness in the picture of grammar that has been 
developed here: variable matching (non-distinctness) is 
used to effect agreement, and variable substitution (uni- 
fication) is used to build up semantic representations. 
The reason why this view is historically satisfying is 
that it corresponds to views of agreement and seman- 
tic interpretation that were independently developed in 
theoretical and computational linguistics. In the ear- 
liest forms of generative grammar, it was recognized 
that certain constructions, such as the various types of 
ellipsis, depended on a notion of identity. Over the 
years, this notion of identity was refined into one of 
non-distinctness. Two linguistic representations agree 
if they are non-distinct from one another;, they do not 
need to be identical (see Chomsky (1965, p. 181)). 
The view of agreement presented here accords with this 
well-established view. The use of unification for build- 
ing up semantic representations, in turn, is based on 
Robinson's (1965) work on resolution theorem proving. 
Thus, using unification to build up semantic represen- 
tat'ions, but not for agreement, returns it to something 
close to its original use. 
There are two other places where unification may 
play a role in grammar, although other mechanisms are 
also possibile in these cases. The first is feature per- 
colation and the second is the use of empty categories, 
such as traces. Whereas agreement has been used here 
to mean matching of features between sister nodes, typi- 
11S¢e Percira and Warren (1980), Shieber (1986), and Pereira and 
Shieber (1987) for more detailed discussion of semantic interpretation 
in complex-feature based grammars. 
cally of distinct categories, feature-percolation involves 
the matching of features between one constituent and 
a constituent which it dominates, where the dominat- 
ing constituent is a projection of the dominated, in the 
sense of the X-Bar theory of phrase structure (Chore- 
sky (1970), lackendoff (1977)). For example, a noun 
phrase has the same person and number features as its 
head noun, a verb phrase, the tense and mood of its 
head verb, etc. Unification has typically been used to 
effect feature-percolation and nothing in the data pre- 
sented here suggests that it is wrong to use unification 
for this purpose. And while the proposal that agreement 
and feature-percolation are handled by different mecha- 
nisms is not usual in complex-feature based grammars, 
it is also not unprecedented. Ross's (1981) Local Gram- 
mar formalism is a complex-feature based grammar in 
which feature percolation and agreement are distinct. 
Finally, unification has been used to "pass" fea- 
tures between a "dislocated" element and its trace. Here 
again, unification remains a viable mechanism. How- 
ever, there are alternatives mechanisms for both these 
functions, such as inheritance and delegation, whose 
use should probably be investigated. 
4 Future Research 
There are a number of theoretical and practical issues 
that the analysis presented here raises. Their discussion 
will conclude this paper. 
First of all, there is the question of how the non- 
distinctness test for agreement can be incorporated into 
a system in which unification is used for semantic in- 
terpretation and other purposes. Since non-distinctness 
returns a subset of the values returned by unifica- 
tion, interaction between non-distinctness and unifica- 
tion should be straightforward. However, a system us- 
ing both these mechanisms would also need to contain 
some method for specifying which features of which 
constituems are subject to unification and which are 
subject to non-distinctness. This suggests the neces- 
sity of some sort of type declaration system, in which 
features are declared as semantically relevant or not 
for a particular category. The BBN ACFG formalism 
(Boisen 1989a,b), a form of Definite Clause Grammar, 
already includes a type declaration system, which has 
proven very useful for maintaining the consistency of 
large grammars. It should be possible to extend this 
kind of type system to the degree of delicacy required 
by a system incorporating both unification and non- 
distinctness. 
202 
A more problematic issue is the exact specification 
of the features which can be neutralized and those which 
can be ambiguous, and their contexts. In Section 3.1, it 
was suggested that semantically relevant features enter 
into ambiguity relations, while all others produce neu- 
tralization. However, the notion of semantic relevance 
may need to be refined. Zaenen and Kartunnen (1984) 
produce examples such as the following: 
(43) der Antrag des oder der Dozenten 
the petition the or the docent(s) 
SG PL GEN-SG/GEN-PL 
'the petition of the docent or docents' 
(44) *Ich have den Dozenten gesehen und geholfen. 
I have the docent(s) seen and helped 
A-SG/D-PL ACC DAT 
'! have seen the docent and helped the docents.' 
Example (44), which by the account presented here 
would involve the attempted neutralization of number, 
a semantically relevant feature, is ungrammatical, just 
as is predicted. However, (43), which also seems to 
involve the attempted neutralization of number, is un- 
expectedly grammatical. Zaenen and Karttunen also 
present an example from Finnish parallel to (43): 
(45) He luldvat hanen uusimman _ ja 
They read his newest and 
GEN-SG 
me hanen parhaat _ kirjansa. 
we his best book(s) 
NOM-PL GEN-SG/NOM-PL 
'They read his newest book and we his best books.' 
Here again, number, a semantically relevant feature, 
appears to be neutralized. Although Zaenen and Kart- 
tunen's treaUnent of neutralization is different from that 
suggested here is several respects, they suggest a cru- 
cial difference between (43) and (45) on the one hand 
and (44) on the other that may carry over. In (44), the 
constitutent level at which neutralization is attempted is 
that of the phrase (N-P), whereas in (43) and (45) it is at 
the level of the pre-tenninal (N). Zaenen and Karttunen 
(1984, p. 317) suggest that the neutralization is possible 
at the one level but not the other because "reference is 
assigned to noun phrases, not to common nouns." Or, 
in the terms we have been using here, number is se- 
mantically relevant for noun phrases, but not nouns. 12 
Clearly, more research needs to be done to determine 
12In our work on the BBN ACl~ system (Boisen 1989e, b), we 
have also found that features such as number, degree, and tense seem 
to have their semantic effect at the phrasal level, rather than that of 
if the proposed distinction is valid or not. Moreover, if 
it is valid, the theory of feature percolation needs to be 
modified to allow number to be neutralized at the level 
of N, but to produce ambiguity at the level of NP. 
Finally, one issue that has not yet been mentioned 
is that of speaker preferences. While the discussion 
in Section 2 treated constructions involving the neu- 
tralized forms as perfectly grammatical, variation in 
speaker judgement has been reported. Thus, Zaenen and 
Karttunen (1984) comment that some Icelandic speak- 
ers reject (30b) as well as (30a). Pullum and Zwicky 
(1986) present similar sorts of judgements for other con- 
sU'uctions. Moreover, there axe also judgements in the 
opposite direction. For example, Modern Greek, unlike 
German, does not require that the relative pronoun in a 
free relative clause have a Case compatible with both its 
source and superficial positions; see, for example Mack- 
ridge (1985, pp. 259ff) for discussion. This means 
that the Modem Greek equivalents of (4b) and (5b) are 
grammatical. Nevertheless, some speakers 13, while ac= 
cepting such sentences as grammatical, report that sen= 
tences containing a free relative pronoun which neu- 
tralizes the abstract Case conflict are somewhat more 
acceptable. These facts set us a broader research goal: 
that of proposing a theory of agreement which does not 
produce simple binary grammaticality statements but 
one which is capable of estimating degrees of relative 
grammaticality. Since the necessity of such a finer- 
grained theory of grammaticality is becoming more and 
more obvious in computational linguistics as a whole, 
it is no surprise to find it appearing in the study of 
agreement, as well. 
5 Acknowledgments 
The work reported here was supported by the Advanced 
Research Projects Agency and was monitored by the 
Office of Naval Research under Contract No. N00014- 
89-C-0008. The views and conclusions contained in 
this document are those of the authors and should not be 
interpreted as necessarily representing the official poli- 
cies, either expressed or implied, of the Defense Ad- 
vanced Research Projects Agency or the United States 
Government. I would like to thank Leland George, 
Sabine Iatridou, James Pustejovsky, Lance Ramshaw, 
Philip Resnik, David Stallard, and Annie Zaenen for 
useful comments and assistance. 
the lexical head. Moreover, this distinction between the behavior of 
number on N and NP is reminiscent of Chomsky's (1965, pp. 171fO 
claim that number is not an inherent feature of nouns. 
13Sabine Iatridou. personal communication. 
203 
6 References 
1. Boisen, S., Y. Chow, A. Haas, R. Ingria, S. 
Roucos, R. Scha, D. Stallard and M. Vilain (1989a) 
Integration of Speech and Natural Language: Fi- 
nal Report, Report No. 6991, BBN Systems 
and Technologies Corporation, Cambridge, Mas- 
sachusetts. 
2. Boisen, Sean, Yen-Lu Chow, Andrew Haas, Robert 
Ingria, Salim Roukos, and David Stallard (1989b) 
"The BBN Spoken Language System" In Proceed- 
ings of the Speech and Natural Language Work- 
shop February 1989, Morgan Kaufmann Publish- 
ers, Inc., San Mateo, California, pp. 106-111. 
3. Chomsky, Noam (1965) Aspects of the Theory of 
Syntax, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute 
of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 
4. Chomsky, Noam (1970) "Remarks on Nominaliza- 
tion", in R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum, eds., 
Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 
Ginn and Co., Waltham, Mass, pp. 184-221. 
5. Eisenberg, Peter (1973) "A Note on 'Identity of 
Constituents' ", Linguistic Inquiry 4, pp. 417-420. 
6. Groos, Anneke and Henk van Riemsdijk (1981) 
"Matching Effects in Free Relatives: A Parame- 
ter of Core Grammar", in A. Belletti, L. Brand.i, 
and L. Rizzi, eds., Theory of Markedness in Gen- 
erative Grammar, Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW 
Conference, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, pp. 
171-216. 
7. Ingria, Robert J. P. and James Pustejovsky (1990) 
"Active Objects in Syntax, Semantics, and Pars- 
ing", in Carol Tenny, ed, Papers from the Parsing 
Seminar, MIT Center for Cognitive Science. 
8. Jackendoff, Ray S. (1977) X Syntax: A Study of 
Phrase Structure, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 
No. 2, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 
9. Johnson, Mark E. (1989) Attribute-Value Logic and 
the Theory of Grammar, Center for the Study of 
Language and Information. 
10. Karttunen, Laud (1984) "Features and Values", in 
Proceedings of Coling84, Association for Compu- 
tational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, pp. 28-33. 
11. Kasper, Robert T. (1987) "A Unification Method 
for Disjunctive Feature Descriptions", in 25th An- 
nual Meeting of the Association for Computational 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 
Linguistics: Proceedings of the Conference, Asso- 
ciation for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, 
NJ, pp. 235-242. 
Kasper, Robert T. and William C. Rounds (1986) 
"A Logical Semantics for Feature Structures", in 
24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- 
putational Linguistics: Proceedings of the Confer- 
ence, Association for Computational Linguistics, 
Morristown, NJ, pp. 257-266. 
Kayne, Richard S. (1975) French Syntax: The 
Transformational Cycle, The MIT Press, Cam- 
bridge, Massachusetts, and London, England. 
Mackridge, Peter (1985) The Modern Greek Lan- 
guage, Oxford University Press. 
Pereira, Femando C. N. and Stuart M. Shieber 
(1987) Prolog and Natural-Language Analysis, 
Center for the Study of Language and Information. 
Pereira, Femando C. N. and David H. D. War- 
ten (1980) "Definite Clause Grammars for Lan- 
guage Analysis--A Survey of the Formalism and 
a Comparison with Augmented Transition Net- 
works", Artificial Intelligence 13, pp. 231-278. 
Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Arnold M. Zwicky 
(1986) "Phonological Resolution of Syntactic Fea- 
ture Conitict", Language 62, pp. 751-773. 
Robinson, J. A. (1965) "A Machine-oriented Logic 
Based on the Resolution Principle", Communica- 
tions oftheACM 12, pp. 23 ~4. 
Ross, Kenneth M. (1981) Parsing English Phrase 
Structure, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Mas- 
sachusetts at Amherst. 
Shieber, Stuart M. (1986) An Introduction to 
Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar, Cen- 
ter for the Study of Language and Information. 
Szamosi, Michael (1976) "On a Surface Structure 
Constraint in Hungarian", in/ames D. McCawley, 
ed, Syntax and Semantics Volume 7: Notes from 
the Linguistic Underground, Academic Press, New 
York, pp. 409--425. 
Zaenen, Annie and Laud Karttunen (1984) "Mor- 
phological Non-Distinctness and Coordination", in 
ESCOL 84, pp. 309-320. 
204 
