The Morphology-Phonology Connection

Inkelas, Sharon

doi:10.3765/bls.v34i1.3564

Cited by 39 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, CBP adopts the view that phonological interpretation takes place at syntactic phase boundaries. This differs from traditional Cophonology Theory, which assumed one phonological cycle per affix (Inkelas 2008). In this way, one advantage of CBP over traditional Cophonology Theory is that, due to its coupling with Distributed Morphology, it is able to model both word-internal and cross-word morpheme-specific effects (cf.…”

Section: (4)mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…One benefit of Cophonology Theory is its ability to unify process morphology, where a phonological process is the sole exponent of a morphosyntactic feature, and morphologically-conditioned phonology, where phonological processes accompany affixation. The motivation for unifying these two phenomena is the fact that the phonological processes that they invoke are identical, as summarized in the following generalization (Inkelas 2008(Inkelas , 2014).…”

Section: Cophonologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Formally, this has been built into various frameworks in different ways. Referring to Cophonology Theory couched within Sign-based Morphology and Phonology (Orgun 1996), Inkelas (2008 says, "The way two cophonologies in the same word interact depends intrinsically on the hierarchical structure of the word. The outer construction has the last say."…”

Section: (57)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cophonologies by Ph(r)ase

Sande

Jenks

Inkelas

2020

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phonological alternations are often specific to morphosyntactic context. For example, stress shift in English occurs in the presence of some suffixes, -al, but not others, -ing: "pa.rent, pa."ren.tal, "pa.ren.ting. In some cases a phonological process applies only in words of certain lexical categories. Previous theories have stipulated that such morphosyntactically conditioned phonology is word-bounded. In this paper we present a number of long-distance morphologically conditioned phonological effects, cases where phonological processes within one word are conditioned by another word or the presence of a morpheme in another word. We provide a model, Cophonologies by Phase, which extends Cophonology Theory, intended to capture word-internal and lexically specified phonological alternations, to cyclically generated syntactic constituents. We show that Cophonologies by Phase makes better predictions about the long-distance morphologically conditioned phonological effects we find across languages than previous frameworks. Furthermore, Cophonologies by Phase derives such effects without requiring the phonological component to directly reference syntactic features or structure.

show abstract

Section: (4)mentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Cophonologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cophonologies by Ph(r)ase

Sande

Jenks

Inkelas

2020

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 For the purposes of this paper, I will set aside many of the phonological complexities of Hebrew and the associated representational concerns. Among others, Bybee (1985Bybee ( , 2001); Orgun (1996);Inkelas (2008) provide insight that would no doubt be useful in developing an ECG approach to (morpho)phonology.…”

Section: Construction Grammar Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computational Cognitive Morphosemantics: Modeling Morphological Compositionality in Hebrew Verbs with Embodied Construction Grammar

Schneider¹

2010

BLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt:This paper brings together the theoretical framework of construction grammar and studies of verbs in Modern Hebrew to furnish an analysis integrating the form and meaning components of morphological structure. In doing so, this work employs and extends Embodied Construction Grammar (ECG; Bergen and Chang 2005), a computational formalism developed to study grammar from a cognitive linguistic perspective. In developing a formal analysis of Hebrew verbs (section 3), I adapt ECG—until now a lexical/syntactic/semantic formalism—to account for the compositionality of morphological constructions, accommodating idiosyncrasy while encoding generalizations at multiple levels. Similar to syntactic constructions, morpheme constructions are related in an inheritance network, and can be productively composed to form words. With the expanded version of ECG, constructions can readily encode nonconcatenative root-and-pattern morphology and associated (compositional or noncompositional) semantics, cleanly integrated with syntactic constructions. This formal, cognitive study should pave the way for computational models of morphological learning and processing in Hebrew and other languages.

show abstract

“…CBP accounts for a range of phenomena previously discussed in separate literatures and referred to by separate terms: morphologically conditioned phonology or process morphology (Inkelas 2008), sublexical phonology (Gouskova & Becker 2013, Becker & Gouskova 2016, lexically specific phonology (Itô & Mester 1995, Alderete 2001, Smith 2001, Pater 2010, Coetzee & Pater 2011, patterned exceptions (Zuraw 2000, Boersma 2001, Kager 2009, prosodically sensitive phonology (Nespor & Vogel 1986, Selkirk 1986, Elfner 2012, and syntactic-domain-conditioned phonology (Chomsky 2001, Richards 2016. Within CBP, these are modeled uniformly, as morpheme-specific constraint weights that scope over syntactic phases.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A unified account of conditioned phonological alternations: Evidence from Guébie

Sande¹

2019

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article expands on cophonologies by phase, a model of the interface between morphology and phonology, which was introduced in Sande & Jenks 2018. The crucial innovation of cophonologies by phase is the enhancement of lexical or vocabulary items to include morpheme-specific constraint weights. These weights modify the default phonological grammar of the language only in the domain of evaluation that contains the triggering morpheme, where domains are determined by syntactic phase boundaries. The interactions of the default grammar and morpheme-specific constraint weights function as cophonologies (Orgun 1996, Anttila 2002, Inkelas & Zoll 2005, 2007) in that they result in morphosyntactic construction-specific phonological grammars. Here, cophonologies by phase is shown to provide a unified account of syntactically, morphologically, and lexically conditioned phonological alternations, phenomena that have been analyzed using distinct theoretical tools in previous work. In order to demonstrate the application of cophonologies by phase to a diverse set of interface interactions, this article considers three case studies of phonological alternations in Guébie (ISO: gie), an endangered Kru language, each conditioned by a different set of extraphonological factors.*

show abstract

The Morphology-Phonology Connection

Cited by 39 publications

References 35 publications

Cophonologies by Ph(r)ase

Cophonologies by Ph(r)ase

Computational Cognitive Morphosemantics: Modeling Morphological Compositionality in Hebrew Verbs with Embodied Construction Grammar

A unified account of conditioned phonological alternations: Evidence from Guébie

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About