Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Gast, Volker


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.644
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.878

CiteScore 2017: 0.79

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.418
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.386

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 45, Issue 1

Issues

Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology

Sharon Inkelas / Cheryl Zoll
Published Online: 2007-03-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.004

Abstract

This article compares and contrasts cophonology theory and indexed constraint theory, the dominant current proposals to morphologically conditioned phonology. In cophonology theory, morphologically conditioned phonology is captured by associating each morphological construction or lexical class with its own phonological grammar, or cophonology. All constraints within a given cophonology are purely phonological; no constraint directly refers to morphological context. By contrast, indexed constraint theory assumes a single fixed constraint ranking for the entire language, and captures morphologically conditioned phonology by indexing individual constraints to specific morphological contexts. The article raises three arguments in favor of cophonology theory: greater formal parsimony, the ability to handle free variation, and more accurate predictions about the scope of morphologically conditioned phonological effects. It also evaluates and rejects the primary argument for indexed constraint theory, i.e., Grammar Dependence, the claim that indexed constraint theory is more restrictive in the degree of language-internal diversity allowed. Cophonology theory and indexed constraint theory are equivalent in the range of language-internal diversity they allow; it is argued that the upper limit on language-internal diversity should not be a matter for formal grammar, but instead requires extra-grammatical explanation in terms of the factors influencing language change and variation.

About the article

*Correspondence address: Sharon Inkelas, Dept. of Linguistics, University of California at Berkeley, 1203 Dwinelle, Berkeley, CA 94720-2650, USA.


Received: 2003-05-20

Revised: 2005-01-05

Published Online: 2007-03-09

Published in Print: 2007-01-26


Citation Information: Linguistics, Volume 45, Issue 1, Pages 133–171, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.004.

Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[2]
Peter Jurgec and Bronwyn M. Bjorkman
Phonology, 2018, Volume 35, Number 4, Page 577
[5]
David Erschler
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2018, Volume 3, Number 1
[6]
Peter Jurgec
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 2016, Volume 1, Number 1
[7]
Michael Becker and Maria Gouskova
Linguistic Inquiry, 2016, Volume 47, Number 3, Page 391
[8]
Maria Gouskova and Tal Linzen
The Linguistic Review, 2015, Volume 32, Number 3
[9]
Carolyn Harford and Gloria B Malambe
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 2015, Volume 33, Number 3, Page 343
[10]
RYAN BENNETT
Journal of Linguistics, 2017, Volume 53, Number 02, Page 229
[11]
Marc van Oostendorp
Lingua, 2014, Volume 142, Page 76
[12]
Gabriela Caballero and Sharon Inkelas
Morphology, 2013, Volume 23, Number 2, Page 103
[13]
Sara Finley
Lingua, 2010, Volume 120, Number 6, Page 1549
[14]
Maria Gouskova
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2012, Volume 30, Number 1, Page 79
[15]
Aaron Kaplan
Phonology, 2011, Volume 28, Number 03, Page 331
[17]
Gabriela Caballero
Linguistics, 2011, Volume 49, Number 4
[18]
Peter Jenks and Sharon Rose
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2011, Volume 29, Number 1, Page 211
[19]
Sharon Inkelas
Linguistics, 2008, Volume 46, Number 2
[20]
Peter Jurgec
Linguistic Inquiry, 2010, Volume 41, Number 1, Page 149
[21]
Kie Zuraw
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2010, Volume 28, Number 2, Page 417
[22]
Yuni Kim
Morphology, 2010, Volume 20, Number 1, Page 133

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in