Sank's Glossary of Linguistics 
 Cop-Coq

COPHONOLOGIES BY PHASE

  1. (Phonology) We outline a model of the syntax-phonology interface we call Cophonologies By Phase (CBP) which combines Cophonology Theory (Orgun 1996, Inkelas et al. 1997, Anttila 2002, 2009 Inkelas and Zoll 2005, 2007) with Phase Theory, the contemporary version of the syntactic cycle (Chomsky 2001, 2004, 2008, Abels 2012, Bošković 2014). In CBP, morpheme-specific cophonologies scope over morphological constituents, namely syntactic phases. This model allows morphologically conditioned phonological processes that affect sub-word and crossword domains to be modeled within a single system, while deriving the phonological domains of these processes from their syntax (cf. Newell and Piggott 2014).
     One central innovation in this model is an enriched conception of the content of lexical items, or vocabulary items, to adopt the terminology of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1994). We propose that vocabulary items consist of a mapping between morphosyntactic features and a phonological feature matrix with three components:

    1.  Lexically represented (supra)segmental features.
    2.  A prosodic subcategorization frame or template.
    3.  A subranking or subweighting of constraints.
     Each of these components may be contentful or empty. | Hannah Sande, Peter Jenks, and Sharon Inkelas, 2020
  2. (Example)
     ○ To account for the Aʼingae data, I adopt Cophonologies by Phase (Sande et al. 2020), which (i) models phonological stratification while (ii) allowing for morpheme-specific phonological idiosyncrasies, which (iii) interact with the phonological grammar of their stratum. | Maksymilian Dąbkowski, 2023
     ○ Here I contrast previous approaches with Cophonologies By Phase (CBP) Theory (Sande and Jenks 2018, Sande 2019, Sande et al. 2020), which associates morpheme-specific constraint-weight adjustments with vocabulary items, and assumes that morphology and phonology apply cyclically at syntactic phase boundaries. Cophonologies by Phase is restrictive, making specific predictions about the possible scope of morpheme-specific phonological alternations. In particular, phonological alternations triggered by a morpheme will not affect material introduced in hierarchically higher syntactic phases. | Hannah Sande, 2020

COPHONOLOGY

  1. (Phonology; Optimality Theory) Or, subgrammar, or, disjoint phonology. A phonological grammar, i.e. an input-output mapping, which coexists with other phonological grammars in a single language. In rule-based theories, a phonological grammar consists of a set of (potentially ordered) rules. In Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993), where constraints are claimed to be universal, a phonological grammar is a ranked set of constraints:

    1.  Cophonology: an ordered set of rules, (ranked) set of constraints, etc.

     | Sharon Inkelas, C. Orhan Orgun, and Cheryl Zoll, 2000
  2. (Phonology; Optimality Theory) The cophonology approach captures language-internal diversity by associating morphological constructions or lexical classes with different phonological grammars, i.e., constraint rankings. All constraints within a given cophonology are fully general (e.g., MAX-C[onsonant], the ban on consonant deletion, or *[ʔ], the ban on glottal stop); morphological differentiation of phonological patterns results from different ranking of the constraints across cophonologies. Proponents include Orgun (1996, 1998, 1999), Anttila (1997, 2000), Inkelas (1998), Orgun and Inkelas (2002), Inkelas and Zoll (2005), among others. The cophonology approach builds on, but departs in certain key ways from, the theory of level ordering (e.g., Kiparsky 1982, Mohanan 1986), recast within Optimality Theory by Kiparsky (2000) under the name of Stratal OT. | Sharon Inkelas and Cheryl Zoll, 2007
  3. (Examples)
     ○ Although Van der Spuy (2020) has expressed Latin cophonologies in terms of rules, the concept of Cophonologies has been mainly related to OT, in terms of variation of the constraint hierarchy within a single language. This internal variation gives rise to what are called cophonologies or phonological grammars. If a subset of the Latin theme vowels (TVs) behaves differently with respect to the general phonological patterns of the language, one may justify these differences in terms of cophonologies. Just to give an example, conjugations I and III both exhibit the deletion of the TV in the first-person singular of the present tense. If such deletion process is not attributed to some shared property between the underlying TV in conjugations, specific cophonologies for them can be formulated. Given a general constraint ranking for the language (Master Ranking), cophonologies partially manipulate it by reordering the relevant constraints. | Federico Piersigilli, 2024
     ○ Cophonology (Anttila 2002, Zoll and Inkelas 2005), prespecification (Inkelas 1995, Inkelas et al. 1997), and lexical indexation (Pater 2006) represent three major proposals for handling exceptions in OT. This study examines regular and exceptional facts of vowel harmony in Sino-Japanese (C1)V1C2V2 stems. C2 is either /t/ (t-stem) or /k/ (k-stem), and vowel harmony is normally observed only in k-stems. On the other hand, exceptional data exhibit vowel harmony only in t-stems. This paper argues that cophonology is the most efficient among the three approaches in explaining both regular and exceptional examples. | Kazutaka Kurisu, 2011

COPHONOLOGY THEORY

  1. (Phonology) Is motivated by the non-uniformity of the phonological grammar of single languages. In this theory, every language contains multiple phonological sub-grammars which apply in different morphosyntactic environments. To date, cophonologies have been indexed to part of speech (Anttila 2002, Smith 2011) and to specific morphological constructions (Orgun 1996, Inkelas 1998, Inkelas and Zoll 2005, 2007).
     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, 2014).
    Inkelas's Generalization
    Morphologically conditioned phonology and process morphology make reference to the same phonological operations in terms of Substance, Scope, and Layering.
     Inkelas's Generalization highlights the point that the presence or absence of a morphologically conditioned phonological process does not rely on whether an affix is overt or null. | Hannah Sande, Peter Jenks, and Sharon Inkelas, 2020
  2. (Example)
     ○ In co-phonology theory,


     | Laura J. Downing, 2008

COPULA

  1. (Grammar) An intransitivity verb which links a subject to a noun phrase, adjective, or other constituent which expresses the predicate.

    1. The book is on the table.
    2. The weather seems good.

     (Crystal 1980, Hartmann and Stork 1972, Schachter 1985, Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik 1985, Mish 1991) | SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms, 2003
  2. (Grammar) As is the case with many concepts borrowed from traditional linguistics, copulas turn out to be an extremely challenging notion to define, and most works that involve an analysis of be and its cross-linguistic equivalents simply take the notion for granted. (1) gives a prototypical example of a bona fide copula:

    1. John is sick.

     This English example displays the properties that are prototypically associated with copulas:

    1. Copulas carry verbal inflection.
    2. Copulas appear in contexts where the predicate is nonverbal.
    3. Copulas are elements used to link the predicate and the subject—as the term itself suggests—from Latin copula 'link'.
    4. Copulas are semantically light, possibly empty.

     | Antonio Fábregas, María J. Arche, and Rafael Marín, 2019

COPULAR VERB
(Grammar) A verb which links a subject to an adjective. For example, in English: She looks happy; That sounds interesting; This smells great.
 Common English copular verbs are be (specifically copular be), seem, appear, become and get, and sense-related verbs of perception such as look, sound, smell, feel and taste. | Teflpedia, ?

COPY EPENTHESIS
(Phonology) Describes a class of patterns in which the quality of an epenthetic vowel depends on the quality of one of its vocalic neighbors. For example: in a language where underlying /pri/ is realized as [piri] but /pra/ as [para] (not *[pira]), the vowel that appears in the unexpected position (the copy) is featurally identical to the vowel that appears in the expected position (its host).
 How the dependence between a copy vowel and its host should be formalized is a matter of debate:

 | Juliet Stanton and Sam Zukoff, 2017

COPY RAISING

  1. (Syntax) A kind of raising construction in which the raised element leaves a coreferential copy pronoun in the subordinate clause. Alternatively, the copy may appear in the matrix clause (as evidenced by verb agreement, for example) with the copied nominal remaining in the complement; see the Blackfoot example below.

    1. English
      Richard seems as if he won.
      (Compare with ordinary raising: Richard seems to have won.)
    2. Modern Greek
      I
      the
      kopéles
      girls
      fén-onde
      seem-3PL
      na
      that
      févgh-un.
      leave-3PL
      'The girls seem to be leaving.'
    3. Blackfoot
      Nitsíksstatawa
      1-want-3S
      kááhkanistahsi
      2-might-tell-3S
      nohkówa.
      1-son-3S
      'I want you to tell my son.'
      (Compare without the raising:)
      Nitsíksstaa
      1-want
      kááhkanistahsi
      2-might-tell-3S
      nohkówa.
      1-son-3S
     (Fritz 1978, 1979, 1980) | Glottopedia, 2007
  2. (Syntax) A phenomenon in which a raising verb takes a nonexpletive subject and a complement containing an obligatory pronominal copy of the subject:

    1. a. Thora seems like she adores popsicles.
      b. * Thora seems like Isak adores popsicles.

     English copy raising was initially noticed by Postal (1978) and was also touched on by Rogers (1971, 1974) in work that principally concerned what he called flip perception verbs (Rogers 1971, 1972, 1974, 1974). The topic has recently received renewed attention in work by Potsdam and Runner (2001) and Asudeh (2002, 2004). The first detailed investigation of copy raising was Joseph's (1976) work on Modern Greek, which was subsequently brought to wider attention by Perlmutter and Soames (1979). Copy raising is in fact not typologically uncommon and has been attested in a number of unrelated languages, including Samoan (Chung 1978), Hebrew (Lappin 1984), Irish (McCloskey and Sells 1988), Haitian Creole (Déprez 1992), Igbo (Ura 1998), and Turkish (Moore 1998). | Ash Asudeh and Ida Toivonen, 1998

COPY THEORY OF MOVEMENT

  1. (Syntax) Chomsky (1993) incorporates the copy theory of movement into the Minimalist Program. According to the copy theory, a trace is a copy of the moved element that is deleted in the phonological component (in the case of overt movement), but is available for interpretation at LF. Besides being compatible with the Inclusiveness Condition, the copy theory has the advantage of allowing binding theory to be stated solely in LF terms and dispensing with the operation of reconstruction. Furthermore, if traces are copies, they are not discrete theoretical primitives by themselves; they are either lexical items or phrases built from lexical items. By making it possible to promote this overall simplification of the theoretical apparatus in GB, the copy theory has thus become a solid pillar of the Minimalist Program. | Jairo Nunes, 1995
  2. (Syntax) Chomsky (1993) revives the copy theory of movement, according to which a moved element leaves behind a copy of itself, rather than a trace. The conceptual underpinning for the revival of the copy theory is provided by the Inclusiveness Condition (see Chomsky 1995), a conceptually appealing condition that confines the power of syntax to (re-)arrangements of lexical items, banning syntax from creating new objects. Traces are prime examples of creationism in syntax and, as such, violate the Inclusiveness Condition. Chomsky (1993) demonstrates that in addition to conforming to the Inclusiveness Condition, the copy theory considerably simplifies the analysis of reconstruction phenomena. Furthermore, by making it possible to treat reconstruction as an LF phenomenon, the copy theory contributes to the research attempt to eliminate noninterface levels of representation. Another attractive feature of the copy theory is that, by eliminating traces, it reduces the number of theoretical primitives in our inventory. If traces are copies, they are either lexical items or complex objects built from lexical items; they are not new primitives. Replacement of traces by copies thus leads to an overall simplification of the grammar and this by itself explains why the copy theory became one of the pillars of the minimalist framework. | Željko Bošković and Jairo Nunes, 2008

COPYING
(Syntax) A basic syntactic operation within the framework of Transformational Grammar which adds a duplicate of a constituent in a phrase-marker to some other part of the phrase-marker. E.g., to make a rule deriving tag questions from such sentences as He is a doctor, the verb is taken and copied to the right of the sentence (changing its status from positive to negative); the tag-subject is a pronominal copy of the main subject, placed to the right of this verb. This would be one way of generating the sentence He is a doctor, isn't he? The verb is copied only if it is auxiliary or copula, and replaced by a form of do otherwise (e.g. John knows the answers, doesn't he). | David Crystal, 2008

 

Page Created By Split August 17, 2025

 
 B a c k   T o   I n d e x