Sank's Glossary of Linguistics 
 Cor-Cot

CORE TRANSITIVE VERB
(Grammar) The transitive verbs of a language are, loosely speaking, those verbs that display the unmarked expression of arguments for two-argument verbs. Their arguments are said to bear the core grammatical relations subject and object.
 Many discussions of transitivity recognize a core—and perhaps for that reason privileged—subset of transitive verbs. These verbs have a clear semantic characterization, fitting the "agent acts on and causes an effect on patient" mold that is behind the name transitive. Members of this set in English include cut, destroy, kill, and transitive break and open. I call these verbs, which are defined by a conjunction of syntactic and semantic properties, core transitive verbs (CTVs); these are roughly equivalent to what Andrews (1985) calls primary transitive verbs. Given this definition, CTVs are verbs that qualify as "highly" transitive in Hopper and Thompson's 1980 sense, and their arguments clearly meet Dowty's 1991 agent and patient proto-role entailments. | Beth Levin, 1999

CORONAL STOP DELETION

  1. (Phonology) In English this involves a variable phonological process deleting coronal stops from final coda clusters. It operates variably in all varieties of English and is everywhere conditioned by the morphological status of the targeted stop.  | Gregory R. Guy, 1996
  2. (Phonology) In conversational English, word-final coronal stops in consonant clusters are variably omitted, a process known as coronal stop deletion (CSD). As with other variable processes, the probability of any such stop being deleted is sensitive to a range of contextual factors. In the case of CSD, the strongest conditioning factor is the segment that comes after the coronal stop: deletion rates are dramatically lower before vowels than before consonants. This empirical fact, which I refer to as the following segment effect (FSE), has been observed in quantitative CSD studies across many different English varieties, including general American English (Labov et al. 1968, Wolfram 1969, Guy 1980, African American English (Labov et al. 1968, Wolfram 1969, Fasold 1972, Labov 1972), Chicano English (Santa Ana 1991), Appalachian English (Wolfram and Christian 1976, Hazen 2011), British English (Tagliamonte and Temple 2005), Canadian English (Walker 2012), New Zealand English (Holmes and Bell 1994, Guy et al. 2008), Singapore English (Lim and Guy 2005, Gut 2007), Hong Kong English (Hansen Edwards 2016), Nigerian English (Gut 2007), and even the English-lexified Jamaican Creole (Patrick 1991). | Meredith Tamminga, 2018
  3. (Phonology) English Coronal Stop Deletion (CSD)—the phenomenon that words like fact [fækt – fæk] can be pronounced with or without a coronal stop /t, d/—has been studied in many varieties of English such as American English (Purse 2021), Canadian English (Walker 2012), Singapore English (Lim and Guy 2005), and Southern British English (Baranowski and Turton 2020). One line of research on CSD focuses on its sensitivity to morphological contexts, that deletion is more frequent within monomorphemes, such as pact, than across morpheme boundaries, such as packed (Guy 1980, Guy and Boyd 1990). There are three accounts for such sensitivity.

    1. The functional account argues that the past tense morpheme's higher functional load makes it more resistant to deletion (MacKenzie and Tamminga 2021).
    2. Baranowski and Turton (2020) believe that morphological structure serves as a constraining factor on the variable deletion rule.
    3. Guy (1991) argues that differences at the derivational level for different categories account for the varying deletion rates.

     Another line of CSD research is on the question of whether there is categorical or gradient deletion (Scobbie 2007, Purse 2019, 2021). Categorical deletion means that there is always full deletion, and gradient deletion is when there is variation in deletion along a continuum. | Yunting Gu and Ryan Peters, 2024

CORRELATE

  1. (Syntax) 
    Correlate (To Be Revised)
    A head h can be a correlate for a head h′ if h and h′ are tokens of the same lexical item.
     This definition of correlation is that the only valid correlate of a head is a lexically identical head. For the correlate relation to capture the data effectively, however, it should allow the elision of heads to be licensed relative to correlates that are traces or wh elements, and full DPs, including quantified DPs.
    Correlate (Final)
    A node n can be a correlate for a head h iff at least one of the following conditions holds:
    1. n is a head and n and h are tokens of the same lexical item.
    2. n is coindexed with h.
     | Deniz Rudin, 2019
  2. (Syntax) 
    Correlate
    A node n can be a correlate of a head h iff the content of n is either lexically or referentially identical to h.
     Lexical identity is straightforward. Referential identity is defined in terms of coindexation. Consider the following data (comparable cases are discussed in Merchant 2001):
    1. I don't know who1 ti said what2, or why <they1 said it2>E.
    2. I think [a guy I know]1 won a gold medal, but I don't know when <he1 won a gold medal>E.
    3. Someone ate at [five burger restaurants]1, but I don't know who <ate at them1>E.
     Examples (1-3) show that traces, wh elements, pronouns, and full DPs, including quantified DPs, can serve as correlates for each other. | Margaret Kroll and Deniz Rudin, 2017

CORRELATIVE CONJUNCTION

  1. (Grammar) Either of a pair of coordinating conjunctions used in ordered fashion. Typically, one is used immediately before each member of a pair of constituents.

    1. English
      Either you or I.

     | SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms, 2003
  2. (Grammar) Link words that consist of two parts and are used to give emphasis to the combinations of two structures that are balanced (Sahebkeir and Aidinlou 2014). They are regarded as team conjunctions because they are used in pairs. They get their name from the fact that they work together (co-) and relate one sentence element to another. Correlative conjunctions are more similar to coordinating conjunctions in that the sentence fragments they connect are fairly equal. Lester notes that correlative conjunctions are very similar to coordinating conjunctions except that they are two-part conjunctions. They include: either...or, neither...nor, both...and, as many...as, whether...or, not only...but also, such...that, so...that, hardly...when, scarcely...when, no sooner...than, not...but, etc. Sentential examples:

    1. a. I want either eba or amala.
      b. Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
      c. I have both eba and amala.
      d. There are as many curtains as there are windows.
      e. He was not sure whether he was losing or winning.
      f. She was not only mean but also rude.
      g. Such was the nature of their relationship that they never would have made it even if they wanted to.
      h. I had scarcely walked in the door when I got the call and had to run back.
      i. I had no sooner finished my studies than I got a job.

     | Abraham Sunday Unubi, 2014

CORRESPONDENCE DIAGRAM

(Phonology) In a correspondence diagram of the Dutch word [bɛt] 'bed' the input and output segments that are correspondents of one another are connected by vertical lines.

Correspondence diagram of [bɛt]
 /b ɛ d/ Input
   | | |
 [b ɛ t] Output
 | René Kager, 1997

CORRESPONDENCE THEORY

  1. (Optimality Theory) The branch of phonology studying the nature of conditions that measure the similarity of two related forms (such as input and output, base and derivative, base and reduplicant). Correspondence theory originates in pre-OT days when linguists like Allan Sommerstein, Ronnie Wilbur, Sandy Chung, and Luigi Burzio (in his pre-OT incarnation) were first led to formulate conditions mandating input recoverability or similarity between related forms.
     It has become a central part of phonological theory with the advent of OT. Within OT, the theory of correspondence has the primary function of defining the limits within which markedness constraints will affect an input. Extensions of correspondence provide the basis of the OT treatment for phenomena such as:


     | Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach, 2007
  2. (Optimality Theory) Constraints can be categorized into two main types: faithfulness constraints, which require identity between the input and the output in various ways, and markedness constraints, which impose well-formedness conditions on output structures. With the advent of Correspondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1995), the concept of faithfulness received a new dimension. This theory, embedded within the general OT framework, determines correspondence relations between two structures, their similarity being evaluated by faithfulness constraints. Correspondence relations no longer hold between inputs and outputs, but also between bases and reduplicants, or between two output forms. These extensions of correspondence provide the basis of the OT treatment of phenomena such as opacity or paradigm uniformity. The Optimal Paradigms model (McCarthy 2005) is an example of a theory based on output-to-output correspondence.
     The premises of Correspondence Theory are carefully explained in van Oostendorp (2005). | B. van der Veer, 2006

COSMETIC MONOLINGUALISM
(Literary) Adapting the translated text in such a way that is perceived as monolingual, despite the original being a multilingual text. | Serena Armida Adele Ceniccola, 2025

COSUBORDINATION

  1. (Syntax) Foley and Van Valin (1984) distinguish three types of clause linkage: coordination, subordination, and cosubordination. This distinction is based on two parameters, [±dependent] and [±embedded].
     The third clause linkage type, cosubordination, is like coordination in that neither clause is embedded in the other. It is also like subordination in that one clause is dependent on the other for some feature. Cosubordination is illustrated by the clause-chaining and switch-reference phenomena widely found in Papuan and American Indian languages. In this construction, "the juncts are not in a subordinate relationship, as one junct is not embedded in the other. However, a dependency relation exists between the juncts in that they must have the same illocutionary force and share the same absolute tense" (Foley and Van Valin 1984).

    1. Examples of cosubordination ([+dependent] [−embedded]) (Foley and Van Valin 1984)
      Abbreviations: 1= first person, 3 = third person, SG = singular; DS = different subject, SS = same subject; PST = past, PRES = present.
      Kewa (Engan; Papua New Guinea)
      a.
       
      Ní
      1SG
      réka-no
      stand-DS
      ágaa
      talk
      lá-a.
      say-3SG.PST
        'I stood up and he talked.'
      b.
       
      Nipú
      3SG
      táá-ma
      hit-SS
      pámua-la.
      walk-3SG.PRES
        'He is hitting it while walking.'

     In (1), "only the final verb is inflected for the person and number of the actor and for tense (Foley and Van Valin 1984). Cosubordination is also illustrated by English participial constructions like (2):

    1. a. Paul sat playing his guitar for hours.
      b. Zelda lay reading a book in bed.
      c. Matthew stood singing on a street corner.

     | Yuko Mizuno, 2008
  2. (Grammar) A different approach is proposed in Olson (1981), Foley and Van Valin (1984), Van Valin and LaPolla (1997). Under this approach, a third, intermediate type in-between coordination and subordination is introduced, which is called cosubordination. In a subordinating construction, one of the clauses is both dependent on the main clause and is embedded (i. e. is a syntactic argument or modifier of the main clause); in a coordinating construction, neither clause is dependent on nor embedded in the other. In contrast, in cosubordinating constructions one of the clauses is assumed to be dependent on but not embedded in the other. | Oleg Belyaev, 2015

 

Page Created By Split August 17, 2025

 
 B a c k   T o   I n d e x