Sank's Glossary of Linguistics 
 I-Identh

ICONICITY

  1. (Semantics) Principle by which semantic relations are reflected in the formal patterns by which they are realized. Thus a direct object is a complement of a verb while an adverbial such as today is not: In that sense the semantic relation of verb to object is closer. In the order of words in English, direct objects are also closer to the verbs: I saw John today or Today I saw John, not I saw today John. In this way there is an iconic correspondence between the linear order of elements and their semantic pattern.
     The term is from Peirce's theory of signs. Linguists today mostly use the term independently. | P.H. Matthews, 1997
  2. (Cognitive) In the recent two or three decades, with the development of language and cognition studies, people have found that there is a certain relationship between language structure and experiential structure. Cognitive linguistics claims that language is shaped or at least influenced by our experience of the world and the way we perceive and conceptualize it (Ungerer and Schmid 2001).
     The cognitive constraint and influence on language is first embodied by iconicity. Iconicity is a set of signs whose meaning in some crucial way resembles their form (Nanny and Fischer 1999). It denotes that linguistic structure is a reflection of cognitive or experiential structure. Iconicity is of great significance in revealing the mapping relationship between cognition and language structure.
     As cognitive linguistics does not just concern about the real world of objects; but deals with the cognitive models we have about the world, it provides a new reference point for the iconic relation. It is the external factors such as reality; physiology, cognition, knowledge, meaning and pragmatics together that attribute to the motivation of linguistic form. The main principles of iconicity are manifestations of human's conceptualization processes. | Luxi Yang, 2010

IDEATIONAL METAFUNCTION

  1. (Systemic Functional Linguistics) Ideational metafunction serves for the expression of ≪content≫ in language, that is, our experience of the real world, including the experience of our inner world. When we use language we often use it to speak of something or someone doing something. That is why the ideational meaning can be referred to as experiential meaning coming from the clause as representation.
     Experiential meaning is expressed through the system of transitivity or process type, with the choice of process type, with the choice of process implicating associated participant roles and configurations. Systemicists argue that the clause's experiential meaning is realized simultaneously with its interpersonal meaning so that the description of transitivity in the clause complements its simultaneous Mood description. While the Mood structure of the clause can be related to contextual dimension of Tenor, Transitivity choices will be related to the dimension of Field, with the choice of process types and participant roles seen as realizing interactants' encoding of their experiential reality: the world of actions, relations, participants and circumstances that give content to their talk. | Svitach T.M., 2018
  2. (Systemic Functional Linguistics) The ideational meanings are the meanings about how we represent experience in language. Whatever use we put language to, we are always talking about something or someone doing something. Eggins (2004) explains in SFL the ideational strand of meaning involving two components: that of experiential meaning in the clause, and that of the logical meaning between clauses in clause complexes. Experiential meaning is expressed through the system of transitivity or process type, with the choice of process implicating associated participant roles and configurations. | Mahya Alaei and Saeideh Ahangari, 2016

IDENT BR
(Optimality Theory) A constraint:

IDENT BR
Assign a constraint violation for a feature in the base not present in the reduplicant.
Yoruba (Niger-Congo; West Africa)
/tipá/ → [tipátipá] 'forcefully'
 /RED + tipá/  IDENT BR RED=STEM
  a. ti-tipá  *   
  b. tibá-tipá   *  
☞ c. tipá-tipá    
  d. tip-tipá  *  *
 | Taiwo O. Ehineni, 2017

IDENT-BR(LAB)
(Optimality Theory) A constraint:

IDENT-BR(lab)
Correspondent onsets are identical in their specification for bilabiality.
Central Sarawani dialect of Balochi (Indo-European; Iran)
 /muːd-RED-m/  OCP   FAITH
-AFFIX  		 MAX-IO   *ONS/N   MAX-BR   VOP   IDENT-BR
(lab) 
 a. muːd-muːd  *  **!      
☞ b. muːd-puːd      *  *  *!    
 c. muːd-mmuːd  *!      ***      
 d. muːd-buːd      *  *  *  *!  
 e. muːd-tuːd      *  *  *    *
 In this tableau, the optimal candidate from input /muːd-RED-m/ is [muːd-puːd], with same place of articulation to affix m-. Although it violates *ONS/N (since the base onset is a bilabial nasal [m]), this candidate is optimal because it avoids the violation of IDENT-BR(lab), as shown by the comparison with suboptimal candidate [muːd-tuːd] in (e), and also it avoids violation of VOP, as shown by the comparison with the suboptimal candidate [muːd-buːd] in (d). | Bahareh Soohani, Abbas Ali Ahangar, and Marc van Oostendorp, 2016

IDENT-BR(NASAL)
(Optimality Theory) A constraint:

Ident-BR(nasal) (Takano 1996)
A reduplicant correspondent of a base segment must have the same nasal feature specification.

Ponapean (Micronesian)
/net/ --- [netVnet] 'smell'
 /RED + net/ *μ[-son] Ident-BR(son) RED=CVC Ident-BR(nasal)
  a. net-net  *!      
☞ b. netVnet      *  
  c. nen-net    *!    *
 | Stuart Davis, 2000

IDENT-BR(SON)
(Optimality Theory) A constraint:

Ident-BR(son) (Takano 1996)
A reduplicant correspondent of a base segment must have the same sonorant feature specification.
 | Stuart Davis, 2000

IDENT-CC(VOICE)
(Optimality Theory) The standard Faith-IO correspondence constraints will hold between the input and output forms of a word. Within the output, Corr-C↔C constraints can cause a relation to be established between a pair of Cs. Faith-CC constraints will enforce identity of structure and content between these segments. The relevant Faith-CC constraint is given in (2). It requires that correspondent Cs match in [voice] specification.

  1. Intersegmental Correspondence model:
    Input
     
    Output
     
    /tadu/
     ↕
    [tadu]
     ↔
     
    Faith-IO
     
    Faith-CC
  2. Ident-CC(voice)
    Let C1 be a consonant in the output and C2 be any correspondent of C1 in the output. If C1 is [αvoice], then C2 is [αvoice].
 To illustrate the application of the above constraints, the tableau in (3) tabulates the violations incurred by various candidates (constraints are unranked here). Subscripted numerals mark IO correspondence and subscripted Greek letters annotate CC correspondence.
  1. Evaluation of various output candidates
    /t1ad2u/ Ident-CC
    (voi)     		Ident-IO
    (voi)     		Corr-
    T1↔T2     		Corr-
    T1↔D2     		Corr-
    K1↔D2
    a. t1,αad2,βu        *  *
    b. t1,αad2,αu  *        
    c. t1,αat2,αu    *      
    d. t1,αat2,βu    *  *  *  *

 Candidates (3a-b) display no [voice] agreement. In (3a), the output Cs are not in correspondence with each other, violating Corr-T1↔D2, and by implication Corr-K1↔D2 as well. In (3b), the output stops are in correspondence, but they do not agree for voicing; hence this form violates Ident-CC(voi). Candidate (3c) displays the long-distance voicing agreement in which we are interested. Here correspondence is established between the two stops, and the Cs obey Ident-CC(voi). This form violates Ident-IO(voi), which requires that corresponding segments in the input and output have the same specification for [voice]. Finally, (3d) presents an instance where the second C has become voiceless, but without being in correspondence with the first C. This unmotivated change in [voice] specification is suboptimal under any ranking of these constraints. | Rachel Walker, 2000

IDENT(F)

  1. (Optimality Theory) 
    The IDENT(F) Constraint Family

    General Schema
    IDENT(F)
     Let α be a segment in S1 and β be any correspondent of α in S2.
     If α is [γF] , then β is [γF].
     (Correspondent segments are identical in feature F).

    Specific Instantiations
     IDENT–BR(F)
      Reduplicant correspondents of a base [γF] segment are also [γF].
     IDENT–IO(F)
      Output correspondents of an input [γF] segment are also [γF].

     | John J. McCarthy and Alan S. Prince, 1995
  2. (Optimality Theory) A family of constraints:
    IDENT(F)
    Every feature (F) of the input segment is identical to every feature in the output segment.
     A segment in the input is identical to the corresponding segment in the output. | Zita McRobbie-Utasi, 2006
  3. (Optimality Theory) Featural identity is guaranteed by a family of constraints IDENT(F), proposed in McCarthy and Prince 1995, such as IDENT(Voi), which declare that any segment appearing in both input and output should have the same value of the feature F in both of its incarnations. For example, opa→oba violates IDENT(Voi) in the change of /p/ to [b], but mappings such as opa→opa, or opa→ota, and even opa→oa all satisfy the constraint, the last one because the input segment p has no output avatar to be measured against. | Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky, 2002

IDENT-IO(LATERAL)
(Optimality Theory) A constraint:

Ident-IO(lateral)
Correspondent segments have identical values for feature [lateral].
Native Korean (Koreanic; North and South Korea)
 /tar/ 'moon'  *r  Ident-IO(lateral)  *l 
 a. tar  *!    
☞ b. tal    *  *
 | Youngjoo Lee, 2001

IDENT-R(NASAL)
(Optimality Theory) A constraint:

IDENT-R(NASAL)
Assign a violation to each candidate whose rightmost segment doesn't have identical specification for nasality as its corresponding input segment.
Paraguayan Guarani (Tupian)
/a-japo-mã/
'I already worked' 		ID-R(NAS) ID-σ́(N) ALN-L(N) *Ṽ ID-(N)
 1. ã-ñãpõ-mã    *!    ****  ***
☞ 2. a-japo-mã      ****  *!  
 3. a-japo-mba  *!    ****    *
 | Marisabel Cabrera, 2024

IDENT-σ́(NASAL)

  1. (Optimality Theory) A faithfulness constraint:
    IDENT-σ́(NASAL)
    Protect input nasality/orality at stressed syllables.
     | Marisabel Cabrera, 2024
  2. (Optimality Theory) Beckman proposes the higher-ranked positional faithfulness constraint IDENT-σ́[NAS], which serves to protect the stressed syllable from alternations motivated by lower-ranked markedness constraints. Its definition, following Beckman (1998), is given below.
    IDENT-σ́[NAS]
    Output segments in a (underlyingly) stressed syllable and their input correspondents must have identical specifications for the feature [nasal].

    Assign one violation for every segment in a (underlyingly) stressed syllable that does not have identical feature specifications for the feature [nasal] as its input correspondent.
     So, stressed syllables must retain their input specification of nasality to satisfy the positional faithfulness constraint IDENT-σ́[NAS].
    Paraguayan Guarani (Tupi-Guarani; Paraguay)
     /tũˈpa/ ID-σ́[NAS]  *Ṽ  ID[NAS]
     a. tũˈpa    *!  
     b. tũˈpã  *!  **  *
    ☞ c. tuˈpa      *
     | Marisabel Cabrera Sanchez, 2023

IDENT(VOC)

  1. (Optimality Theory) A constraint:
    IDENT(Voc)
    Maintain the identity of the [voc] specification: one violation for each segment that differs in the [voc] specification between the input and output.
     | ?
  2. (Example)
     ○ I concur with the view that there exists a phonological distinction between the two front high vocoids (FHV) in Standard Modern Greek. More specifically, the Greek inventory is taken to include two phonemes /i/ and /j/, both specified as [‒consonantal], that contrast minimally with respect to the feature [vocalic], i.e. /i[+voc]/ vs. /j[‒voc]/ (Baltazani and Topintzi 2012, Topintzi and Baltazani 2016).
     A comprehensive analysis of the FHV should be able to account for both categorical and variable realizations. If we assume a single representation for each variably realized word, the task of yielding the two variants is passed on to the grammar. Within a constraint-based model such as Optimality Theory (OT, Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004), the interplay between /i[+voc]/ and /j[‒voc]/ is formalized as the interaction of:

    1.  A faithfulness constraint penalizing input-output discrepancies regarding the value of [voc], i.e. IDENT[voc] (McCarthy and Prince 1995), and
    2.  A markedness constraint *VV prohibiting vowel sequences (McCarthy 1993).

     Given the ranking IDENT[voc] ≫ *VV, both /Vi/ (Tableau 1) and /Vj/ (Tableau 2) are realized faithfully, even at the expense of markedness, since a change in the value of [voc] fatally violates the high-ranking IDENT[voc].
    Tableau 1
      /Vi/  IDENT[voc]  *VV
    ☞ a. Vi     *
      b. VJ   *!  
    Tableau 2
      /Vj/  IDENT[voc]  *VV
      a. Vi   *!  *
    ☞ b. VJ     
     | Eirini Apostolopoulou, 2021

IDENT(VOICE)
(Optimality Theory) A constraint:

IDENT(Voice)
Maintains the identity of the [±voice] specification. One violation for each segment that differs in voicing between the input and output.
 | Wikipedia, 2025

 

Page Reduced By Split August 17, 2025

 
 B a c k   T o   I n d e x