The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reduplicative Identity in Chaha
Abstract
The article discusses the process of continuant dissimilation that derives [k] from /x/ in Chaha (a Western Gurage language of Ethiopia) and its implications for reduplicative identity. It is argued that two correspondence relations are crucial to an adequate analysis of the process: base-reduplicant correspondence and output-output correspondence. Chaha provides a clear instance of “back copy” in which the output of reduplication triggers a change in the base.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Specifically, we must take note of a gemination process that is triggered in the imperfective and perfective forms (but not the imperative) by the addition of the I-t(a)-I morpheme to the frequentive forms in (32) (Banksira 1997, Kenstowicz and Banksira 1999).”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as Kenstowicz and Banksira 1999
In the citing paper
“The process in question is continuant dissimilation that derives [k] from Ix! when Ixl is followed by a [+cont, -son] segment.”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as Kenstowicz and Banksira (1999)
In the citing paper
“III surfaces as [a] (Banksira 1997, Kenstowicz and Banksira 1999).”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as Kenstowicz and Banksira 1999
In the citing paper
“1f3! is [+sonorant] according to Kenstowicz and Banksira (1999: fn. 1) and thus does not trigger the [x]”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as Kenstowicz and Banksira (1999: fn. 1)
In the citing paper
“This vowel sometimes appears as lal, t;:J-rxilxa!3 frequentive imperative of IrxBI 'show up' (Kenstowicz and Banksira 1999:581).”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as Kenstowicz and Banksira 1999:581
Citations
Cites
Functional explanations in generative phonology
Kenstowicz, M. (1981) · Studies in the Sciences of Language Series · doi:10.1075/ssls.4.18ken · Cited by 30
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 7
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication
Raimy, E. (2000) · doi:10.1515/9783110825831 · Cited by 161
Metadata
- Authors
- Kenstowicz, M., & Banksira, D. P.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kenstowicz, Michael
- Banksira, Degif Petros
- ORCID
- Kenstowicz, Michael
- Venue
- Linguistic Inquiry
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 1999-10
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 573-585
- ISSN
- 0024-3892 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9150
- OpenAlex
- W2153363406
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2020: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Linguistic Inquiry (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and language evolution
- Keywords
- Gurage languages, consonant assimilation, sound change
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
