The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity
Open accessAbstract
This paper proposes a revised view of faithfulness in Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993), relating it to reduplicative identity (McCarthy & Prince 1993). Faithfulness and identity are unified in a theory of Correspondence relations between structures. The theory is investigated by way of a study of over- and underapplication effects in reduplicated structures.
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
“One of the most important findings in this chapter is that reduplication does not require parallel computation that McCarthy and Prince (1995) argue for.”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as McCarthy and Prince (1995)
In the citing paper
“McCarthy and Prince (1995) diverge from this position by claiming that the terminology of overapplication and underapplication is a relic of previous rule based systems.”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as McCarthy and Prince (1995)
In the citing paper
“Indonesian (Uhrbach 1987, McCarthy and Prince 1995:334-335) presents a case of total reduplication that shows just this type of scope effect.”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as McCarthy and Prince 1995:334-335
In the citing paper
“Ia! is specified as [-back] and thus !II occurs in words that have Ia! in them.”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as McCarthy and Prince (1995:331)
In the citing paper
“Inkelas and Zoll (2000b) spend a great deal of time indicating where the McCarthy and Prince (1995) model of reduplication is incapable of accounting for some morphological aspects of phonology but they fail to show that their morphological doubling theory is capable of accounting for the full range of backcopying effects.”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as McCarthy and Prince (1995)
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
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication
Raimy, E. (2000) · doi:10.1515/9783110825831 · Cited by 161
Metadata
- Authors
- McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- ORCID
- McCarthy, John J.
- Venue
- GLSA (Graduate Linguistic Student Association), Dept. of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts
- Publisher
- GLSA (Graduate Linguistic Student Association), Dept. of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts
- Published
- 1995
- Pages
- 249
- OpenAlex
- W1575528222
- Cited by
- 1,759
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 95 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 76 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 73
- FWCI
- 72.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
- ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) (submittedVersion)
- Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University)
- 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
- faithfulness, Optimality Theory, correspondence relations, reduplication, constraint ranking, phonological theory
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
