http://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Bracket_Erasure_Convention&feed=atom&action=historyBracket Erasure Convention - Revision history2024-03-28T09:18:16ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.34.2http://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Bracket_Erasure_Convention&diff=5897&oldid=prevHaspelmath at 15:40, 20 April 20082008-04-20T15:40:04Z<p></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #222; text-align: center;">Revision as of 15:40, 20 April 2008</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1" >Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''Bracket Erasure Convention''' is a convention proposed in Kiparsky (1982) stating that internal <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">brackets </del>are erased at the end of a lexical [[level]] or stratum. </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">The </ins>'''Bracket Erasure Convention''' is a convention proposed in Kiparsky (1982) stating that internal <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[[bracket]]s </ins>are erased at the end of a lexical [[level]] or <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[[</ins>stratum<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">]]</ins>. </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Comments===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Comments===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>As a consequence of this convention words become phonologically inert at the end of each lexical [[level]], i.e., they can no longer be affected by cyclic phonological rules. After bracket erasure, morphologically derived words are treated as though they were underived. In Kiparsky's view this inertness extends to morphological processes, and word formation rules therefore do not have access to the internal structure of words derived at an earlier level. Thus, Siegel's (1978) [[Adjacency Condition]] or Williams' (1981a) [[Atom Condition]] can be reduced to the Bracket Erasure Convention.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>As a consequence of this convention words become phonologically inert at the end of each lexical [[level]], i.e., they can no longer be affected by <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[[</ins>cyclic<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">]] </ins>phonological rules. After bracket erasure, morphologically derived words are treated as though they were underived. In Kiparsky's view this inertness extends to morphological processes, and word formation rules therefore do not have access to the internal structure of words derived at an earlier level. Thus, Siegel's (1978) [[Adjacency Condition]] or Williams' (1981a) [[Atom Condition]] can be reduced to the Bracket Erasure Convention.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Link===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Link===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l8" >Line 8:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 8:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===References===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===References===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*Kiparsky, P. 1982. From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology. In ''The Structure of Phonological Representations (I)''. van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.), 131-175.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[[Paul Kiparky|</ins>Kiparsky, P.<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">]] </ins>1982. From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology. In ''The Structure of Phonological Representations (I)''. van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.), 131-175.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*Kiparsky, P. 1985. Some Consequences of Lexical Phonology. In ''The Structure of Phonological Representations, vol 1''. van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.), 131-175. Dordrecht: Foris. </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*Kiparsky, P. 1985. Some Consequences of Lexical Phonology. In ''The Structure of Phonological Representations, vol 1''. van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.), 131-175. Dordrecht: Foris. </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*Siegel, D. 1978. The Adjacency Condition and the Theory of Morphology. ''NELS VIII'', 189-197.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*Siegel, D. 1978. The Adjacency Condition and the Theory of Morphology. ''NELS VIII'', 189-197.</div></td></tr>
</table>Haspelmathhttp://glottopedia.org/index.php?title=Bracket_Erasure_Convention&diff=5758&oldid=prevLuo: from Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics2008-03-26T14:34:32Z<p>from Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>'''Bracket Erasure Convention''' is a convention proposed in Kiparsky (1982) stating that internal brackets are erased at the end of a lexical [[level]] or stratum. <br />
<br />
===Comments===<br />
As a consequence of this convention words become phonologically inert at the end of each lexical [[level]], i.e., they can no longer be affected by cyclic phonological rules. After bracket erasure, morphologically derived words are treated as though they were underived. In Kiparsky's view this inertness extends to morphological processes, and word formation rules therefore do not have access to the internal structure of words derived at an earlier level. Thus, Siegel's (1978) [[Adjacency Condition]] or Williams' (1981a) [[Atom Condition]] can be reduced to the Bracket Erasure Convention.<br />
<br />
===Link===<br />
[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Bracket+Erasure+Convention&lemmacode=846 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics] <br />
<br />
===References===<br />
*Kiparsky, P. 1982. From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology. In ''The Structure of Phonological Representations (I)''. van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.), 131-175.<br />
*Kiparsky, P. 1985. Some Consequences of Lexical Phonology. In ''The Structure of Phonological Representations, vol 1''. van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.), 131-175. Dordrecht: Foris. <br />
*Siegel, D. 1978. The Adjacency Condition and the Theory of Morphology. ''NELS VIII'', 189-197.<br />
*Spencer, A. 1991. ''Morphological Theory.'' Oxford: Blackwell.<br />
*Williams, E. 1981. On the notions 'Lexically Related' and 'Head of a Word'. ''Linguistic Inquiry 12'', 245-274.<br />
<br />
{{dc}}<br />
[[Category:Phonology]]<br />
[[Category:Morphology]]</div>Luo