FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W296506989> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W296506989 abstract "0. INTRODUCTION The analysis of Sanskrit morphophonology has long been a battleground on which the warring opponents have been precisely the forces of morphology vs. the forces of phonology. This is the case, for example, with certain alternations between aspirated and unaspirated segments, as in the bhudvs. budhallomorphs of the Sanskrit root for 'know'. Within the generative period, the battle over the conditioning of the rules which account for such alternations began toward the end of the field's first decade (cf. Kiparsky 1965 and Zwicky 1965). At this time, the initiative was seized by linguists who were participating in a campaign to treat maximally many phenomena involving sound as matters of phonology and therefore analyzed all Sanskrit aspiration and deaspiration via purely phonological rules. Despite continuing disagreement within the phonologists' ranks as to tactics (i.e., the effective specifications of underlying forms, rules, and ordering--cf., e.g., Anderson 1970 vs. Vennemann 1979), the purely phonological position was later maintained and reinforced over a period of ten years by a succession of analysts culminating with Hoard 1975 and Phelps 1975. The approach in question, however, was soon countered by Sag 1974, 1976 and Schindler 1976, who advanced evidence that the relevant aspiration alternations were governed by at least some morphological conditions and so to be accounted for in part by morphological rules. In promoting this view, the latter two scholars were retaking the position staked out more than two millenia earlier by the native Sanskrit grammarian Panini, who assigned to most of the phenomena in question ... a morphological rather than a phonological explanation (Sag 1976:621). Almost immediately, though--in the late 1970's and early 1980's--the rules of engagement for the field of sound-structure changed drastically: away from segmentbased, linear approaches and toward more suprasegmental, nonlinear ones. It was thus only to be expected that the next generation of phonologists would employ their new autosegmental armamentarium in launching an attempt to recapture the generalizations in the domain of Sanskrit aspiration and deaspiration by means of yet another kind of purely phonological analysis. And that is precisely what happened. First Stemberger 1980, then Borowsky and Mester 1983, and finally Kaye and Lowenstamm 1985 provided autosegmental-phonological accounts of varying sorts for the aspiration alternations in Sanskrit. At this point, accordingly, we feel compelled to join the fray, on the side of the again-beleaguered morphologists. And so, in the spirit of demonstrating that not all rules which affect sounds are necessarily phonological in nature, we here undertake to defend a non-phonological approach for an irreducible core of the Sanskrit aspiration alternations. Given that it has been strongly championed in the past (e.g., by Sag and Schindler, not to mention Panini), the general treatment which we argue for below is admittedly not novel. Nevertheless, we believe that this paper represents a genuine advance in the analysis of Sanskrit aspiration and deaspiration, since it not only both entrenches the specifics of our morphological account in up-to-date, theoretically current terms and marshals new arguments in their favor but also points out certain previously undiscussed major weaknesses in the purely phonological autosegmental position of its competitors. Thus, while the present study of conflicting approaches to Sanskrit aspiration obviously lacks some of the dramatic sweep and wide-ranging religiophilosophical relevance of an Indic war-epic like the Bhagavad-Gita, it does have an important moral point to make for linguistics concerning the ability of a properly updated morphological analysis to hold its own, in the field of sound-structure, against even the innovative arsenal of representational devices deployed by recent purely phonological accounts." @default.
• W296506989 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W296506989 creator A5038548154 @default.
• W296506989 creator A5081696641 @default.
• W296506989 date "1988-01-01" @default.
• W296506989 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W296506989 title "IN FURTHER DEFENSE OF A NON-PHONOLOGICAL ACCOUNT FOR SANSKRIT ROOT-INITIAL ASPIRATION ALTERNATIONS*" @default.
• W296506989 cites W1484711598 @default.
• W296506989 cites W1521767350 @default.
• W296506989 cites W1558584194 @default.
• W296506989 cites W2049256366 @default.
• W296506989 cites W2060766858 @default.
• W296506989 cites W2335143864 @default.
• W296506989 cites W2793739903 @default.
• W296506989 cites W2894889981 @default.
• W296506989 cites W2914455981 @default.
• W296506989 cites W3135941782 @default.
• W296506989 cites W371703547 @default.
• W296506989 cites W2166098145 @default.
• W296506989 cites W3044852367 @default.
• W296506989 hasPublicationYear "1988" @default.
• W296506989 type Work @default.
• W296506989 sameAs 296506989 @default.
• W296506989 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W296506989 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W296506989 hasAuthorship W296506989A5038548154 @default.
• W296506989 hasAuthorship W296506989A5081696641 @default.
• W296506989 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W296506989 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W296506989 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W296506989 hasConcept C148934300 @default.
• W296506989 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W296506989 hasConcept C29912816 @default.
• W296506989 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W296506989 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W296506989 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W296506989 hasConceptScore W296506989C124952713 @default.
• W296506989 hasConceptScore W296506989C138885662 @default.
• W296506989 hasConceptScore W296506989C142362112 @default.
• W296506989 hasConceptScore W296506989C148934300 @default.
• W296506989 hasConceptScore W296506989C15744967 @default.
• W296506989 hasConceptScore W296506989C29912816 @default.
• W296506989 hasConceptScore W296506989C33923547 @default.
• W296506989 hasConceptScore W296506989C41895202 @default.
• W296506989 hasConceptScore W296506989C95457728 @default.
• W296506989 hasLocation W2965069891 @default.
• W296506989 hasOpenAccess W296506989 @default.
• W296506989 hasPrimaryLocation W2965069891 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W133727642 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W1585233683 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W1587224971 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W1967436572 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W1994836840 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W2001928616 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W2071422904 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W2075667327 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W2138097116 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W2167287450 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W2169968931 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W2258731279 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W2337404984 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W235513057 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W254248185 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W26729286 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W2784089225 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W332133781 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W81916652 @default.
• W296506989 hasRelatedWork W3005682300 @default.
• W296506989 isParatext "false" @default.
• W296506989 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W296506989 magId "296506989" @default.
• W296506989 workType "article" @default.