<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="E91-1023">
  <Title>PROSODIC INHERITANCE AND MORPHOLOGICAL GENERALISATIONS</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
4. CONCLUSION
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The PI approach to morphologically conditioned phonological and orthographic variation relates linguistically to word grammar (Hudson 1984), word syntax (Selkirk 1982) and to prosodic phonologies, and derives its computational features from DATR (Evans &amp; Gazdar 1989); formally it relates closely to object-oriented morphology (Daelemans 1987), paradigmatic morphology (Calder 1989), and Bird's constraint-based phonology (1990).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> PI models use a unified formalism throughout, and thus differ radically from computational morphological systems with hybrid formalisms.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> These include two-level morphology with continuation lexica and two-level rules (Koskenniemi 1983), its derivates with feature-based lexicon and two-level rules (Karttunen 1987, Bear 1986, Trost 1990), and Cahill's DATR-driven morphology with phonological descriptions in MOLUSC (1990).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Finally, PI models have broad linguistic coverage, capture significant generalisations over a wide range of typologically interesting morphological systems without ad hoc diacritics, and have a straightforward and well-defined implementation in DATR.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>