The basic operation associated with reduplication is illustrated below, where semantic features are doubled, not a stem, root, or lexical item. Lexical insertion applies during spell-out to provide phonological content. A variety of operations can apply to one or both daughters of the compound to account for partial reduplication and segmental changes. Evidence to support this semantic approach is presented in the form of synonymy compounding, as found in Khmer and Vietnamese.
Crucially, there is no phonological identity relation. Notice that in this framework, nothing is unique about reduplication except semantic doubling. It should be noted that not all researchers recognize this as reduplication. An important aspect of MDT is to also admit phonological copying, the details of which will be presented below. Phonological repetition, on the other hand, includes a plethora of different mechanisms, depending on the other aspects of the model of reduplication. Some of the earliest research in reduplication proposed a copy mechanism, in which the base was literally copied Marantz, In segment copying approaches, various principles ensure that segments are associated to templates either according to universal tendencies or by language-specific means Marantz, For example, adjacency of base and reduplicant follow from association conventions being left-to-right for prefixes and right-to-left for suffixes.
Many variations on this copy-and-associate model have been proposed, and it is compatible with most templatic approaches. Only phonological or morphological constituents are copied.
Some phonological approaches do not have a copy mechanism per se. Within some derivational frameworks, reduplication is accomplished by a separate linearization process. In one version, the reduplicative template is a parafix, attached above the word on a separate tier Clements, ; Mester, The following illustrates how this accounts for exfixation pattern in Tagalog. Linearization occurs after nasal substitution. Evidence to motivate parafixation includes syllable transfer effects and segmental identity effects. Linearization can take place either before or after phonological rules apply.
If linearization occurs after, then the identity effect is achieved.
JSTOR: Access Check
A second type of linearization model uses special notations to indicate precedence relations among segments Frampton, ; Raimy, The existence of a loop is what leads to repeating a sequence of segments, and reduplication is a type of readjustment processes. The loop identifies where the repetition occurs. In the example above, the fixed segments schm - follow the final consonant of the base word, indicated by the downward facing arrow.
The loop goes from the m to the a , which is then repeated when the linearization process happens. As introduced at example 12 , BRCT is couched in Optimality Theory and proposes that there is a set of relations that exist between morphologically related strings. The phonological content of reduplicants is therefore morpheme-driven, with various proposals regarding what the input reduplicative morpheme is. In this model, the only difference between reduplicative morphemes and other morphemes is that there is for the most part no segmental information associated with the input.
Correspondence Theory has been generalized to include other relations for different morphological domains, such as between output words Benua, or between other prominent positions in words such as roots and stressed syllables Beckman, Constraints evaluate the identity of morphologically related strings via a number of Faithfulness constraints that are defined according to a Correspondence Relation.
The different patterns found with reduplicative morphemes are due to the different rankings of BR-Faith constraints, with Markedness and IO-Faith constraints resulting in different grammatical systems. The key feature of BRCT is that reduplication is a matter of identity, with constraints demanding identity between all aspects of reduplication and its base. Any divergence from total reduplication or identity must be compelled by some higher ranked constraint.
In this model, there is no real copy mechanism per se, but rather there is a relation that exists between strings in words. A growing body of research on reduplication has proposed that there are multiple mechanisms for repeating segments, depending on the properties of the reduplicative morphemes. While the details of these approaches differ, they all share the property that there is one component that copies segments to satisfy conditions on phonological well-formedness and another component that doubles up some form of morpho-syntactic unit.
They also eschew approaches that have an explicit base-reduplicant identity relation between the segments. First he proposes that reduplication is not maximizing, but that repetition only occurs when it is compelled, from the phonology, morphology, or syntax. A representation of the model is presented below. Phonological and morphological reduplication are achieved by violating the Faithfulness constraint Integrity, which requires an input segment only to have a single output correspondent.
Therefore the repetition mechanism is one in which an input segment has two output correspondents. Repetition comes at a cost, so is minimal see also Pulleyblank, This differs from syntactic reduplication, which results from two syntactic operations: A key feature of approaches with mixed methods of repeating segments is that each model is accompanied by diagnostics of when the different methods are employed. As such, they make important contributions to defining what is considered reduplication vs. Inkelas and Zoll identify four criteria for when phonological copying occurs in MDT.
These include a phonological requirement for copying such as requiring an onset , proximity of the repeated segments, targeting segments only rather than larger constituents , and a requirement for phonological identity. Again, this differs from MR, which accomplishes phonological copying via Integrity violations. The final section summarizes some of the critiques that have been leveled against key models of reduplication.
Much of the early research on reduplication focused on one or two facets of reduplication. For example, the issue of segmental identity was significant early on Wilbur, a , b.
- HAKATACHANPON (Japanese Edition).
- STUF - Language Typology and Universals?
- Access Check.
- Bloodsucking Fiends: Book 1: Love Story Series!
- What I Learned After I Knew It All: The Return of Bunky and “De’ Boys” ANOTHER CLASSIC BY BART BANKS.
Given the wide range of phenomena associated with reduplication, it would be surprising if any single model could account for the immense range of patterns found in reduplicative constructions. This final section identifies critical flaws in the various frameworks for reduplication, related to the themes we have looked at so far: Because a crucial question relates to whether or not reduplication is fundamentally morphological or a matter of phonological identity, the focus of the section is on MDT and BRCT.
In terms of accounting for reduplicative shape, models should be able to account for gaps in the patterns. That is to say, models that generate unattested patterns have too much power and are faced with having to impose conditions or constraints on why these patterns do not occur. First, there are no reduplicative patterns that are three syllables. This is predicted by models in which the shape is determined, either directly or indirectly, by the prosodic hierarchy.
Because there are no prosodic units that are exactly three syllables long, this is as expected. However, models that involve total reduplication and truncation could derive this pattern by operations that truncate to a foot plus one syllable.
A second gap relates to the size of infixed reduplicants: This is predicted by those models in which total reduplication is seen as a type of compounding. However, the copy-and-truncate approaches predict that this should be possible, as the location of the infix is independent of the mechanism that truncates material. Third, with models that derive shape via a truncation mechanism, we expect to find the full range of truncation patterns in reduplication. For example, Koasati Muskogean forms plurals in part by stem-final consonant deletion and rhyme deletion Horwood, No patterns of reduplication parallel to these truncations patterns have been attested yet.
Finally, an important gap was claimed to occur in which the base back-copies templatic features. For example, a word like badupi could reduplicate as badu-badu. Because identity between reduplicant and base is essential to BRCT, making it is possible to back-copy segmental qualities, one also expects to back-copy shape properties as well. GTT is a way to address this issue, as the shape properties are derived via independent constraints on morpheme shape rather than via templates.
However, Caballero discusses precisely this type of pattern in Guarijio Uto-Aztecan , of abbreviated reduplication. While some models of reduplication, like BRCT, have segmental identity built into them, the majority of models do not. The question then arises as to how these models compare when it comes to accounting for some patterns of segmentism.
Leaving aside fixed segmentism, the two patterns that will be discussed are TETU and the application of phonological processes. TETU effects seem to be found primarily in monosyllabic reduplicants. It would appear that most other models can derive this unattested pattern of TETU effects outside of syllable sized. STS copies entire strings, without skipping, so could never produce a form that deletes every coda in the base.
This raises the question as to how STS can achieve the Sanskrit pattern, which eliminates complex onsets in the reduplicant. The analysis is supported because Sanskrit affixes in general also lack complex onsets. It seems, therefore, that STS is the most constrained, predicting that TETU effects are only found in reduplication, when the same patterns are found in the language as a whole. Models without an identity relation achieve segmental identity effects by having separate sets of constraints to evaluate separate aspects of the word, and often involve some form of cyclic application of rules.
However, MDT differs from most of these in having separate phonological operations specified for each daughter.
Phonological and Morphological Aspects of Reduplication
The question arises as to why processes need to apply to both. One could easily derive a pattern in which one daughter undergoes no processes at all. This problem does not occur with other models because processes apply to the whole word. While a great deal of research has aimed to reduce the number of reduplication-specific operations or relate them to other attested morphological or phonological operations in language, reduplication is in fact a unique morphological operation.
In terms of providing a critique of the scholarship on this, the focus will be on whether the models can account for the unique morphological aspects of reduplication. Recall there are several cases in which the pattern of reduplication depends on whether the templatic shape of the reduplicant matches the size of the base. There are a number of different options, depending on whether the base is smaller or larger than the reduplicant.
If it is too small, the base can duplicate more than once. However if it is too large, then either reduplication does not occur at all, or the reduplicant has a different allomorph. In particular, the double-repetition pattern as illustrated in Kinande 23c is particularly challenging for models in which repetition is of morpho-syntactic or semantic units, rather than stems. How does double reduplication occur to satisfy one meaning? The option of triplication is available in MDT, but only of semantic units; it is entirely unrelated to the size of the morphological units being doubled, and is not phonologically conditioned.
Finally, it is clear from the range of patterns that are found and the growing body of research advocating multiple methods of repetition, that minimally, two mechanisms are needed to account for the entire range of patterns found.
However, the mechanisms by which this repetition is achieved vary significantly from theory to theory. In MR, phonological and morphological reduplication are repair mechanisms. Syntactic reduplication calls twice for some unit. Most models of reduplication treat the repetition mechanism as separate from other aspects of reduplication.
BRCT seems to be the one model that can look for correlations between aspects of reduplicant form. Especially within GTT, there is a prediction that different morphological categories of reduplicants will exhibit correlations between shape and segmentism, which appears to be the case for Lushootseed Urbanczyk, Given that there is a body of research that eschews BRCT, there is a minor void in proposing what can replace it.
In MDT, all reduplication is compounding followed by truncation. Interestingly, this makes predictions about what operations are available to languages—if the primary mechanism to achieve partial reduplication is compounding followed by truncation, then there are predictions about whether or not these operations occur in the same language. A question arises as to why they might not all co-occur. For example, Salish languages have extremely rich and diverse patterns of reduplication, yet do not have productive compounding or truncation.
Finally, because the basic mechanism is semantic duplication in MDT, the same range of patterns should be found for synonymy compounding as reduplication, which so far are unattested. To summarize, the range of patterns found in reduplication has lead to a great many insights in terms of how morphology and phonology interact. As can be seen, there is often a close tie between the formal mechanism of how reduplication occurs, along with various mechanisms that derive the shape and segmental content of reduplicants.
As we push the boundaries of what the theories predict, we are also able to look for new patterns that support or refute certain theoretical assumptions about the nature of reduplication. Ultimately, reduplication is repetition. How that repetition occurs and what form that takes has been at the core of developing a wide range of models that has shed light on our understanding of the interaction of phonology and morphology, as well as the nature of morphological operations. A theory of internal reduplication. Linguistic Review , 3 , 25— Canonical forms in prosodic morphology.
Linguistic Inquiry , 13 , — Reduplication in harmonic serialism. Morphology , 22 , — Prosodic morphology Unpublished manuscript. Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. Syllable and morpheme integrity in Kinande reduplication. Phonology , 7 , 73— The phonology and morphology of reduplication. Studies in generative grammar: Minimal reduplication Doctoral dissertation.
A word-and-paradigm approach to reduplication Doctoral dissertation. Reduplication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere. Phonology , 5 , 73— The phonology of reduplication Doctoral dissertation. Reduplication with fixed melodic material. Graduate Linguistics Students Association. Reduplication and fixed segmentism, Linguistic Inquiry , 30 , — Variations on a theme of minimal word. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory , 33 , 1— Head operations and strata in reduplication: Yearbook of Morphology , 1 , 1— University of Washington Press.
Outstanding dissertations in linguistics. Phonological relations between words. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. Linguistic Inquiry , 27 3 , — Morphology , 16 2 , — Some problems with prosodic accounts of reduplication. The problem of transfer in nonlinear phonology.
- !
- .
- The Gangs of Birmingham?
- Does Anyone Speak Female?!
- Unlocking potential with the best learning and research solutions.
- Laquila e il toro (Italian Edition).
- .
Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics , 7 , 38— Verbal reduplication in three Bantu languages. Morphological and prosodic constraints on Kinande verbal reduplication. Phonology , 17 , 1— Linguistic Inquiry , 29 , — Contrastive focus reduplication in English The Salad-Salad paper. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory , 22 2 , — Autosegmental phonology Doctoral dissertation.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger pp. Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Reduplication in Micronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics , 22 , — University of Hawaii Press. Reduplication and syllabification in Ilokano. Lingua , 77 , — Reduplication without template constraints: A case study in bare-consonant reduplication Doctoral dissertation.
Bare-consonant reduplication without prosodic templates: Expressive reduplication in Semai. Journal of East Asian Linguistics , 10 , — Anti-faithfulness and subtractive morphology. The dual theory of reduplication. Linguistics , 46 , — Prosodic minimality in Japanese. Echo words in Tamil Doctoral dissertation. Evidence for morphoprosodic alignment in reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry , 39 4 , — The phonology of reduplication Unpublished manuscript. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Multiple exponence in non-inflectional morphology Doctoral dissertation. University of Victoria, British Columbia. A grammar of Manam. A prosodic theory of non-concatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry , 12 , — Quantitative transfer in reduplicative and templatic morphology. In Linguistic Society of Korea Ed. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Studies in tier structure Doctoral dissertation.
University of Massachusetts Amherst. Asymmetric anchoring Doctoral dissertation. Overwriting does not optimize in nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry , 36 , — Ordered reduplication in Kihehe. Linguistic Inquiry , 16 , — Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Patterns of reduplication in Yoruba. Studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky pp. Studies in generative grammar, Vol. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language , 80 , — University of California at Santa Cruz. Dimensions of variation in multi-pattern reduplication Doctoral dissertation.
University of California, Santa Cruz. Nuuchahnulth double reduplication and Stratal Optimality Theory. Canadian Journal of Linguistics , 52 , — A study of reduplicative TETU, feature movement, and dissimilation. Patterns of reduplication in Lushootseed.
Most Downloaded Articles
Reduplicative form and the root-affix asymmetry. A morphological description of Sliammon, Mainland Comox, with a sketch of syntax. Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim. Reduplication and rule ordering. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 22 pp. A natural history of infixation.
Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Publications Pages Publications Pages. Oxford Research Encyclopedias Linguistics. Phonological and Morphological Aspects of Reduplication. Don't have an account?
Volume 52 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 51 Issue 4 Dec , pp. Volume 50 Issue 4 Dec , pp. Volume 49 Issue 4 Dec , pp. Volume 48 Issue 4 Dec , pp. Volume 47 Issue 4 Dec , pp. Volume 46 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 45 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 44 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 43 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 42 Issue 2 Dec , pp.
Volume 41 Issue Jun , pp. Volume 40 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 39 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 38 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 37 Issue Jun , pp. Volume 36 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 35 Issue JG Dec , pp. Volume 34 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 33 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 32 Issue Jun , pp. Volume 31 Issue JG Dec , pp.
Volume 30 Issue Jun , pp. Volume 29 Issue Jun , pp. Volume 28 Issue Jun , pp. Volume 27 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 26 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 25 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 24 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 23 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 22 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 21 Issue Dec , pp. Volume 20 Issue Jun , pp. Volume 19 Issue Jun , pp.
Volume 18 Issue Jun , pp. Volume 17 Issue Jun , pp. Volume 16 Issue Apr , pp. Volume 15 Issue Apr , pp. Volume 14 Issue Apr , pp. Volume 13 Issue Apr , pp. Volume 12 Issue Apr , pp.