Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 857–891 | Cite as

Infixing reduplication in Pima and its theoretical consequences

Original Paper

Abstract

Pima (Uto-Aztecan, central Arizona) pluralizes nouns via partial reduplication. The amount of material copied varies between a single C (mavit / ma-m-vit ‘lion(s)’) and CV (hodai / ho-ho-dai ‘rock(s)’). The former is preferred unless copying a single C would give rise to an illicit coda or cluster, in which case CV is copied. In contrast to previous analyses of similar patterns in Tohono O’odham and Lushootseed, I analyze the reduplicant as an infix rather than a prefix. The infixation of the reduplicant can be generated via constraints requiring the first vowel of the stem to correspond to the first vowel of the word. Furthermore, the preference for copying the initial consonant of the word can be generated by extending positional faithfulness to the base-reduplicant relationship. I argue that the infixation analysis is superior on two grounds. First, it reduces the C vs. CV variation to an instance of reduplicant size conditioned by phonotactics. Second, unlike the prefixation analyses, which must introduce a new notion of faithfulness to allow syncope in the base just in the context of reduplication (e.g. “existential faithfulness” (Struijke 2000a)), the infixation analysis uses only independently necessary constraints of Correspondence Theory.

Keywords

Reduplication Uto-Aztecan Correspondence Theory Generalized Template Theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abraham R.C. (1962). Dictionary of the Hausa language. London, University of London PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Alderete J., Beckman J., Benua L., Gnanadesikan A., McCarthy J., & Urbanczyk S. (1999). Reduplication and segmental unmarkedness. ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  3. Avelino H., & Kim S. (2003). Variability and constancy in the articulation and acoustics of Pima Coronals. In Nowak P. & Yoquelet C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Berkeley linguistics society (Vol. 29), (pp. 43–53).Google Scholar
  4. Baertsch K. (2002). An optimality-theoretic approach to syllable structure: The split margin hierarchy, Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  5. Beckman J. (1998). Positional faithfulness, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  6. Benua L. (1997). Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. ROA-259.Google Scholar
  7. Burzio L. (1994). Principles of English stress. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Bogoras W. (1969). Chukchee. In: Boas F. (Ed), Handbook of American Indian languages, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40, Part 2. Washington DC, Government Printing Office, pp. 631–903Google Scholar
  9. Clements G.N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In: Kingston J., Beckman M. (Eds), Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 283–325Google Scholar
  10. Cole J. (1997). Deletion and recoverability in Klamath. ms., University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  11. Crowhurst M.J. (2004). Mora alignment. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22, 127–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis S. (1988). On the nature of internal reduplication. In: Hammond M., Noonan M. (Eds), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics. New York, Academic Press, pp. 305–323Google Scholar
  13. Downing L.J. (2000). Morphological and prosodic constraints on Kinande verbal reduplication. Phonology, 17, 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisner J. (1997). What constraints should OT allow? ms., University of Pennsylvania. ROA 204–0797.Google Scholar
  15. Fitzgerald C.M. (1994). Prosody drives the Syntax. In Gahl S., Dolbey A., & Johnson C., (Eds.), Proceedings of the Berkeley linguistics society, 20 (pp. 173–183).Google Scholar
  16. Fitzgerald C.M. (1996). Degenerate feet and morphology in Tohono O’odham. In: Agbayani B., Tang S.-W. (Eds), Proceedings of the fifteenth annual west coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, CSLI, pp. 129–143Google Scholar
  17. Fitzgerald C.M. (1997a). O’odham rhythms, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  18. Fitzgerald C.M. (1997b). Evidence for headless feet in metrical theory. paper presented at the 1997 meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago.Google Scholar
  19. Fitzgerald C.M. (1997c). Destressing in the clitic group. In: Austin J., Lawson A., (Eds) Proceedings of the eastern states conference on linguistics 97. Ithaca, CLC Publications, pp. 46–57Google Scholar
  20. Fitzgerald C.M. (1998). The Meter of Tohono O’odham songs. International Journal of American Linguistics, 64, 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fitzgerald C.M. (1999a). Unfaithful bases and syncope in Tohono O’odham Reduplication. paper presented at WCCFL 18.Google Scholar
  22. Fitzgerald C.M. (1999b). Loanwords and stress in Tohono O’odham. Anthropological Linguistics, 41, 1–33Google Scholar
  23. Fitzgerald C.M. (2000). Vowel Hiatus and faithfulness in Tohono O’odham reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 713–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fitzgerald C.M. (2001a). The morpheme-to-stress principle in Tohono O’odham. Linguistics, 39, 941–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fitzgerald C.M. (2001b). Rhythm and clash in the western dialect of Tohono O’odham. paper presented at the Ninth Manchester Phonology Meeting.Google Scholar
  26. Fitzgerald C.M. (2001c). Metrical representations in western Tohono O’odham. ms., University at Buffalo.Google Scholar
  27. Fitzgerald C.M. (2001d). Across-the-board effects in Tohono O’odham Meter. ms., University at Buffalo.Google Scholar
  28. Fitzgerald C.M. (2002a). Covert quantity sensitivity in Tohono O’odham. paper presented at the Texas Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  29. Fitzgerald C.M. (2002b). Word order and discourse genre in Tohono O’odham. ms., University at Buffalo.Google Scholar
  30. Fitzgerald C.M. (2002c). Tohono O’odham stress in a single ranking. Phonology, 19, 253–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fitzgerald C.M. (2003a). Word order and discourse genre in Tohono O’odham. In: Carnie A., Harley H., Willie M., (Eds), Formal approaches to function in grammar: In Honor of Eloise Jelinek. Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 179–189Google Scholar
  32. Fitzgerald C.M. (2003b). How prosodically consistent is Tohono O’odham? In: Barragan L., (Eds), Studies in Uto-Aztecan: Working papers in endangered and less familiar languages, (Vol 5). Cambridge MA, MITWPL, pp. 55–74Google Scholar
  33. Gafos D. (1998a). A-templatic reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 515–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gafos D. (1998b). Eliminating long-distance consonantal spreading. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 223–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gouskova M. (2003a). Syncope: Prosody or *Struc? paper presented at The 77th Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  36. Gouskova M. (2003b). Economy of representation in OT, paper presented at WCCFL 21. San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  37. Gouskova M. (2003c). Deriving economy: Syncope in optimality theory Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. ROA-610.Google Scholar
  38. Gouskova M. (2004). Minimizing reduplication as a paradigm uniformity effect. In: Chand V., Kelleher A., Rodríguez A., Schmeiser B., (Eds), Proceedings of the twenty third annual west coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, CSLI, pp. 265–278Google Scholar
  39. Hale K. (1959). A Papago grammar Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  40. Hale K. (1965). Some preliminary observations on Papago morphophonemics. International Journal of American Linguistics, 31, 295–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hale K., Selkirk E. (1987). Government and tonal phrasing in Papago. Phonology Yearbook, 4, 151–183Google Scholar
  42. Halle M. (2001). Infixation versus onset metathesis in Tagalog, Chamorro, and Toba Batak. In: Kenstowicz M., (Ed), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge MA, MIT Press, pp. 153–168Google Scholar
  43. Hayes B. (1995). Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  44. Hendricks S. (1999a). Hopi nominal reduplication without templates. In: van Gelderen E., Samiian V., (Eds), Proceedings of the twenty-seventh western conference on linguistics. Fresno CA, California State University, pp. 172–188Google Scholar
  45. Hendricks S. (1999b). Reduplication without template constraints: A study in bare-consonant reduplication PhD. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  46. Hendricks S. (2001). Bare consonant reduplication without prosodic templates: Expressive reduplication in Semai. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 10, 287–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hill J.H., Zepeda O. (1992). Derived words in Tohono O’odham. International Journal of American Linguistics, 58, 355–404Google Scholar
  48. Hill J.H., Zepeda O. (1998). Tohono O’odham (Papago) Plurals. Anthropological Linguistics, 40, 1–42Google Scholar
  49. Hill J.H., Zepeda O. (1999). Language, gender and biology: Pulmonic ingressive airstream in women’s speech in Tohono O’odham. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18, 15–40Google Scholar
  50. Jackson E. (2003). Phonetic properties of Pima Vowels. ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
  51. Jespersen O. (1904). Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig, TeubnerGoogle Scholar
  52. Kager R. (1996). Stem disyllabicity in Guugu Yimidhirr. In: Nespor M., Smith N., (Eds), Dam phonology: HIL phonology papers II. Den Haag, Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics, pp. 59–101Google Scholar
  53. Kager R. (1997). Rhythmic vowel deletion in Optimality Theory. In: Roca I., (Ed), Derivations and constraints in phonology. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 463–499Google Scholar
  54. Kager R. (1999). Optimality theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  55. Keer E. (1999). Geminates, the OCP, and the Nature of CON Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University. ROA-350.Google Scholar
  56. Kenstowicz M. (1996). Base-identity and uniform exponence: alternatives to cyclicity. In: Durand J., Laks B., (Eds), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods. Paris-X and Salford, University of Salford Publications, pp. 363–393Google Scholar
  57. Kurisu K. (2001). The phonology of morpheme realization Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  58. Kurisu K., Sanders N. (1999). Infixal nominal reduplication in MaNarayi. Phonology at Santa Cruz, 6, 47–56Google Scholar
  59. Lyon S. (2001). Conditioning of Pima high front vowels, ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
  60. Marantz A. (1982). Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 435–482Google Scholar
  61. Martin J.B., Mauldin M.M. (2000). A dictionary of creek/Muskogee, with notes on the Florida and Oklahoma Seminole dialects of Creek. Lincoln, University of Nebraska PressGoogle Scholar
  62. Martin J., Munro P. (1996). Proto-Muskogean morphology, ms., College of William and Mary and UCLA.Google Scholar
  63. Martin J.B., Munro P. (2005). Proto-Muskogean morphology. In: Hardy H., Scancarelli J., (Eds), Native languages of the Southeastern United States. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, pp. 299–320Google Scholar
  64. McCarthy J. (1998). Sympathy & phonological opacity, ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst. ROA-252.Google Scholar
  65. McCarthy J., & Prince A. (1986). Prosodic Morphology, ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Brandeis University [Issued in 1996 as Technical Report #32, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science].Google Scholar
  66. McCarthy J., Prince A. (1993). Generalized alignment. In: Booij G., van Marle J., (Eds), Yearbook of morphology 1993. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 79–153Google Scholar
  67. McCarthy J., Prince A. (1994a). The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In: Gonzalez M., (Ed), Proceedings of NELS 24. Amherst, GLSA, pp. 333–379Google Scholar
  68. McCarthy J., & Prince A. (1994b). Two lectures on prosodic morphology, handouts of lectures at OTS/HIL workshop on Prosodic Morphology, Utrecht University, July 1994.Google Scholar
  69. McCarthy J., Prince A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In: Beckman J., Walsh Dickey L., Urbanczyk S., (Eds),University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: Papers in optimality theory. Amherst, GLSA, pp. 249–384Google Scholar
  70. McCarthy J., Prince A. (1996). Prosodic morphology 1986, Technical Report 32, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  71. Merlan F. (1982). Mangarayi Lingua Descriptive Studies 4. Amsterdam, North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  72. Mester A., Padgett J. (1994). Direct syllabification in generalized alignment. Phonology at Santa Cruz, 3, 79–85Google Scholar
  73. Munro P., & Riggle J. (2006). Productivity and lexicalization in Pima compounds. In Ettlinger M., Fleisher N., & M. Park-Doob (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirtieth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society: Special session on the morphology of native american languages (pp. 114–126).Google Scholar
  74. Nelson N. (1998). Right anchor, aweigh, ms., Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  75. Nelson N. (2000). Stressed rhyme faithfulness: A case study of Nancowry. In: Billery R., Lillehaugen B., (Eds), WCCFL 19 proceedings. Somerville MA, Cascadilla Press, pp. 329–342Google Scholar
  76. Nelson N. (2002). The “prefixing” preference in reduplication. In: Mikkelsen L., Potts C., (Eds), WCCFL 21 proceedings. Somerville MA, Cascadilla Press, pp. 320–333Google Scholar
  77. Nelson N. (2003). Asymmetric anchoring Ph.D. Dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  78. Nelson N. (2005). Wrong side reduplication is epiphenomenal: Evidence from Yoruba. In: Hurch B., (Ed), Studies on reduplication Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 135–160Google Scholar
  79. Newman P. (1989). Reduplication and tone in Hausa ideophones. In Hall K., (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistic society (pp. 248–255).Google Scholar
  80. Newman P. (2000). The Hausa language: An encyclopedic reference grammar. New Haven and London, Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  81. Orgun C.O., Sprouse R.L. (1999). From MParse to Control: Deriving ungrammaticality. Phonology, 16, 191–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Potts C., Pullum G.K. (2002). Model theory and the content of OT constraints. Phonology, 19, 361–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Prentice D.J. (1971). The Murut languages of Sabah Pacific Linguistics, Series C, no. 18, Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  84. Prince A. (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. In Deaton K., Noske M., ,& Ziolkowski M., (Eds.), Papers from the 26th regional meeting of the Chicago linguistic society, Vol. 2, The Parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology (pp. 355–398). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  85. Prince A. (1996). Aspects of mapping under OT, handout from talk given at the University of California, Santa Cruz, October 11, 1996.Google Scholar
  86. Prince A., & Smolensky P. (1993/2002). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Technical Report CU-CS-696–93, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder; and Technical Report TR-2, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University. ROA 537–0802.Google Scholar
  87. Raimy E., Idsardi W. (1997). A minimalist approach to reduplication in optimality theory. In: Kusumoto K., (Ed), Proceedings of the north east linguistics society 27. Amherst, GLSA, pp. 369–382Google Scholar
  88. Riggle J. (2004). Nonlocal reduplication. In: Moulton K., Wolf M., (Eds), Proceedings of the 34th annual meeting of the north eastern linguistic society. Amherst, GLSA, pp. 485–496Google Scholar
  89. Rose S. (1997). Theoretical issues in comparative Ethio-Semitic phonology and morphology Ph.D. dissertation, McGill.Google Scholar
  90. Rose S, Walker R. (2004). A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language, 80, 475–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Samek-Lodovici V. (1993). Morphological gemination, paper presented at ROW-1, Rutgers University, October 1993.Google Scholar
  92. Saxton D. (1963). Papago phonemes. International Journal of American Linguistics, 29, 29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Saxton D., Saxton L., & Enos S. (1983). Papago/Pima—English, O’otham—Mil-gahn; English-Papago/Pima, Mil-gahn -O’otham Dictionary (2nd ed.). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  94. Schachter P., Otanes Fe.T. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  95. Selkirk E.O. (1984). On the major class features and syllable theory. In: Aronoff M., Oerhle R.T. (Eds), Language sound structure: Studies in phonology dedicated to Morris Halle by his teacher and students. Cambridge MA, MIT Press, pp. 107–113Google Scholar
  96. Shaw P. (1987). Non-conservation of melodic structure in reduplication. In: Bosch A., Need B., Schiller E., (Eds), Papers from the 23rd annual regional meeting of the Chicago linguistic society, Part Two: Parasession on autosegmental and metrical phonology. Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 291–306Google Scholar
  97. Sloan K. (1988). Bare-consonant reduplication: Implications for a prosodic theory of reduplication. In: Borer H., (Ed), Proceedings of the seventh west coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, Stanford Linguistic Association, pp. 319–330Google Scholar
  98. Spaelti P. (1997). Dimensions of variation in multi-pattern reduplication Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  99. Struijke C. (1997). Input-output correspondence and Kwakwala reduplication. In: Li X., Lopez L., Stroik T., (Eds), Papers from the 1997 mid-America linguistics conference. Columbia, University of Missouri, pp. 108–119Google Scholar
  100. Steriade D. (1988). Reduplication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere. Phonology, 5, 73–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Steriade D. (1995). Underspecification and markedness. In: Goldsmith J., (Ed), The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge MA, Blackwell, pp. 114–174)Google Scholar
  102. Struijke C. (1998). Reduplicant and output TETU in Kwakwala: A new model of correspondence, ms., University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  103. Struijke C. (2000a). Existential faithfulness: A study of reduplicative TETU, feature movement, and dissimilation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  104. Struijke C. (2000b). Why constraint conflict can disappear in reduplication, ms., ROA 373-01100.Google Scholar
  105. Urbanczyk S. (1995). Double reduplications in parallel. In: Beckman J., Walsh L., Dickey, Urbanczyk S., (Eds) University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: Papers in optimality theory. Amherst, GLSA, pp. 499–532Google Scholar
  106. Urbanczyk S. (1996a). Patterns of reduplication in Lushootseed. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  107. Urbanczyk S. (1996b). Morphological templates in reduplication. In: Beckman J., et al. (Eds), Proceedings of NELS 26. Amherst, GLSA, pp. 425–440Google Scholar
  108. Urbanczyk S. (1998). A-templatic reduplication in Halq’emeylem. In: Shahin K., Blake S., E.-Kim S., (Eds), WCCFL 17: Proceedings of the seventeenth west coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, CSLI Publications, pp. 655–669Google Scholar
  109. Walker R. (1998). Nasalization, neutral segments, and opacity effects. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz. Published by Garland, New York, 2000.Google Scholar
  110. Wilbur R. (1973). The phonology of reduplication. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois; distributed by the Illinois University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  111. Willett E. (1982). Reduplication and accent in Southeastern Tepehuan. International Journal of American Linguistics, 48, 164–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Yip M. (2001). Segmental unmarkedness versus input preservation in reduplication. In: Lombardi L., (Ed), Segmental phonology in optimality theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 206–230Google Scholar
  113. Yu A. (2003). The phonology and morphology of infixation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  114. Zepeda O. (1984). Topics in Papago morphology. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  115. Zepeda O. (1987). Desiderative-causatives in Tohono O’odham. International Journal of American Linguistics, 53, 348–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Zepeda O. (1988). A Papago grammar. Tucson, University of Arizona PressGoogle Scholar
  117. Zoll C. (1993). Ghost segments and optimality. In: Duncan E., Farkas D., Spaelti P., (Eds), Proceedings of the 12th west coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, CSLI, pp. 183–199Google Scholar
  118. Zoll C. (1994). Subsegmental parsing: Floating features in Chaha and Yawelmani. In: Merchant J., Padgett J., Walker R., (Eds), Phonology at Santa Cruz (Vol. 3) (pp. 47–56).Google Scholar
  119. Zuraw K. (2003). Infixation in Tagalog: Markedness vs. similarity, handout for a talk given at University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations