Morphology

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 1–29 | Cite as

Base-dependence in reduplication

Original Paper

Abstract

Inkelas and Zoll (Reduplication: Doubling in morphology, 2005) designed Morphological Doubling Theory (MDT) to offer an alternative theory of reduplication that does not involve phonological copying. Contra theories of reduplication which assume that the morphophonological form of a reduplicative morpheme (a “reduplicant”) relies on the morphophonological form of some stem (its “base”), MDT disallows such “base-dependence”. Inkelas and Zoll account for many reduplication patterns without base-dependence by positing that reduplication constructions involve semantic identity, rather than phonological identity, between two stems in a compounding construction. However, we argue that certain patterns of reduplication require base-dependence. These include cases where reduplication targets the output prosodic structure of the stem, as in the “foot copy”’ reduplicants of Yidiny and “syllable copy” reduplicants of Hiaki (Yaqui). To account for these cases MDT must posit syllabic structure in the input, contra the Richness of the Base. Further, MDT cannot account for emergence of the unmarked (TETU) effects in reduplication. In Tawala, vowel-lengthening occurs in lieu of reduplication only in a predictable phonological environment: when a verb stem already contains two identical adjacent syllables at the left edge of the word. We argue that while such a pattern is a problem for MDT’s proscription against base-dependence, it can be accounted for as a simple case of TETU within Correspondence Theory, given a ranking of Faith-IO >> *Repeatσ >> Faith-BR. Thus, some of the major premises of MDT, which does not privilege a distinction between “reduplicant” and “base”, are challenged by such data.

Keywords

Reduplication Base-dependence Morphological Doubling Theory Correspondence Theory The emergence of the unmarked (TETU) The Richness of the Base Tawala Hiaki (Yaqui) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ballantyne, K. (1999). Reduplication in Yapese: A case of syllable copying. In C. Smallwood & C. Kitto (Eds.), Proceedings of AFLA VI: The sixth meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (pp. 17–24). Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, Toronto: University of Toronto, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  2. Blevins J. (2003) A note on reduplication in Bugotu and Cheke Holo. Oceanic Linguistics 42: 499–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blevins J. (2005) The role of phonological predictability in sound change: Privileged reduction in Oceanic reduplicated substrings. Oceanic Linguistics 44: 517–26Google Scholar
  4. Dixon R.M.W. (1977) A grammar of Yidin. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Ezard B. (1980) Reduplication in Tawala. Kivung 12: 145–60Google Scholar
  6. Ezard B. (1997) A grammar of Tawala: An Austronesian language of the Milne Bay Area, Papua New Guinea. Pacific Linguistics Series C-137, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  7. Fitzgerald C. (2000) Vowel Hiatus and faithfulness in Tohono O’odham reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 31(4): 713–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harley H., Florez Leyva M. (2009) Form and meaning in Hiaki (Yaqui) verbal reduplication. International Journal of American Linguistics 75(2): 233–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haugen J. (2003) Allomorphy in Yaqui reduplication. In: Barragan L., Haugen J. (eds) Studies in Uto-Aztecan. MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 5. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA, pp 75–103Google Scholar
  10. Haugen J. (2009) What is the base for reduplication?. Linguistic Inquiry 40(3): 505–14Google Scholar
  11. Haugen, J. D. (forthcoming). The syllable as delimitation of the base for reduplication. In C. Cairns & E. Raimy (Eds.), Handbook of the syllable. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  12. Hendricks, S. (1999). Reduplication without template constraints: A study in bare-consonant reduplication. PhD Dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  13. Hicks Kennard C. (2004) Copy but don’t repeat: The conflict of dissimilation and reduplication in the Tawala durative. Phonology 21: 303–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Inkelas S., Zoll C. (2005) Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennedy, R. (2003). Confluence in phonology: Evidence from Micronesian reduplication. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  16. Kennedy R. (2008) Bugotu and Cheke Holo reduplication: In defense of the Emergence of the Unmarked. Phonology 25: 61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marantz A. (1982) Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 435–82Google Scholar
  18. McCarthy J. (2000) Faithfulness and prosodic circumscription. In: Dekkers J., van der Leeuw F., van de Weijer J. (eds) Optimality Theory: Phonology, syntax, and acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 151–189Google Scholar
  19. McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1986). Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachusetts- Amherst and Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  20. McCarthy J., Prince A. (1990) Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 209–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In M. González (Ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 24 (pp. 333–379). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  22. McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. Beckman, L. Walsh, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.) University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics; 18 (pp. 53–75). Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Google Scholar
  23. McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1999). Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In R. Kager, H. van der Hulst, & W. Zonneweld (Eds.), The prosody-morphology interface. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative Grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
  25. Suzuki. K. (1998). A typological investigation of dissimilation. Ph.D. Dissertation, U. Arizona (ROA 281- 0998).Google Scholar
  26. Yip, M. (1995). Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. Irvine, CA: University of California, MS (ROA-82).Google Scholar
  27. Yip M. (1998) Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. In: LaPointe S., Brentari D., Farrell P. (eds) Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax. CSLI Publications, Stanford CA, pp 216–246Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oberlin CollegeOberlinUSA
  2. 2.Central Michigan UniversityMount PleasantUSA

Personalised recommendations