Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reduplication in Hawaiian: variations on a theme of minimal word

  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article explores a database of over 1600 reduplicated words in Hawaiian and gives the first comprehensive account of the empirical generalizations concerning reduplicant form and associated vowel length alternations. We argue that the observed output patterns and length alternations can be cogently analyzed by recognizing a minimal word target for reduplicant shape. Realizing a minimal word, or a single well-formed foot, is predicted by the integration of standard constraints on prosodic well-formedness and faithfulness constraints in Optimality Theory. We further show that all variant realizations of the reduplicant, and a myriad of exceptional patterns, can be accounted for by re-ordering only faithfulness constraints defined on distinct correspondence relations, documenting that one especially rich dataset can be analyzed with this limitation on constraint systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The dictionary, last updated in 1986, is the most comprehensive dictionary of any Polynesian language, with approximately 29,000 entries. The Hawaiian-English section contains words for all aspects of Hawaiian, e.g., plant and animal names, legal terms, and names of winds. It also contains both colloquial words and words that may not be recognized by many native speakers today. Reduplicated words of the latter class are included in our dataset because it increases the size of the database and it is impossible to distinguish the two classes from the information in the dictionary. This inclusion may skew the database towards an older state of the language. If this is true, then our description and analysis is of this older state of the language, perhaps less affected by the significant demographic shifts of the twentieth century.

  2. Noun and verb subcategories listed in the dictionary include: vi ‘intransitive verb’, vs ‘stative verb’, vt ‘transitive verb’, n ‘noun (often material objects)’; nvs, nvi, nvt are noun-verbs which can be used as either a noun or verb, where the verb form has one of the three verbal subcategories.

  3. CVːCV roots are clearly underrepresented in Hawaiian in general, and, perhaps related to this, Elbert and Pukui (1979:14), note that the specific root pattern CVːʔV does not occur. We examined a list of 2,129 roots in which either the first or second syllable could be bimoraic (i.e., a long vowel or diphthong) and found that LH roots outnumbered HL roots by approximately two-to-one (10 % to 5.5 %, respectively). We conjecture that this is due to an incomplete pattern of trochaic shortening, like the more productive patterns found in Tongan (Churchward 1953) and Fijian (Hayes 1995).

  4. All standard-issue OT constraints, like these prosodic well-formedness constraints and base-reduplicant faithfulness constraints, are defined in the Appendix.

  5. The principle of fixed markedness hierarchies is intended to apply specifically to lexical stratification and affix classes in adult grammars, and not to the dynamics of constraint re-ordering in language development or variable output forms in speech production processes.

  6. Perhaps due to typographic similarities, correspondence-based approaches are sometimes grouped together with coindexing approaches to exceptions (Inkelas and Zoll 2007; Caballero 2011). It is important to understand, however, that they work on fundamentally different structures. Correspondence-based approaches, like Surgery on ℜ, work on correspondence relations, the mathematical basis for relating string elements. Coindexing approaches work instead on constraints and tag morphemes to constraints via an index. It is the abstraction over correspondence-defined constraints that enables Surgery on ℜ to avoid the constraint selection problem and limit exceptions to faithfulness properties.

  7. We assume for concreteness that the alignment constraints, InitDactyl, MainLeft/Right, AllFeetLeft/Right, refer to the larger PrWd of the prosodic compound, and not one of the two more deeply embedded PrWds. This is consistent with the fact that there is a single main stress and it is also motivated theoretically: see Alderete (2009) for discussion of analytical problems arising from assuming these constraints can refer to the smaller PrWds in prosodic compounds.

  8. We have examined a set of 90 /-na/ nominalizations in the dictionary, and found additional cases of lengthening, but also that the non-lengthening pattern in (24a), e.g., hikí-na, is more common in LL roots. Any analysis of these derived nominals will therefore have to account for the optionality of lengthening, just like with suffixing reduplication.

  9. Should we analyze these and other minor patterns with the same tools used for the major patterns, or instead list them lexically as wholes? If the latter turns out to be the correct approach, we can still be confident of the conclusions supporting generalized templates and fixed markedness hierarchies. Our empirical tests would just be less impressive. We opt for the former, however, because (i) it is not at all clear in some contexts which pattern is major and which is minor (there are e.g., 18 cases of infixation with shortening of CVːCVCV bases, and 15 cases without it), and (ii) even irregular patterns represented by a small number of examples can support generalization to new words (Bybee and Moder 1983).

  10. Vowel alternations and prefixing reduplication have been investigated in Kennedy (2009). Lacking a comprehensive account of the empirical facts, this work analyzes some rather spurious patterns. However, it has some common ground with the present analysis in assuming that reduplicant shape is guided by general well-formedness constraints, like FootBinarity. The present work can thus be seen as championing this initial insight and exploring it in much more detail.

  11. Here and throughout we assume for concreteness that * Clash violations are assessed on adjacent stressed syllables that occur in the embedded PrWds of the larger PrWd compound. This assumption is not crucial, however, as the losers we wish to rule out also have stress clash across PrWds as well, and our winners do not—see also (31) below.

  12. Alternatively, this effect could be due to additive constraint violation in Harmonic Grammar (Pater 2009b). In a similar vein, we could appeal to a constraint, * HH, which prohibits two adjacent (stressed) heavy syllables, because this case and others below are distinguished by having a stress clash between two heavy syllables. Kennedy (2002) employs this constraint with success in related vowel length alternations in Ponapean, and so some kind of specialized * Clash constraint has independent support.

  13. We follow the standard definition of the base in reduplication as the string that directly follows a prefix and directly precedes a suffix (see Urbanczyk 1996 on this principle of string adjacency relative to a tropic edge, cf. Shaw 2005). For this reason, the candidate (nà-ma)(náʔo) is also ruled out in (45) by BR-AnchorLeft, because the leftmost element of the reduplicant n does not correspond with the leftmost element of the base, which, because it is prefixed to the whole stem, is m.

References

  • Alderete, John. 1995. Faithfulness to prosodic heads. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Rutgers Optimality Archive, No. 94.

  • Alderete, John. 1999. Head dependence in stress-epenthesis interaction. In The derivational residue in phonological Optimality Theory, eds. Ben Hermans, and Marc van Oostendorp, 29–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alderete, John. 2001. Morphologically governed accent Optimality Theory. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alderete, John. 2008. Using learnability as a filter on computable functions: a new approach to Anderson and Browne’s generalization. Lingua 118: 1177–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alderete, John. 2009. Exploring recursivity, stringency, and gradience in the Pama-Nyungan stress continuum. In Phonological argumentation, Essays on evidence and motivation, ed. Steve Parker. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphological conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20: 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, Peter. 1981. A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bat-El, Outi. 2005. The emergence of the trochaic foot in Hebrew hypocoristics. Phonology 22: 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, Jill N. 1999. Positional faithfulness: an Optimality Theoretic treatment of phonological asymmetries. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benua, Laura. 2000. Phonological relations between words. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, Bruce. 1961. The structure of New Zealand Maaori. Anthropological Linguistics 3: 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blust, Robert. 2009. The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broselow, Ellen, and John McCarthy. 1983. A theory of internal reduplication. The Linguistic Review 3: 25–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burzio, Luigi. 1994. Principles of English stress. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, Joan, and Carol Lynn Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59: 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, Gabriela. 2011. Morphologically conditioned stress assignment in Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara). Linguistics 49: 749–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchward, C. Maxwell. 1953. Tongan grammar. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coetzee, Andries. 2009. Learning lexical indexation. Phonology 26: 109–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosswhite, Catherine. 1998. Segmental vs. prosodic correspondence in Chamorro. Phonology 15: 281–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosswhite, Catherine, John Alderete, Tim Beasley, and Vita Markman. 2003. Morphological effects on default stress placement in novel Russian words. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), Vol. 22, eds. Gina Garding and Mimu Tsujimura, 151–164. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowhurst, Megan. 1991. Minimality and foot structure in metrical phonology and prosodic morphology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.

  • Crowhurst, Megan. 1994. Foot extrametricality and template mapping in Cupeño. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12: 177–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demuth, Katherine. 1995. Markedness and development of prosodic structure. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS), ed. Jill Beckman. Vol. 25, 13–25. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demuth, Katherine. 1996. The prosodic structure of early words. In Signal to syntax: bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition, eds. James L. Morgan and Katherine Demuth, 171–184. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbert, Samuel H. 1953. Internal relationships of Polynesian languages and dialects. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9: 147–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbert, Samuel H., and Mary Kawena Pukui. 1979. Hawaiian grammar. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elfner, Emily. 2011. Syntax-prosody interactions in Irish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Flack, Kathryn. 2007. The sources of phonological markedness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Fukazawa, Haruka. 1999. Theoretical implications of OCP effects on features in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.

  • Gouskova, Maria. 2004. Minimal reduplication as a paradigm uniformity effect. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL). Vol. 23, 101–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouskova, Maria, and Kevin Roon. 2013. Faithfulness, gradient clash and sonority sequencing effects in Russian compound stress. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 4: 383–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, Ray, Winifred Bauer, Margaret Maclagan, and Catherine Watson. 2011. Interrupted transmission and rule loss in Māori: the case of ka. Oceanic Linguistics 50: 50–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, Bruce, and Colin Wilson. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 379–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, Brett. 2007. Issues in Banawá prosody: onset sensitivity, minimal words, and syllable integrity. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 239–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkelas, Sharon. 1998. The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: a case study of dominance effects. In Yearbook of morphology 1997, eds. Geert E. Booij and Jaap van Marle, 121–155. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Inkelas, Sharon, and Cheryl Zoll. 2007. Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45: 133–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Itô, Junko. 1990. Prosodic minimality in Japanese. Parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology. In Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS), Vol. 26, eds. Karen Deaton, Manuela Noske, and Michael Ziolkowski, 213–239. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1992. Weak layering and word binarity. University of California at Santa Cruz Linguistics Research Center Report, 92-09.

  • Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1995. The core-periphery structure of the lexicon and constraints on reranking. In Papers in Optimality Theory, eds. Jill Beckman, Suzanne Urbanczyk, and Laura Walsh, 181–210. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1999. The structure of the phonological lexicon. In The handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. Natsuko Tsujimura, 62–100. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2008. Lexical classes in phonology. In The handbook of Japanese linguistics, eds. Shigeru Miyagawa, and Mamoru Saito, 84–106. New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2013. Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124: 20–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Itô, Junko, Yoshihisa Kitagawa, and Armin Mester. 1996. Prosodic faithfulness and correspondence: evidence from a Japanese argot. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5: 217–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kager, René. 1989. A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kager, René. 1994. On defining complex templates. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), Vol. 12, eds. Eric Duncan, Donka Farkas, and Philip Spaelti, 19–34. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kager, René. 1996. Stem disyllabicity in Guugu Yimidhirr. In Dam phonology: HIL phonology papers II, eds. Marina Nespor and Norval Smith, 59–101. Den Haag: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Karvonen, Daniel Howard. 2005. Word prosody in Finnish. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

  • Kennedy, Robert. 2002. A stress-based approach to Ponapean reduplication. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL). Vol. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Robert. 2009. Vowel length in Hawaiian reduplication. Manuscript, UC Santa Barbara.

  • Kennedy, Robert, and ’Ōiwi Parker Jones. 2009. Neighborhood effects and analogy in Hawaiian reduplication. Handout to The Manchester Phonology Meeting 17.

  • Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17: 351–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiyomi, Setsuko. 1995. A new approach to reduplication: a semantic study of noun and verb reduplication in Malayo-Polynesian languages. Linguistics 33: 1145–1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krupa, Victor. 1971. The phonotactic structure of the morph in Polynesian languages. Language 47: 668–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krupa, Victor. 1973. Polynesian languages. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legendre, Géraldine, Yoshiro Miyata, and Paul Smolensky. 1990. Can connectionism contribute to syntax? Harmonic grammar, with an application. In Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS), Vol. 26, eds. Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske, and Karen Deaton, 237–252. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, Mark, and Alan Prince. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Hui-shan. 2010. Disyllabic verbal reduplication in Pazih—leftward or rightward? Language and Linguistics 11: 679–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubowicz, Ania. 2002. Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112: 243–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John J. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16(3): 331–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John J. 2000a. Faithfulness and prosodic circumscription. In Optimality Theory, phonology, syntax and acquisition, eds. Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw, and Jeroen van der Weijer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John J. 2000b. The prosody of phase in Rotuman. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 147–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John J. 2002. Comparative markedness (long version). In Papers in Optimality Theory II, eds. Angela Carpenter, Andries Coetzee, and Paul de Lacy. Vol. 26 of University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics, 171–246. Amberst: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John J. 2003. OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20: 75–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1986. Prosodic morphology. University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Brandeis University. Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, Technical Report No. 32.

  • McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1990. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Arabic broken plural. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8: 209–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993a. Generalized alignment. In Yearbook of morphology, eds. Geert E. Booij and Jaap van Marle, 79–153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993b. Prosodic morphology I: constraint interaction and satisfaction. Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Technical Report No. 3.

  • McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1994a. The emergence of the unmarked: optimality in prosodic morphology. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS), Vol. 24, ed. Merce Gonzàlez, 333–379. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1994b. Two lectures on prosodic morphology. University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Rutgers University. Rutgers Optimality Archive, No. 59.

  • McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Papers in Optimality Theory, eds. Jill Beckman, Suzanne Urbanczyk, and Laura Walsh. Vol. 18 of University of Massachusetts occasional papers, 249–384. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mester, Armin. 1994. The quantitative trochee in Latin. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12: 1–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosel, Ulrike, and Even Hovdhaugen. 1992. Samoan reference grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Nicole. 2009. Asymmetric anchoring. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.

  • Nespor, Marina, and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nivens, Richard. 1993. Reduplication in four dialects of West Tarangan. Oceanic Linguistics 32: 353–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orgun, Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology with special attention to Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Parker Jones, ‘Ōiwi. 2010. A computational phonology and morphology of Hawaiian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford.

  • Pater, Joe. 2000. Non-uniformity in English stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17: 237–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pater, Joe. 2007. The locus of exceptionality: morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. In Papers in Optimality Theory III, eds. Leah Bateman, Michael O’Keefe, Ehren Reilly, and Adam Werle. Vol. 32 of University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics, 259–296. Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pater, Joe. 2009a. Morpheme-specific phonology: constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. In Phonological argumentation, Essays on evidence and motivation, ed. Steve Parker, 123–154. London: Equinox Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pater, Joe. 2009b. Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33: 999–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piggott, Glyne. 1992. Satisfying the minimal word. Unpublished manuscript: McGill University.

  • Piñeros, Carlos Eduardo. 2000. Prosodic and segmental unmarkedness in Spanish truncation. Linguistics 38: 63–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piñeros, Carlos Eduardo. 1998. Prosodic morphology in Spanish: constraint interaction in word formation. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.

  • Poser, William. 1989. The metrical foot in Diyari. Phonology 6: 117–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, Alan. 1980. A metrical theory for Estonian quantity. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 511–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, Alan, and Bruce Tesar. 2012. OTWorkplace. Rutgers University.

  • Pukui Mary Kawena, and Samuel H. Elbert. 1986. Hawaiian dictionary. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salidis, Joanna, and Jacqueline S. Johnson. 1997. The production of minimal words: a longitudinal case study of phonological development. Language Acquisition 6: 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 563–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. In Papers in Optimality Theory, eds. Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh-Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk. Vol. 18 of University of Massachusetts occasional papers, 439–469. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, Elizabeth. 2009. On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: the syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyū 136: 35–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In The handbook of phonological theory, eds. John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan Yu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senturia, Martha. 1998. A prosodic theory of hiatus resolution. San Diego: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, Patricia A. 2005. Non-adjacency in reduplication. In Studies on reduplication, ed. Bernhard Hurch, 161–210. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolensky, Paul. 1995. On the internal structure of the constraint component Con of UG. Handout of talk given at University of Arizona.

  • Smolensky, Paul, and Géraldine Legendre. 2006. The harmonic mind. From neural computation to Optimality Theoretic grammar. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaelti, Philip. 1999. Dimensions of variation in multi-pattern reduplication. Santa Cruz: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spring, Cari. 1990. Implications of Axininca Campa for prosodic morphology and reduplication. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.

  • Steriade, Donca. 2000. Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In Papers in laboratory phonology V: acquisition and the lexicon, eds. Michael B. Broe, and Janet B. Pierrehumbert, 313–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taft, Marcus, and Kenneth I. Forster. 1975. Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14: 638–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesar, Bruce. 2004. Using inconsistency detection to overcome structural ambiguity in language learning. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 219–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesar, Bruce, John Alderete, Graham Horwood, Nazarré Merchant, Koichi Nishitani, and Alan Prince. 2003. Surgery in language learning. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), Vol. 22, eds. Gina Gardin and Mimu Tsujimura, 477–490. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesar, Bruce, and Paul Smolensky. 2000. Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 1996. Reduplication and prosodic morphology in Lushootseed. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 2006. Reduplicative form and the root-affix asymmetry. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24: 179–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiese, Richard. 2001. Regular morphology vs. prosodic morphology? The case of truncations in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13: 131–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, Karina. 1988. Prosodic structure and Lardil phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 325–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yip, Moira. 1991. Prosodic morphology of four Chinese dialects. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, Alan. 2007. A natural history of infixation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Amber Blenkiron, Rod Casali, Kathleen Hall, Ashley Farris-Trimble, Douglas Pulleyblank and Paul Tupper for comments and questions on previous versions of this article. A special thanks goes to Dennis Sharkey for initial technical assistance in assembling the Hawaiian data. This work was funded in part by a standard SSHRC research grant 410-2005-1175.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada

    John Alderete & Kayleigh MacMillan

Authors
  1. John Alderete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kayleigh MacMillan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Alderete.

Appendix

Appendix

  • Prosodic well - formedness (Markedness)

    * Clash::

    No stressed syllables are adjacent.

    * Clash 2::

    Local self conjunction of *Clash

    FootBinarity::

    Feet are binary at either the syllabic or moraic level.

    ParseSyllable (ParseSyll)::

    Syllables are dominated by feet.

    MainLeft/Right (MainLt/Rt)::

    The left/right edge of the main stress foot is properly aligned with the left/right edge of some prosodic word.

    InitialDactyl = Align(PrWd, Left, Foot, Left)::

    The left edge of the PrWd is properly aligned with the left edge of some prosodic foot.

    AllFeetLeft/Right(AllFtLt/Rt)::

    The left/right edges of all prosodic feet are properly aligned with the left/right edge of some prosodic word.

    NonRecur(PrWd)::

    Prosodic Words are not recursive.

  • Faithfulness

    OO-Max::

    Base segments must have correspondents in the output derivative.

    BR-Max::

    Base segments must have correspondents in the reduplicant.

    OO-LengthIdent (OO-Ident)::

    Corresponding segments in base and derivative agree in length.

    BR-LengthIdent (BR-Ident)::

    Corresponding segments in base and reduplicant agree in length.

    BR-Integrity::

    No segment of the base has multiple correspondents in the reduplicant.

    OO-ProsMatch::

    The left edge of the main stress foot in the underived stem must have a correspondent at the left edge of some foot in the base of the reduplicated word.

    BR-ProsMatch::

    The left edge of the main stress foot in the base must have a correspondent at the left edge of some foot in the reduplicant.

    BR-AnchorLeft/Right::

    The left/right peripheral element in the reduplicant has a correspondent in the left/right peripheral element in the base.

    BR-AnchorHeadFoot (AnchHdFt) = Anchor(Red, L, Foot Head , L)::

    The left edge of the reduplicant has a correspondent in the left edge of the main stress foot.

    BR-Dep(σ1)::

    If a segment of the reduplicant stands in correspondence with a segment of the base, it is in the initial syllable of the base.

    Match(Stem, PrWd)::

    The left and right edges of a stem must correspond to the left and right edges of a PrWd in the output representation.

    OO-AnchorLeft(Stem, Foot)::

    The leftmost element of the underived stem must have a correspondent in the output that is leftmost in some foot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alderete, J., MacMillan, K. Reduplication in Hawaiian: variations on a theme of minimal word. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 33, 1–45 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9255-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9255-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation