Skip to main content

Base-dependence in reduplication

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 >> *Repeat σ >> 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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.

  2. Blevins J. (2003) A note on reduplication in Bugotu and Cheke Holo. Oceanic Linguistics 42: 499–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blevins J. (2005) The role of phonological predictability in sound change: Privileged reduction in Oceanic reduplicated substrings. Oceanic Linguistics 44: 517–26

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dixon R.M.W. (1977) A grammar of Yidin. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ezard B. (1980) Reduplication in Tawala. Kivung 12: 145–60

    Google 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, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fitzgerald C. (2000) Vowel Hiatus and faithfulness in Tohono O’odham reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 31(4): 713–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Harley H., Florez Leyva M. (2009) Form and meaning in Hiaki (Yaqui) verbal reduplication. International Journal of American Linguistics 75(2): 233–272

    Article  Google 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 75–103

    Google Scholar 

  10. Haugen J. (2009) What is the base for reduplication?. Linguistic Inquiry 40(3): 505–14

    Google 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.

  12. Hendricks, S. (1999). Reduplication without template constraints: A study in bare-consonant reduplication. PhD Dissertation, University of Arizona.

  13. Hicks Kennard C. (2004) Copy but don’t repeat: The conflict of dissimilation and reduplication in the Tawala durative. Phonology 21: 303–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Inkelas S., Zoll C. (2005) Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Kennedy, R. (2003). Confluence in phonology: Evidence from Micronesian reduplication. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona.

  16. Kennedy R. (2008) Bugotu and Cheke Holo reduplication: In defense of the Emergence of the Unmarked. Phonology 25: 61–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Marantz A. (1982) Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 435–82

    Google 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 151–189

    Google Scholar 

  19. McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1986). Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachusetts- Amherst and Rutgers University.

  20. McCarthy J., Prince A. (1990) Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 209–282

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

  24. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative Grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder.

  25. Suzuki. K. (1998). A typological investigation of dissimilation. Ph.D. Dissertation, U. Arizona (ROA 281- 0998).

  26. Yip, M. (1995). Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. Irvine, CA: University of California, MS (ROA-82).

  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 216–246

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason D. Haugen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haugen, J.D., Hicks Kennard, C. Base-dependence in reduplication. Morphology 21, 1–29 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-010-9154-5

Download citation

Keywords

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