Reduplication and deduplication in Baure: two processes pulling on different ends

7/25/2019 Reduplication and deduplication in Baure: two processes pulling on different ends

1/27

1

Reduplication and deduplication in Baure: two processes pulling on different ends

Swintha Danielsen, University of Leipzig

Abstract

This article describes two strategies related to reduplication in Baure: full and partialreduplication of lexical and grammatical material, and deduplication or morphologicalhaplology, i.e. the avoidance of accidental reduplication observed at word onsets.1

[Keywords: Baure, Arawakan, haplology, person marking, reciprocal, repetition, reduplication]

1. Introductioni

Baure is a seriously endangered language of Bolivian Amazonia, classified as belonging to thesouthern branch of the Arawakan language family (Aikhenvald 1999). One dialect of Baure is

still spoken by 10 people in the town of Baures, in the department of Beni. Two other Bauredialects, Carmelito and Joaquiniano, are virtually extinct, but the few data that could becollected were saved in an online language archive. 2 The author of this article hasinvestigated the Baure language since 2003 and completed a descriptive grammar (Danielsen2007). In addition to the recently collected data, historical data are available from the 18thcentury onwards, compiled by Jesuits and other missionaries (e.g. in Adam & Leclerc 1880),travellers of the region (e.g. Fonseca 1881, 237241), and SIL linguists (Baptista & Wallin1967). This relatively long period from the first notes of Baure until today allows for theidentification of both older and more recent linguistic changes.3One example of a relativelyrecent diachronic development is the elision of word and syllable final vowels (cf. Baptista &

Wallin 1968; also compare to the article on the related language Trinitario by Rose 2014).Some morphological strategies have changed under the continuous influence of thedominant Spanish language, such as the progressive replacement of morphological valencyincreasing affixation by analytic syntactic constructions (cf. Danielsen 2015a). The decreasingproductivity of reduplication (cf. Section 4) and the phenomenon of deduplication (cf. Section5) may be more recent developments.

In Section 2, some structural characteristics of Baure are described. Section 3 gives acompendium of all formal types of reduplication encountered in Baure, including lexicalizedreduplicated forms. The derivational value of reduplication with reference to the specific partsof speech is also described in this section. Section 4 challenges the productivity of

reduplication in Baure today (4.1), pins down its main functions, and reflects on severalcompeting strategies of the same or similar functions (4.2). In Section 5, the apparentlyreverse process of deduplication is described, and the conclusion of the findings is presentedin Section 6.

1 I would like to thank Hein van der Voort and Gale Goodwin Gmez for constructive comments onearlier versions of this paper.2 They were investigated during the Baure documentation project, which is financed by VW-DoBeS(Documentation of Endangered Languages) and based at the University of Leipzig, Germany. The linkto the archive is: https://corpus1.mpi.nl/ds/asv/.3As for example shown in Danielsen 2012.


2/27

2

2. Structural notes on Baure

Like most Southern Arawakan languages, Baure can be considered a polysynthetic language,with a particularly complex verbal morphology (cf. Aikhenvald 1999). Baure is anagglutinating language, and morphemes can attach at different levels of the word. Figure 1

demonstrates the levelled structure of a verbal word:

personalproclitic(S)

basepre-fixes

VERB BASE basesuffixes,valency

basesuffixes,aspect

personalenclitics

clausalenclitics

CAUS

stemprefix

VERB STEMrootsuffixes

stemsuffixes

BENRCPC

COMEREPIRR

DEPCOSINTLPERF/REFLCOP

O2(R)

O1(P)

ATTR

aktions-artpre-fixes

VERBROOT

CLF/noun

incorpo-ration

APRXSBJVEXTSDISTR

TRNS

ABSAPPLPASSLKWTE

Figure 1: The structure of the verbal word

The verb base constitutes the meaning unit of a verb, to which aspectual, directional, andvalency changing affixes are attached, and the base is used as the citation form. However, the

verb base is not always also a syntactic unit. In some contexts, parts of the affixes of the basemay be dropped, and others may be inserted. The terms verb root, stem and base are usedhere to distinguish the different levels of morpheme attachment. Verb roots are sometimesCV and generally CVCV of which the final V is often deleted or only present underlyingly ,possibly followed by an incorporated noun or a classifier, and by a number of derivationalroot suffixes (cf. Figure 1). It is frequently the case that a root is only used in combinationwith specific morphemes, and we find only this lexicalized form of a verb base in the data, butnever the bare root (this is also true for fossilized reduplicated roots). Two examples forfossilized verb bases derived from the same root -jaki- are given in (1) and (2).4

(1) rojakichow to ewonokoe Verb base: -jaki.ch-5ro=jakicho-wo to ewonokoe -jaki.cho-3SGm=close-COP ART door -closure.TRNS-He closes the door. close

4 The same root is also lexicalized in the noun jaki.ro.so.ki flute(closure.DER.CLF:wood/bone.CLF:bounded).5 The dots indicate the possible segmentation of the forms into (lexicalized) morphemes. Since theroot plays an important role and is actually separated from the other lexicalized affixes inreduplication, we need to indicate this in some way. Therefore, every verb base that will later besegmented in an example will be represented by a citation form with these dots, marking thesegmentable morpheme boundaries.


3/27

3

(2) rojakiaw to jakirosoki Verb base: -jaki.a-ro=jakia-wo to jakirosoki -jaki.a-3SGm=play.flute-COP ART flute -closure.LK-He is playing the flute. play flute

The verb bases -jaki.ch- close and -jaki.a- play flute derive from the same unidentified root-jaki-, possibly going back to an older word for door or closure. The root -jaki- does notoccur without the lexicalized morphemes in the Baure lexicon, but the forms can still beetymologically decomposed into the basic root and the derivational suffixes, as indicated inthe examples. Even though nouns do not generally arrive at the same complexity as verbs,they have bases which can be further decomposed.

Personal clitics, referring to the main arguments in a clause, attach to the extended base,i.e. after attaching the base affixes. There are two main predicate types in Baure, verbal andnon-verbal, which are distinguished by their different kinds of argument marking strategies:

The subject of verbs is marked by a proclitic (3), whereas the subject of non-verbal predicatesis marked by an enclitic (4).

(3) royonparo=yon-pa

3SGm=walk-INTLHe is going to take a walk.

(4) yonoworyono-wo=ro

surubi-COP=3SGmIt is a surubi (fish sp.).6

This kind of split in the marking of subjects on stative predicates has been referred to as anactive-stative or intransitive split, but sometimes it is even subsumed under the term split-ergative (cf. Danielsen & Granadillo 2007 for a detailed description).

3. Reduplication types in Baure

Reduplication was described as a common, but not always productive feature of Arawakan

languages (Aikhenvald 1999: 81). The structural types of reduplication differ in the languagesof the family, and the semantics of the constructions (verbal reduplication) range fromintensive, repetitive, or continued action to plurality of participants. There are severaldifferent reduplication types in Baure (first mentioned in Baptista & Wallin 1967: 66, 81),which can be distinguished on different levels. On the structural level, we find inherent versusproductive reduplication. On the formal level, there is full and partial phonotacticallyprogressive reduplication of disyllabic roots and reduplication or even triplication of singlesyllables. On the functional level, there are the rather well-known semantic effects of

6Baure words always show final vowel deletion of the vowel o. This process can also be observed tovarious degrees word-internally; however, there it is dependent on prosodic features as well aslanguage register and speed.


4/27

4

reduplication: on the one hand, onomatopoeia 7 and iconic marking of iterativity,augmentative, or repetitive (only lexicalized forms); on the other hand, productivereduplication intensifies stative verbs, some action verbs, and adjectives. In addition, there aretraces of derivation by reduplication, but none of these is productive today. This section issubdivided into nominal reduplicated forms (3.1), verbal reduplication (3.2), reduplication of

other parts of speech (3.3), and the reduplication of bound suffixes (3.4), mainly focussing oninherently reduplicated forms. Productive reduplication is then analyzed in detail in Section 4.

3.1 Reduplicative nominal formsIn the Baure lexicon, and in other Arawakan languages, there are many reduplicated nouns,the majority of which refer to animal and plant names (e.g. Apurin in Facundes 2000:250251, compare also Parker 1995 for Iapari). The overall rate of lexicalized reduplicatednouns in the Baure lexicon is approximately 4% of all noun entries in the dictionary.Reduplication of nouns is no longer productive. Reduplicated nouns from the Bauredictionary show both cases of full and of partial reduplication of syllables or syllable

sequences, which usually do not have a (related) meaning in their simple forms. Thereduplication process is progressive, and it can be described as in Figure 2. The vowel may becomplex, and the consonant roccurs more frequently in reduplication than any of the otherconsonants.

REDN1. (base prefix) - C1V1C1V1- (root/stem suffixes)REDN2. (base prefix) - (CV) C1V1C2V2C1V1C2V2- (root/stem suffixes)REDN3. (base prefix) - (CV) C1V1C2V2C2V2- (root/stem suffixes)

Figure 2: Patterns REDN1 through REDN3 of lexical nominal reduplication8

Examples of lexicalized nouns with reduplicated syllable(s) are poepoe bird sp. (REDN1),sirisiri falcon sp. (REDN2), sorisori owl sp. (REDN2), moriri termite (REDN3), and woretetefrog sp. (REDN3). The frequency of reduplicated nouns in the lexicon may suppose thatreduplication once was a productive process for the derivation of nouns, in particular animalnames. The function of reduplication can be argued to have been at least to some extentonomatopoetic, imitating the sounds or movements of the animals, such as a birds song,fluttering of its wings, a frogs croaking, and the like. Other reduplicated nouns refer to adispersed quantity, such as kirikiri peanut (REDN2). Even though these obvious cases ofinherent reduplication cannot be regarded as actual morphological reduplication, there arestriking similarities to productive reduplication in Baure, and they are reanalysed asreduplicated forms by todays speakers.9

In some cases, it may look like we were dealing with regressive reduplication, due to theoccurrence of the reduplicated syllable(s) at the beginning of the word, as e.g. in tatasoewoodpecker (example (5), type REDN1) and wowori beaver (REDN1). However, thepostulate here is that reduplication was a productive process that occurred right at the end of

7Reduplicated forms in onomatopoeia are excluded from reduplication by others and referred to asrepetition; I apply a broader understanding of reduplication here.8The indices identify same vowels/consonants (same number index), and different vowel/consonant(different number index). Reduplication is only marked by ~ when it is productive.9This became e.g. apparent by the forced neologism for creating a native word for the number 8 askiri, or when a word is incorporated, or an ad hoc classifier is derived, the simple form is taken.


5/27

5

a root morpheme. And since many nouns in Baure are complex compounds of two nouns,compounds of a noun and a classifier root, or derivations obtained by the attachment of oneor more derivational affixes it is also possible that only one of the components of acomplex form is reduplicated. It can be observed that this is generally the first lexical root ofthe complex form10, and thus these reduplicated forms concord with the patterns REDN1

through REDN3 presented in Figure 2. The original morphological composition is not alwaystransparent any more today. The following two examples are thus analyzed as fossilizedprogressive reduplication within complex (compound or derived) nouns:

(5) tata.so.etata-so-i

tata-APRX-CLF:fruit&birdwoodpecker

(6) kojiroropiko-jiroro-pi

ATTR-jiroro-CLF:long&thinyellow worm sp.

The basic roots which were subject of reduplication in (5) and (6), taandjirorespectively, donot occur in isolation in the lexicon of contemporary Baure.

In addition to the syllable reduplication patterns REDN1 through REDN3, animal names inparticular show the repetition of a vowel as e.g. kotoworbuzzard, chomorrorcockroach,

jomochoch gray lizard , or of a consonant as in totikop flee, sisop beetle sp.. Therepetition of the vowel, on the one hand, may be related to vowel harmony, a common

process in the Baure morphophonology. The repetitive occurrence of a consonant, on theother hand, is infrequent otherwise in the language, and it may indicate formerly reduplicatedsyllables, of which one vowel underwent a change of quality. Even though the repetition of aconsonant cannot be called reduplication itself, it has something in common with lexicalreduplication, namely that the process occurs in the first root of a compound (or derived)form. In addition, it will be demonstrated in Section 5 that Baure, like other Arawakanlanguages, is very sensitive to repeated consonants in subsequent syllables, and it possiblyresolves the unwanted repetition of the same consonant by haplology (or deduplication). Thedifferent pattern REDN4 is described in Figure 3:

REDN4. (CV(CV)) C1V1C1V2- (root/stem suffixes)Figure 3: Pattern REDN4 of lexical consonant repetition

Reduplication was productive for nominal derivation in very few cases, and each of them isidiosyncratic. Two examples are -mo.m (-mo~mo; CLF:textile~CLF:textile) vagina andcho.mo.mo.e flower (7), both of which include the reduplicated classificatory root -motextile. The same classificatory root is part of the compound cho.m skin (8), from whichcho.mo.mo.eflower was derived by means of reduplicating the final syllable and adding theemphatic suffix -i, which assimilates into -eafter the round vowel.

10In compounds this is the modifier of the second lexical root (head); see Admiraal & Danielsen 2015for details on the productivity of compounding in Baure.


6/27

6

(7) chomomoe (8) chomcho-mo~mo-i cho-mo

big-CLF:textile~RED-EMPH big-CLF:textileflower skin

Nominal compounding is frequent in Baure, and for this reason we also find compounds oftwo reduplicated forms, as in (9):

(9) jaja.s.tot (10) koji.s.tot (11) jaja.pjaja-so-toto koji-so-toto jaja-po

sand-APRX-CLF:round stone-APRX-CLF:round sand-CLF:multitudesand type (coarse grained sand) pebble sand type (fine sand)

The two reduplicated forms jaja- sand type and -tot(o) CLF:round already entered as

lexicalized units into the compound noun jaja.s.tot sand type (9). They are both boundmorphemes, which also occur in other compounds of a noun and a classifier noun, as shown

jaja.pfine sand(11).

3.2 Reduplicative verbal formsApproximately 8% of the verbal items in the lexicon consist of reduplicated syllables orsyllable sequences, the majority of which do not have a related simplex form. Many of theseverbs describe an intrinsically iterative event, such as shiver, itch, pant, drizzle, roll about,

twinkle, and more. This frequently onomatopoeic reduplication is similar to lexical nominalreduplication. The simplest type of lexicalized reduplicated verbs is described in Figure 4

(compare REDV1 to REDN1), and the equivalent examples are (12) and (13).

REDV1. pers. proclitic = (base prefix) - C1V1C1V1- (root/stem/base suffixes)Figure 4: Pattern REDV1 of lexical verbal reduplication

(12) rosiasiakpaw tech nesh. Verb base: -siasia.k-ro=siasia-ko-pa-wo tech nesh siasia-ko

3SGm=fry-ABS-INTL-COPDEM2m meat siasia-ABSHe is going to fry that meat. fry

(13) ach nga rowak. (14) rowawakow to kove.ach nga ro=wa-ko ro=wa~wa-ko-wo to kove

and NEG 3SGm=bark-ABS 3SGm=bark~bark-ABS-COP ART dogAnd it didnt bark. The dog is barking.

Examples (13) and (14) actually represent a borderline case: the form can be used withoutreduplication -wa.k- bark(13), but the reduplicated verb -wa.wa.k- bark (14) is by far morecommon. The simplex root is copied completely, but the verb base still needs to get the stemclosing suffix -koABS attached.11Verbal roots are generally disyllabic, and for this reason the

11The stem closing suffix can be found in many Arawakan languages, and it has often been labelledthematic suffix. Its function remains to be analyzed, but inBaure it seems to be related to a (direct or


7/27

7

first pattern (REDV1) could also be a derivational strategy to fulfil minimal verb rootrequirements as CVCV. This is supported by the fact that the simplex root of (13) can occur,but the speakers generally prefer the reduplicated form. However, there are also a smallnumber of monosyllabic basic verb roots. The main motivation for the preference of the formin (14) is probably the sound symbolism represented through the repetition of the root

syllable.The predominant pattern of lexicalized verbal reduplication is the progressive partial or

full reduplication of a disyllabic root, as presented in Figure 5.12

REDV2. pers. clitic = (base prefix) - (CV) C1V1C2V2C1V1C2V2- (root/stem/base suffixes)Figure 5: Pattern REDV2 of lexical verbal reduplication

Baure words usually display a strict CVCV structure. However, if the second vowel of a root isan o, it is often deleted in faster speech, for which reason the reduplicated outcome may beCVC~CVC, as in -jap(o)jap(o).in- cough (15), which is regarded as a subtype of pattern

REDV2.

(15) rojapjapinow Verb base: -japjap.in-ro=japjapino-wo -japjap-ino-

3SGm=cough-COP japjap-SBJVHe iscoughing. cough

(16) nimiajamiajainow tech nipinokiach. Verb base: -miajamiaja.in-ni=miaja.miajaino-wo tech ni=pinokia-cho -miajamiaja-ino-

1SG=pant-COP DEM2m 1SG=run-PTCP miajamiaja-SBJVI am panting from my running. pant

(17) royoporoporokow-ji tech showekon. Verb base: -yoporoporo.k-ro=yoporo.poro-ko-wo=ji tech showekon -yoporoporo-ko-

3SGm=shiver-ABS-COP=QUOT DEM2m jaguar yoporoporo-ABSThe jaguar was shivering (from the cold). shiver (from cold)

Next to iterative action, there are various instances of onomatopoeic reduplication or thesound symbolic repetition of disyllabic verb roots, such as -torotorojik- cackle(hen), -kachoworoworek- make (a lot of) noise, -chokorokorok- rumble (stomach),or -wotowotok- boil. Some lexicalized reduplicated verbs do not refer directly to these twomeanings (iterativity, repetitive, or onomatopoeic), such as -seriserich-misunderstand, -sovisovik- crouch with legs over, or -yeriyerianjek- stop laying eggs (hen).

oblique) object of the described event. Rose analyzed it as an active suffix for Trinitario (cf. Rose 2014), however, its occurrence with a great number of stative verbs makes this analysis implausible forBaure. The suffix -ko occurs in Baure verbs and nouns; in the latter it is used for the derivation ofabsolute unpossessed nouns. In verbal incorporation, it is regularly replaced by a noun or classifier, butit may also co-occur with a classifier. For the time being, this suffix is called absolute suffix on bothnominal and verbal bases.12This reduplication type has also been described for the Arawakan language Warekena (Aikhenvald1995:31).


8/27

8

Some inherently reduplicated verb roots only show the copying of the final syllable of theroot. The corresponding reduplication pattern is given in Figure 6, and examples follow in(18) and (19):

REDV3a. pers. clitic = (base pref.) - (CV) C1V1C2V2C2V2- (root/stem/base suffixes)

Figure 6: Pattern REDV3a of lexical verbal reduplication

The onset syllable is given as C1V1, however, it may alternatively consist of only a vowel, oreven be preceded by an extended onset (CV). The consonant of the reduplicated syllable isfrequently r, as in (19):

(18) rotoromomokiow.ro=toromomo-ki-wo

3SGm=be.clean-CLF:bounded-COPIt is clean inside.

(19) apikori ver tech nokasiroropaki to rekirok.api-kori ver tech no=kasiroro-pa-ki to rekirok

two-arrow PERF DEM2m 3PL=destroy-CLF:gourd-CLF:bounded ART gourdTwo arrows destroyed the gourds inside.

Verb bases with the initial glideymay show regressive reduplication or triplication, includingthe change of the vowel. This does not concern lexicalized verb roots. But it cannot beargued either that this is a very productive process, because only very few verb roots beginwith the consonanty, and apparently only the two verbs -ya.k- be ripe and -ya- crydisplay

this behaviour.

(20) wokow kik royiyakow.wokow kik ro=yi~ya-ko-wo

not.yet really 3SGm=RED~be.ripe-ABS-COPIt is not really ripe yet.

(21) riyiyiyaw ti Hosebiasita.ri=yi~yi~ya-wo ti Hosebiasita

3SGf=RED~RED~cry-COP ARTf EusebiacitaPoor little Eusebia cried and cried.

The pattern found here presumably originated in progressive reduplication of the syllable,but due to phonetic raising of the vowel surrounded by the glide, the first syllables havechanged their shape. This subpattern is described in Figure 7:

REDV3b. pers. clitic = (base pref.) - (yi~)yi~yV - (root/stem/base suffixes)Figure 7: Subpattern REDV3b of (productive) regressive verbal reduplication


9/27

9

3.3 Reduplication in other word classesOther parts of speech that may be subject to productive reduplication are adjectives, adverbs,and personal pronouns. There are different morphological kinds of adjectives in Baure, andthey can be argued to be a subclass of nouns, with the specific function of designatingcertain qualities or attributes of arguments. One kind of adjectives is a small class of right-

bound roots, which form compounds with classifiers or noun roots, sometimes followed by anominalizing suffix -no NMLZ. Reduplication is found either with the complete root as inapoapan (apo~apo-a-no; multicoloured~multicoloured-CLF:body-NMLZ) multicolouredanimalor at the end of the root as partial reduplication, but always preceding the classifierroot:

(22) ndopawapa ka tech in posisiaren.ni=topo-a-wapa ka tech in posi~si-are-no

1SG=be.dirty-CLF:body-COS because DEM2m water turbid~RED-CLF:liquid-NMLZIm dirty because the water is very turbid.

Many adjectives are derived from verbal bases by the nominalizing suffix -no, as e.g. -acho.k-fill < ach.ko.n (acho-ko-no; fill-ABS-NMLZ) full (lit. filled). Both verbs and adjectives mayincorporate classifiers or body parts (generally in the slot of the absolute suffix -ko, if thissuffix is part of the base). The derived adjective topopok.o.n(topo~po-ko-no; be.dirty~RED-ABS-NMLZ) dirty displays reduplication of the root final syllable po, which is obligatory withthe adjective but not the verb -topo.k- (topo-ko; be.dirty-ABS) be dirty. So, in this example,reduplication also had a derivative function, which, however, cannot be generalized.

(23) ndopawapa koech tech in topoparen.ni=topo-a-wapa koech tech in topopo-are-no

1SG=be.dirty-CLF:body-COS because DEM2m water dirty-CLF:liquid-NMLZMy body is dirty because that water is dirty .

Reduplication intensifies the meaning, and this most frequently applies to the description ofa state. The example in (23), where reduplication is obligatory in the adjective root and maythus be considered as part of the derivational process from the verb -topo.k- be dirty to theadjective, is exceptional. Adjectives are productively derived by the nominalizer, andreduplication has simply been lexicalized in this specific adjectivetopop.ko.ndirty.13Since alladjectives are nominal, and many of them can be considered to be nominalized verbs, the

reduplication patterns do not differ from those detected in verbal reduplication: Thepredominant pattern found among adjectives, is pattern REDV3a (cf. Figure 6). One moreexample is given in (24):

(24) eviroroniawon (25) evirokowoneviro~ro-ni-a-wo-no eviro-ko-wo-no

timid~RED-voice-LK-COP-NMLZ timid-ABS-COP-NMLZa very timid voice patient, timid14

13This form is also reminiscent of pattern REDN3 in Figure 2.14It is not clear why some adjectives derived from verbs need the copula suffix -woin addition to thenominalizer.


10/27

10

Reduplication does not play an important role in adverbial morphology, but a few adverbscan be reduplicated, such as nakaover there and nakakaover there (far away), augmentingthe distance. Also kopeap late can be reduplicated as kopepeap very late. In both casesreduplication has an intensifying function. Only in the case of nanan later (< nan there) a

new lexeme has been created through reduplication. The pattern is always partialreduplication, like pattern REDV3a of verbal reduplication. By far a more productive processfor the intensifying derivation of adverbs, though, is the attachment of the emphaticsuffixes -ior -ikoe(cf. 4.2).

It is noteworthy that personal pronouns and the numeral one (53) can also bereduplicated. The function is the intensification of the referent all alone. It should be

mentioned here that personal pronouns tend to be used mainly as predicate bases, and notas pronouns proper, considering that Baure has a personal cliticization system for thepronominalization of arguments. Reduplication of personal pronouns resembles that ofadjectives and verbal roots (REDV3a), because it is always only partial reduplication of the

final syllable of the lexical root.

(26) ach tech monchi rimowanap rotitikoe noiy paraki-ye.ach tech monchi ri=imowana-po roti~ti-ikoe noiy paraki-ye

and DEM2m child 3SGf=leave-PRFLX 3SGm~RED-EMPH there room-LOCAnd she left the child all alone there in the room.

As can be observed in example (26), reduplication is accompanied by other morphemes forintensification, here it is -ikoeEMPH.(cf. 4.2).

Another reduplication observed in Baure involves the hortative particle shi:

(27) shi shi waporeiyshap!shi shi vi=a-poreiy-sha-pa

HORT HORT 1PL=do-REP-IRR-INTLLets go, lets go do it again!

Reduplication is the only morphological operation this particle undergoes, and instead ofregarding this as a grammatical operation, it should rather be called the spontaneousrepetition of an interjection (cf. Hurch & Mattes 2009:109).

3.4 Reduplication of bound formsAmong the bound morphemes that can be reduplicated are the augmentative suffix -chaanddiminutive -chi, which have an intensifying function by themselves:

(28) tech aren tech chichacha kotinow tiporek.tech aren tech ch-i-cha~cha kotino-wo tiporek

DEM2m bird DEM2m big-CLF:bird&fruit-AUG~AUG similar-COP chickenThis is a bird, this very big one, which is similar to a chicken.

In example (28), the augmentative is reduplicated. With the classifier -afor body, animal, theadjective base becomes homophonous to the augmentative, and the word looks like a


11/27

11

triplication: chachacha a really big animal (ch-a-cha~cha; big-CLF-AUG~AUG). However, it isthe augmentative that is reduplicated, and the root only accidentally comes out as the samesyllable.

Reduplication of the root (or parts of it) can also have a reciprocal meaning in somelanguages (cf. Marantz & Wiltshire 2000:561). It is therefore not so surprising that the

reciprocal in Baure also involves a reduplication of some sort. However, the reduplicatedsyllable here is not part of the lexical root, but it is a grammatical suffix -koko RECP. Manyverbal bases include the stem closing suffix -ko ABS, of which the function is not so easilyanalyzed. It seems to be somehow related to a (direct or oblique) object of the describedevent, but not necessarily to transitivity.15The suffix is part of the verbal base, but may bedeleted under certain conditions. The actual function of this suffix remains to be investigated;this analysis should also take into account the comparable Arawakan data, because this suffixoccurs in some form in almost every Arawakan language. In relation to the simple verbalsuffix -ko, the reciprocal -koko could be analyzed as a kind of verbal number, specifyingevent number (as defined by Corbett 2000). The reduplicated suffix -kopossibly indicates the

plurality of (transitive?) events in a reciprocal situation. In a great number of Arawakanlanguages, the reciprocal suffix is derived in exactly the same way, by reduplicating the stemclosing suffix (alternative forms are -kain Moxo Ignaciano, and -aTH in Iapari).16

(29) vijinokow (30) vijinokokow Baurevi=jino-ko-wo vi=jino-koko-wo

1PL=see-ABS-COP 1PL=see-RECP-COPWe see (are looking). We see/look at each other.

(31) nunika (32) tinikakana Moxo Ignacianonu-ni-ka ti-ni-kaka-ana

1SG-eat.bite-ABS 3-eat.bite-RECP-PLI ate/bit. They bit each other.

(Olza Zubiri et al. 2004, 83; 459)(33) awnopiramri (34) awnoaapirma Iapari17

aw-no--pira-m-ri aw-no-aa-pir-ma

1PL-kill-TH-INTL-COP-3SGm 1PL-kill-RECP-INTL-COPWe are going to kill it. We are going to kill each other.(Parker 1995, 198)

The reduplication of the suffix is iconic, if each of the morphemes -ko-koin Baure stands for

another object or direction of the action (or event and direction of the event). It may bequestioned whether the repeated application of this bound form can be called reduplication,or if these are two succeeding morphological derivations. The meaning of reciprocity isassigned to the repetition of the suffix -koABS. The only occurrence of one single suffix -koABS for reciprocal marking is after the benefactive suffix. The examples of this in the data areconstructed in elicitation, and benefactive and reciprocal are not combined in spoken Baure

15cf. footnote 1116 The analysis of this suffix in Arawakan languages is still problematic. Parker calls -a (-ha in hisspelling) a thematicsuffix in Iapari.17 The spelling of Iapari has been adjusted to that of the other languages in this article, thus theglottal stop is represented by instead of h.


12/27

12

(cf. Danielsen 2015b). The speakers seem to perceive the complex form -kokoRCPC as a unittoday, confirmed by the finding of this unit as a root morpheme itself:

(35) nokokoropoewanchokow.no=koko-ro-poewan-cho-ko-wo

3PL=RECP-DER-side-TRNS-ABS-COPThey are (sitting) side by side.

In Iapari the form -aaalso served as (part of) the base of the following forms in Parkers(1995) dictionary: -aawanaara- embrace, hug, -paaa- distribute, and -aaanu- cross.

4. Productivity of reduplication

It became evident in Section 3 that reduplication occurs with various word classes in Baure,and it may have had an important derivational function. This section further examines the

productivity of reduplication. The productivity of a word-formation process can be definedas its general potential to be used to create new words and as the degree to which thispotential is exploited by the speakers (Plag 2005:127). As argued here, reduplication can stillbe regarded as a productive process, albeit under particular semantic and phonologicalrestrictions (4.1). In addition to these structural restrictions, reduplication decreased itsproductivity and may have been replaced by fully productive derivational suffixes andadverbs that express the intended meaning (4.2).

4.1 Productive reduplicationToday the Baure language makes productive use of reduplication, however, with certain

restrictions. These are not syntactic but semantic restrictions, which do not allow for all wordsto be reduplicated. Generally, mainly stative verbs and adjectives are reduplicatedproductively, whereas active verbs receive one of the more specific derivational suffixes, e.g.the repetitive suffix -poreiy (4.2). Many of the verbs or adjectives have an idiosyncraticreduplicated form, which is stored in the lexicon, together with the simplex form.While -chi.in- be satedmay be reduplicated (37), its antonym -veiy.in- be hungry cannotbe reduplicated as *-veiy~veiy.in-, instead other strategies can be employed (4.2).Reduplication concerns the root, but the verb base (the meaning unit, cf. Section 2) mayconsist of more morphemes, as in -chi.in- be sated, which can be decomposed into the rootchi, and the root suffix -ino, which is applied to bodily function, feelings, and other subjective

states or events.


13/27

13

(36) richiinowapa18 (37) richichiinowapa.ri=chi-ino-wapa ri=chi~chi-ino-wapa

3SGf=be.sated-SBJV-COS 3SGf=be.sated~be.sated-SBJV-COSShe is already sated. She is already very full (sated).

Productivity may be viewed as a gradual notion that distinguishes different degrees ofproductivity (Plag 2005:121). There are various formal types of reduplication, and these maybe placed on a scale of relative productivity. Figure 8 is a list of the available formal types,from least to most productive, and the patterns correspond to the presented patterns ofverbal and nominal lexical reduplication (Figures 2, 46): REDV1 and REDN1 (RED1), REDV2and REDN2 (RED2), REDV3a and REDN3 (RED3a and RED3b).

RED1. C1V1~C1V1full monosyllabicreduplication

less productive

RED2. (CV) C1V1C2V2~C1V1C2V2(full or partial) disyllabicreduplication

RED3a. (CV) C1V1C2V2~C2V2 partial monosyllabic reduplication

RED3b. (CV) C1V1rV2~rV2(~rV2)partial reduplication andtriplication with the consonant r

most productive

Figure 8: Productive reduplication and triplication in Baure in increasing productivity

The least productive patterns are those with full reduplication of a monosyllabic root and thereduplication of a disyllabic (part of a) root, patterns RED1 and RED2. These types also occurmore frequently in lexicalized onomatopoeic words, and RED2 is applied slightly moreproductively than RED1.19Examples are given in (38) through (41):

(38) rivekow (39) rivevekow pattern RED1ri=ve-ko-wo ri=ve~ve-ko-wo

3SGf=speak-ABS-COP 3SGf=speak~speak-ABS-COPShe is talking. She talks a lot.

(40) nijishkier (41) nijishjishkier pattern RED2ni=jish-ko=ro ni=jish~jish-ko=ro

1SG=drag-ABS=3SGm 1SG=drag~drag-ABS=3SGmI am dragging it. I am dragging it (quickly).

As examples (39) and (41) show, monosyllabic and disyllabic reduplication also occurs withactive verbs. Depending on the verbs semantics, this may also refer to speed of the action.

18 This kind of segmentation was described in Section 2. Here we can definitely see that it causesproblems: the root itself does not really carry the meaning to be sated, but it has to be combined with

the root suffix -ino. In reduplication the affixation within the base appears to be less fixed, and thereduplicated morpheme is inserted before the other elements (even though possibly obligatory) areattached. For the matter of transparency of the reduplicated forms, also the simple forms aredecomposed in the glosses. Generally in other texts, these bases are glossed as units.19This is the result of a type count in the Baure data.


14/27

14

The verb base with its stem affixes is not always identical in the reduplicated form. Theverb -piri.k- (-piri-ko-; cut-ABS) cut in halves is reduplicated as -piri.piri.ch- (-piri~piri-cho-;cut~cut-TRNS) cut into pieces, while the roots are identical, the reduplicated verb basereceives the stem suffix -choinstead of the -koin the simplex form. The verb bases of (42)and (43) are not identical either, but the roots are:

(42) nipotokow (43) npotopotjew pattern RED2ni=poto-ko-wo ni=poto~poto-je-wo1SG=be.wet-ABS-COP 1SG=be.wet~be.wet-DISTR-COPI am wet. I am soaking wet (all over).

The distributive suffix -je in (43) seems to be attached obligatorily to the reduplicated verbbase in this specific example and replaces -ko.

The most productive type is the reduplication of the root final syllable (pattern RED3a), apattern also found in many lexicalized nouns (REDN3), verbs (REDV3a), and other parts of

speech. This type may come in different actual forms: simply as C1V1C2V2~C2V2, with a shortonset V1 C2V2~C2V2, or with an additional onset syllable CV C1V1 C2V2~C2V2 or V C1V1C2V2~C2V2. Examples of productively reduplicated verbs of pattern RED3a and RED3b are (45)and (47):

Pattern RED3a(44) roeshomow (45) ach roeshomomokopaw noiy shonki-ye.

ro=ishomo-wo ach ro=ishomo~mo-ko-pa-wo noiy shonki-ye3SGm=stand-COP and 3SGm=stand~RED-ABS-INTL-COP there way-LOCHe is standing. And he stayed standing there on the road.

Pattern RED3b

(46) romorokowapa (47) tech ewokoe ver romororokowapa.ro=moro-ko-wapa tech ewokoever ro=moro~ro-ko-wapa

3SGM=be.dry-ABS-COS DEM2m tree already 3SGm=be.dry~RED-ABS-COSIt is already dry. That tree is already drying out.

Pattern RED3b is also frequently observed in other parts of speech, like adjectives (example(24)) and adverbs, of which there is an example in (49):

(48) mavir roti rovekowori.mavir roti ro=ve-ko-wo=ri

in.vain 3SGm 3SGm=speak-ABS-COP=3SGfIn vain he spoke to her.

(49) mavirorekoe ndi nijichowor. Pattern RED3bmaviro~ro-ikoe ndi ni=jicho-wo=ro

in.vain~RED-EMPH 1SG 1SG=wait-COP=3SGmCompletely in vain I waited forhim.


15/27

15

The most productive reduplication type (RED3b) also allows for triplication:

(50) ijiriririawon-nish ti Korpochi. Pattern RED3bijiri~ri~ri-a-wo-no=nish ti Korpo-chi

how.much~RED~RED-LK-COP-NMLZ=EXCLA ARTf Corpa-DIM

How much was Corpita (in love).

Pattern RED3b, is so productive that even lexicalized verbs change their form accordingly:The verb -showoroworoek- jump about (pattern REDV2, cf. RED2) can also be found in theform -showroroek- (rather according to pattern RED3b). The base -avero.ch- go far caneither undergo disyllabic (-avero.vero.ch-; avero~vero-cho; go.far~RED-TRNS; RED2) ormonosyllabic reduplication -avero.re.ch- (avero~ro-i-cho; go.far-RED-EMPH-TRNS; RED3b) govery far without a difference in meaning.

The reduplication of syllables with initial r can be observed in a number of lexicalizedforms, e.g. -aserora- be rotten, -rarak- swallow (< -er(o)drink). Also disyllabic reduplicated

syllables often include the consonant in lexicalized verbs: -chokorokorok- rumble(stomach), -chomoremore- thunder, -choporiporich- roll about, -chorochorosoe- drizzle,drop (when rain ends), -poroporok- tremble with fear, -shipiripirik- roll, -shoporiporik-turn around, -yivirivirik- tremble with pain.20None of the preceding verbs have a relatedsimple form. In the case of the disyllabic verb with the initial glide -yori- be angry, we do notfind the possible regressive reduplication *-yi~yori- (REDV3b), but it is the syllable with theconsonant r that gets copied as -yori~ri- be very angry. In Iapari, where only partialreduplication of the final CV syllable is present in the lexicon, the majority of reduplicatedlexemes include the consonant r: -prurua- fly, -ajrra- turn around, -tururua- pull,teririjetridiarrhoea, and rrbig (cf. Parker 1995); no related simplex forms are available in

this dictionary.

4.2 Competing strategies and co-occurrencesThe productivity of reduplication is delimited by an important structural factor; there are avariety of specific morphemes available for the marking of intensity and iterativity orrepetition, mainly bound forms (suffixes), but also adverbs. These morphological alternativescan be called type blocking following Plag (2005:126), namely more specific affixes thatpreclude the application of a more general affix (reduplication). The alternatives are notnecessarily type blocking, but they may have played an important role in the ceasingproductivity of reduplication. The most important morphemes are the emphatic suffixes -i

and -ikoe. Emphatic derivation is extremely common see (51) through (53). It is neitherrestricted to a part of speech, nor to semantics, and it may also co-occur with reduplication(53). Example (51) with emphatic marking on the stative verb -chi.in- be sated represents analternative to reduplication, as in (37).

(51) vichiinoekoevi=chi-ino-ikoe

1PL=be.sated-SBJV-EMPHWe are very sated (full).

20Baptista & Wallin (1967:66) refer to the core formatives -ri, -ro, -re, -ra.


16/27

16

The active verb -kach- go can only get emphatic morphology attached, and is neverreduplicated:

(52) tech rikachowekoe, kach risapkoe tech jowoki.tech ri=kacho-wo-ikoe kach ri=sapoko-i tech jowoki

DEM2m 3SGf=go-COP-EMPH go 3SGf=poke-EMPH DEM2m holeAnd this is what she did, she went away (emphatic); she went away in order to poke(emphatic) that hole.

However, reduplication can be one way to intensify, and emphatic marking can augment thisintensification, as in (53):

(53) ponshoshkowapoekoeri noiy eshenokoe-ye.po-no-sho~sh-ko-wapa-ikoe=ri noiy eshenokoe-ye

one-CLF:general-one~RED-ABS-COS-EMPH=3SGf there river.side-LOCNow she was all alone there at the river bank.

Repeated action is marked by the complex morpheme -poreiyin Baure:

(54) rokovekoporeiyer (55) *rokovekoevekoporeiyerro=kove-ko-poreiy=ro ro=kove~kove-ko-poreiy=ro

3SGm=catch-ABS-REP=3SGm 3SGm=catch~catch-ABS-REP=3SGmHe caught him again.

Some verbs are flexible with respect to their interpretation as stative or active, reflected in

their morphological behaviour. While the verb with reduplication (with possible additionalemphatic marking) is interpreted as a continuous state (57), the form marked by -poreiyREP,is interpreted as a punctually repeated action (56). The repetitive morpheme is thus, at leastin some cases, type-blocking for active verbs.

(56) noiy avik roeshomoporeiy (57) noeshomomokikwe'noiy avik ro=ishomo-poreiy no=ishomo~mo-kik-wo-i

there again 3SGm=stand-REP 3PL=stand~RED-really-COP-EMPHThere he stood up again. They only kept standing.

Adjectives can not only be intensified by the emphatic suffixes -iand -i.ko.e(-i-ko-i; EMPH-ABS-EMPH), but also by augmentative -cha (28) and diminutive -chi. Adverbs are generallyderived once or twice by emphatic derivation:

(58) rom > romoe > romoekoeromo romo-i romo-i-ko-i

soon soon-EMPH soon-EMPH-ABS-EMPHsoon

Thus, even though certain suffixes may co-occur with reduplication, they can already markintensification with the non-reduplicated bases. They do not fully block the possibility of


17/27

17

additional reduplication, but they make it redundant. Emphatic derivation is much moreproductive than reduplication, and it has replaced it diachronically in many examples(compare examples (37) and (51)).

Comparable to diminutive is the approximative suffix -so, which attenuates the meaning ofa verb (be about to or be a little bit) or of an adjective ( -ish). This meaning can be

produced by reduplication in the closely related Trinitario language (cf. Rose 2014), but not inBaure.

(59) niveiysoinow.ni=veiy-so-ino-wo

1SG=be.hungry-APRX-SBJV-COPI am a little bit hungry.

(60) tixrerexiti-ixVre~re-xi Trinitario

3-be.hot~RED-CLF:bulkIt is warm (medium hot).(Rose 2014:383)

Finally, a very wide range of adverbs and preverbal particles, like imirvery, maiy(ok)much,kik/kiyok really, avik again, can be employed to intensify a verb or an adjective instead ofreduplication. The ceasing usage of productive reduplication may be part of the grammaticaldevelopment of Baure from synthetic to analytic and isolating constructions (cf. Danielsen2015a).

5. Deduplication in Baure

A more recent phenomenon in Baure seems to be the avoidance of accidental reduplicationof the same syllable at word onsets, such as *ninik(ni=nik; 1SG=eat) I ate. This is only truefor nouns or verbs with person marking by a proclitic for possessor or subject marking. Firstof all, the closed set of personal proclitics ni= 1SG, pi= 2SG, ro= 3SGm, ri= 3SGf, vi= 1PL,

yi= 2PL, and no= 3PL, presents syllables that are otherwise rarely found at word onsets. TheBaure speakers are sensitive to the initial syllable, and if a personal proclitic is similar oridentical to the onset of a base, the accidental reduplication is resolved, as in (62).

(61) pinik, ronik, rinik, BUT: (62) *ninik, nikpi=nik ro=nik ri=nik ni=nik nik

2SG=eat 3SGm=eat 3SGf=eat 1SG=eat 1SG.eatyou (SG) ate; he ate; she ate BUT I ate

This phenomenon in (62) has been called morphological haplology (cf. Stemberger 1981,Plag 1998, de Lacy 1999). And [h]aplology seems to be the opposite of reduplication:reduplication creates two adjacent identical strings while haplology eliminates them (de Lacy1999:24). Therefore, haplology in Baure can be regarded as a deduplication process, aprocess in which accidental meaningless reduplication is eliminated by merging theredundant syllable of the personal proclitic with the first syllable of the word to which it is

attached. Mostly, haplology has been described in the literature as a process occurring word-


18/27

18

finally. However, there are other languages where haplology occurs at word onsets, andwhere this involves person marking (e.g. the omission of ta- 3SGf in Arabic before verb baseinitial ta-, cf. de Lacy 1999:1). It is possible that the sensitivity for reduplicated syllables inBaure derives from the actual existence of productive reduplication in the language. Thedifference from reduplication in Baure, however, is the place of deduplication at word onsets,

and the place of reduplication at the end of verb roots (or as full reduplication of thecomplete root). Additionally, the increasing cases of deduplication are observed in a periodof language development where reduplication seems to have been losing productivity.

Subject marking on verbs and possessor marking on inalienable nouns are obligatory inBaure (cf. Danielsen 2011). Before describing deduplication, the process of assimilation has tobe explained. If a word has an initial vowel, this vowel assimilates the vowel of the personalproclitic, as in (63) and (64):

(63) ninisaw, pinisaw CV1= + V1> CV1ni=inisa-wo pi=inisa-wo

1SG=fish-COP 2SG=fish-COPI am fishing, you are fishing

(64) naroinokow, paroinokow CV1= + V2> CV2ni=aroinoko-wo pi=aroinoko-wo

1SG=be.sad-COP 2SG=be.sad-COPI am sad, you are sad

In example (63), the accidentally reduplicated syllable niin ninisawI am fishing is also a hintat the fact that the verb root does not begin with the consonant, but with the initial vowel i,

in which case deduplication does not occur.Deduplication with the first person singular is found most frequently with any word

starting with the same initial syllable nior even only with the nasal n. In the first case, it isobligatory, whereas in the second case, the complete and the deduplicated forms co-exist. Itis a common characteristic of haplology to be optional (cf. Stemberger 1981). In the case oftotal identity of the onset syllable, the deduplicated form could be analyzed as a surface formwith overlapping morphemes (cf. Haspelmath 1995:13), see example (65), whereas verbs withthe initial vowel icould only be reinterpreted as two partly overlapping morphemes (66):

(65) n i k (66) n i n i s a w

ni=nik n(i)=inisa-wo

1SG=eat 1SG=fish-COPI ate. I am fishing.

Both verbs in (65) and (66) can be analyzed as containing the morpheme ni= 1SG, and at thesame time part of another morpheme that overlaps phonologically in the surface form.Another factor that supports the obligatory usage of the deduplicated form nik I ate inBaure, is the fact that ninikis the derived causative with the verb base - ini.k- feed, and thuscarries a different meaning (67):


19/27

19

(67) ninikni=i-nik

1SG=CAUS-eatI feed (make eat).

Other closely related Arawakan languages do not display the process of deduplication, seeexample (68) of Paunaka with the equivalent verb -nik- eat (and example (31) of MoxoIgnaciano):

(68) kuina nisacha ninika Paunaka (own data)21kuina ni=sach-a ni=nik-a

NEG 1SG=want-IRR 1SG=eat-IRRI dont want to eat.

Deduplication of the onset of a verb with only an initial nasal nin the root occurs frequently,

but not obligatorily. See example (69), where ni= 1SG is marked overtly on theverb -no.wana- (-no-wana; tell-DEP) say good-bye, and (70), where the same verb with theinitial nasal already includes the 1SG underlyingly:

(69) ninowanoekop . (70) wokow nowanoekow.ni=nowana-i-ko-po wokow ni=nowana-i-ko-wo

1SG=say.good.bye-EXTS-ABS-PERF not.yet 1SG=say.good.bye-EXTS-ABS-COPI said good-bye. I didnt say good-bye yet.

In order to be able to also analyze example (70) as an occurrence as overlapping morphemes,

we must go back to example (64), which shows the vowel assimilation. The verb naroinokowI am sad displays an allophone of the personal proclitic ni= 2SG, which is n=, when attachedto an initial vowel aor e(odoes not exist as an initial vowel for bound morphemes). On thebasis of this fact, we can also analyze cases of apparent total dropping of the personal clitic in(71) as overlapping morphemes:

(71) n o w a n o e k o w (72) n a r o i n o k o w

n(i)=nowana-i-ko-wo n(i)=aroinoko-wo

1SG=say.good.bye-EXTS-ABS-COP 1SG=be.sad-COPI am saying good-bye. You are sad.

21The Paunaka language was investigated together with Lena Terhart in the Paunaka DocumentationProject, financed by the ELDP, SOAS, London. (Link to the archive: http://elar.soas.ac.uk/deposit/0104).


20/27

20

There are also many cases of deduplication in Baure with the second person singular pi= orp= for bases with the identical initial syllable or consonant, as in (73) and (74), respectively:

(73) nanan pijikshap noiy (74) pakomirachownanan pi=pijik-sh-pa noiy p(i)=pakomiracho-wo

later 2SG=pass-IRR-FUTthere 2SG=meet-COPLater when you pass by there ... You are meeting.

Cases of deduplication are also found with nouns, such as -wer house and the first personplural vi=.22The noun is obligatorily possessed, thus it cannot be used as a free form. Theequivalent free form is parihouse.

(75) werv(i)=wer

1PL=houseour house, * house

The process of deduplication is increasingly regular in Baure (cf. Table 1), in particular withthe proclitics ni= 1SG, pi= 2SG, and vi= 1PL. In general, it is still relatively rare, though,because so few bases have the same or similar onsets as the clitic forms. There is not a singleverb, and only one derived inalienable noun -romon (-rom-no; chief-POSS) chief that wouldeven start in the consonant r, so cases of deduplication with the clitics ro= 3SGm and ri=3SGf cannot be expected to occur. There are a few verbs that could be effected bydeduplication withyi= 2PL: -ya- cry, -yinich- count, -yok-/-yik- sting, -yon- walk, -yori-be angry, and -yoshpoek- stumble. Notwithstanding, there are no examples in the data.

One reason for this is also the relatively rare use of the 2PL, in general, and in elicitation,speakers tend to be hypercorrect and would not eliminate the clitic syllable. We could haveexpected deduplication here, though, since the initial glide causes this specific type of initialreduplication (see REDV3b, Figure 7). The third person plural no= is similar to the first personby sharing the initial nasal, but it does not show any deduplication in the data. The clitic no=is also by far less frequent than ni= 1SG. If both clitics caused the same effect on verbal ornominal roots, this would lead to ambiguous forms, which may be a factor that holds againstdeduplication with no= 3PL.

All examples of deduplication are more or less optional, except for the first personsingular. Usually there is an alternative form with the repeated sequence (or consonant). In

comparison with historical data, deduplication can be argued to have increased in the morecurrently spoken Baure language. Table 1 presents the most striking examples ofdeduplication. The first column shows the bases or derived bases, the second column showswith which personal clitic deduplication occurs, and the statements are divided into currentdata collected by the author, data collected by the SIL linguists Baptista & Wallin in the 1950sand 1960s (available on microfiches), and the Jesuit notes of Magio (1749) and Asis C. (1767).

22The difference between labiodental (or even bilabial) fricative and a bilabial glide is probably notentirely phonemic, but the sounds are somewhere on a continuum. The sound [v] is generally favouredbefore i, whereas [w] is preferred before more open vowels like a. The graphemes vand wrepresentthe pronunciation of the consonants in tendency, but it does not exclude the possibility to find adifferent pronunciation.


21/27

21

verbal ornominal base

personalproclitic

Danielsen20032010

SIL(1954-1968)

Jesuits(1749, 1767)

comments

-nik- eat 1SG always always no ninikis analyzed asni=i-nik

(1SG=CAUS-eat)feed

-nia- chew 1SG always n.a. n.a.-no- tell;-nowana- saygood-bye;-nopi- tellword

1SG sometimes ? ?

-pakaunt 2SG always n.a. ? not frequentlyused anymore

-pakomirach-meet

2SG always ? n.a.

-perdomesticated

animal

2SG sometimes ? no but piper and not*per (pi=pa=ro;2SG=give=3SGm)

-pijik- pass 2SG always always n.a.-pirik- cut inhalves

2SG sometimes ? no

-vek- speak

-vekorilanguage

1PL more often

deduplicatedthan not

sometimes no in historical data

vi= 1PL wasdescribed as abi-or aba- (irrealis)

-wer house 1PL almostalways

? n.a.

-woiyk-make

1PL frequently no ? especially inCarmelito, but alsoobserved inJoaquiniano

-wonoek-

send

1PL frequently no ?

Table 1: Deduplication in Baure in a historical perspective23

In the Jesuit notes, there is no evidence for deduplication of this sort. In the SIL data there aresome examples (e.g. nik I ate in Baptista & Wallin 1967:81), but the linguists have notrecognized this process explicitly. We can thus claim that deduplication occurs increasingly inthe more current data of the Baure language. How productive the process is today, can beperceived with the loan word -velach- hold the death watch (> Sp. velar). This recently or

23The abbreviation n.a. means that there is no account of the root at all, whereas ? means that the rootis present, but not with the specific personal form, so that no statement can be made.


22/27

22

borrowed item undergoes the expected process of deduplication with the first person pluralin the data:

(76) velachpa noiy Yermovian-ye.vi=velach-pa noiy Yermo-vian-ye

1PL=death.wake-INTL there Guillermo-neighbour-LOCWe are going for the death watch at our neighbours Guillermo.

It remains yet to be seen whether other Arawakan languages show the same process.Paunaka, for example, a closely related Bolivian Southern Arawakan language, does not seemto have any deduplication, at least not involving person markers, as already shown in (68).The only description of haplology in an Arawakan language is that of Baniva in lvarez &Socorro (2002), where derived possessed nouns originally ending in the sequence -C1Vcannot have a possessive suffix -C1e with the same consonant attached: *XnV-ne, * XtV-te,*XlV-le, and *XrV-re. In Baure, though, the only derivational possessive suffix -no is also

attached to noun final -no: inwater and -inon(ino-no; water-POSS) water (bound form). It ispossible, however, that there was a process of word final haplology in the derivationalprocess of creating absolute (free/unpossessed) nouns in Baure. Many bound nouns endingin the sequence -ki, like e.g. -ipaniki belt (bound form) have zero derivation for anunpossessed form in Baure ipaniki belt (free form), instead of adding the absolutesuffix -ko (*ipanoki.k). Furthermore, there is the restriction of not attaching two personalenclitics with the consonant rto a ditransitive verb in Baure (*=ro=ro 3SGm=3SGm, *=ro=ri3SGm=3SGf etc.), as well as in other Arawakan languages (compare Shaver 1996:58 onNomatsiguenga).

Productive deduplication in Baure always involves the person markers. Therefore, the

numeral po-CLF-sh one is the basis of many examples of non-prevented repetition of thesame syllable, such as (77):

(77) poposh, popokishpo-po-sh po-poki-sh

one-CLF:multitude-one one-CLF:hammock-oneone (fish), one hammock

Apart from the presented examples, deduplication is not observed word-finally, even thoughwidespread homophony could create many possible cases. Deduplication does not even

occur with accidental sequences of koko, which is reminiscent of and could be misinterpretedas -kokoRECP (78).

(78) poekish korakok, nikorak, korakokoworpo-iki-sh korako-ko ni=korak korako-ko-wo=ro

one-CLF:container-one net-ABS 1SG=net net-ABS-COP=3SGmone net, my net, it is a net

Deduplication can actually also lead to ambiguity with a reduplicated root, as in (3) with theverb -pi.poe.k- walk barefoot. Example (79) gives the verb with the simplex root24, and (80)

24There is no other example of this verb with 2SGthan (81) in the data.


23/27

23

with a reduplicated root -pi~pi.poe.k-.

(79) vipipoek, nipipoekvi=pi-poe-ko ni=pi-poe-ko

1PL=walk.barefoot-down-ABS 1SG=walk.barefoot-down-ABS

We are walking barefoot, I am walking barefoot(lit. on the ground).

(80) kew pejkopa tech vipipipoek.kew pi=ejko-pa tech vi=pi~pi-poe-ko

go 2SG=clean-INTL DEM2m 1PL=walk.barefoot~walk.barefoot-down-ABSGo and clean this (ground that) we step barefoot on.

There are thus two possibilities to segment the verb in (81), either with person marking pi=2SG (a) and a simplex root; or with a reduplicated root and eliminated person marking (b):

(81)a. pipipoekikoe (81) b. pipipoekikoepi=pi-poe-k(o)-ikoe or pi=pi~pi-poe-k(o)-ikoe2SG=walk.barefoot-down-ABS-EMPH 2SG=walk.barefoot~walk.baref.-down-ABS-EMPHYou are walking barefoot(lit. on the ground).

The presence of emphatic marking in (81) may hint at an intensified verb form, which couldeither be only marked by -ikoe EMPH, or it could be reduplicated in addition (compareexample (53) from above), which means that analysis (81)b should be favoured.

6. Conclusion

Summing up the findings in Baure, we can note that there are three major characteristicsrelated to reduplication: first of all there is a great number of inherently reduplicated nounsand verbs in the lexicon; secondly, reduplication is a productive process of stative verbs,adjectives, and some active verbs, and other parts of speech, even though productivity seemsto be decreasing; thirdly, the increasing spread of deduplication in Baure shows the sensitivityof the speakers to repeated syllable sequences, and this is finally a hint at the markedness ofthe category of reduplication.

The structural difference of lexicalized reduplication patterns and productive reduplicationis not reflected by the formal reduplication types, as was shown by comparing lexical nominalreduplication patterns (REDN1 REDN3, Figure 2) and lexical verbal reduplication (REDV1

REDV3a, Figures 4 6) to productive reduplication types (RED1 RED4, Figure 8). One smalldifference is possibly that lexical verbal reduplication pattern REDV2, where a disyllabic partof the root is reduplicated is more commonly found in the lexicon than as a productive type(RED2). The overall generalization is that reduplication may involve the complete root,monosyllabic or disyllabic, or be a monosyllabic or disyllabic part of the root. Reduplication isphonotactically progressive and occurs at the end of the root. The appearance of the outputform may be less transparent, due to the attachment of root and stem affixes, whichaltogether constitute the base, the actual meaning unit. The most commonly observed formalreduplication type is (CV) CVCV~CV (RED3a), in particular with the consonant r in the finalsyllable, which then even allows for triplication (RED3b). Two more specific types weredetected: REDN4 is the repetition of a consonant, which is also marked in Arawakan


24/27

24

languages, as was shown by the productive deduplication of accidental similar syllablesequences. REDV3b showed that in two cases reduplication appeared to be regressive wherethe verb root started in the glidey.

The functions of reduplication are onomatopoeia, word formation, and the marking ofintensity and speed. Nouns, like verbs have relatively high percentages of onomatopoeic

reduplicated forms, referring to animal names and their sounds, or to intrinsically iterativeevents. In word formation processes, we find two functions of reduplication: either a syllableis repeated because of a minimal syllable weight requirement of a root, or a noun oradjective may be derived from a verb root by means of reduplicating a syllable. In one casethe temporal adverb nananlater has been derived from the basic locative adverb nanthereby reduplication.

It is possible that full reduplication of a root once had different semantics from those ofpartial reduplication. In such a scenario, full reduplication may have indicated iterativity andrepetition of an action, applied mainly to active verbs (as found in many lexicalized forms),and partial reduplication, indicating the augmentation of a state. This hypothesis is only a

tentative idea on the basis of (mainly) recent Baure data, but we could possibly shed morelight upon this question if we compare our findings to the reduplication systems of otherArawakan languages. Some interesting points were already made, which aim at theillustration of the usefulness of such comparative work: the most common reduplicationpatterns in Baure can also be detected in inherent reduplications of the Iapari lexicon (cf.Section 4.1). The consonant rfrequently occurs in reduplicated syllables in other Arawakanlanguages. Accidentally repeated similar syllables (focus on consonantal identity) tend to beeliminated (deduplication), not only in Baure, but also in Baniva (lvarez and Socorro, 2002)and possibly in Campan Arawakan languages (e.g. Nomatsiguenga in Shaver, 1996).

Apart from lexical roots, certain affixes can also be reduplicated: augmentative and

diminutive suffixes, and the stem closing verbal suffix -ko, which gave rise to the complexmorpheme -kokofor reciprocal marking. A reduplicated suffix is the source of the reciprocalsuffix in (almost?) all Arawakan languages. Reciprocal is therefore constructed as a specifickind of repeated event with changed direction (or changed actors and undergoers), wherethe reduplication is iconic and stands for these events.

Reduplication can still be considered to be a productive process in Baure (Section 4, Figure8), but this morphological process is possibly blocked by a number of alternative morphemes,such as repetitive -poreiy, attached for repeated action. However, whereas reduplicationseems to have lost productivity in the Baure languages history, a reverse process occurredincreasingly: deduplication of personal proclitics. Deduplication cannot be observed with all

personal clitics, and it is still to a great extent optional, but it is indeed very productive (seeSection 5 and Table 1). This suggests that Baure is moving towards being a deduplicatingrather than a reduplicating language, and it coincides with the general observation in thepast decades of vowel and syllable loss, on the phonological side, and to the tendency ofbecoming more isolating than synthetic, on the morphological side. This possiblydistinguishes Baure from its closest relatives Moxo (Ignaciano and Trinitario) and Paunaka,which may show a tendency to become less synthetic, but they do not seem to displaydeduplication of word onsets.


25/27

25

References

Adam, Lucien & Charles Leclerc (ed). 1880. Arte de la Lengua de los indios baures de la provinciaMoxos, conforme al manuscrito original del padre Antonio Magio. Paris: Maissonneuve and Cia,Libreros Editores.

Admiraal, Femmy & Swintha Danielsen. 2014. Productive compounding in Baure (Arawakan)? InSwintha Danielsen, Katja Hann & Fernando Ziga (eds), Word Formation in South AmericanLanguages. Studies in Language Companion Series, SLCS 163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 79-112.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1995. Bare. Languages of the World: Materials 100. Munich: Lincom Europa.Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1999. The Arawak language family. In R.M.W Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald

(eds),The Amazonian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 65106.lvarez, Jos & Marlene Socorro. 2002. Restricciones semnticas y fonolgicas en los sufijos de

posesin del baniva. Opcin, 18 (37), 112-138.http://revistas.luz.edu.ve/index.php/op/article/viewFile/2413/2341 (accessed June 26, 2010)

Baptista, Priscilla & Ruth Wallin. 1967. Baure. In Esther Matteson (ed), Bolivian Indian Grammars 1.Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma, 27-84.

Baptista, Priscilla & Ruth Wallin. 1968. Baure Vowel Elision. Linguistics,38, 5-11.Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Danielsen, Swintha. 2007. Baure: An Arawak Language of Bolivia. Indigenous Languages of Latin

America (ILLA), 6. Leiden: CNWS.Danielsen, Swintha. 2011. The personal paradigms in Baure and other South Arawakan languages. In

Antoine Guillaume & Francoise Rose (eds), Argument-coding systems in Bolivian Amazonianlanguages, International Journal of American Linguistics, 77 (4), 495-520.

Dnaielsen, Swintha. 2012. Afijos compuestos y su lexicalizacin en el baure (arawak), In MarisaCensabella, Cristina Messineo, Hebe A. Gonzlez & Beatriz Gualdieri (eds), Lenguas Indgenas deAmrica del Sur I: Fonologa y Lxico. Serie Volmenes temticos de la Sociedad Argentina deLingstica Mendoza: Editorial FFyL-UNCuyo and SAL, 151-171.

Available at:http://ffyl.uncu.edu.ar/IMG/pdf/Gonzalez_y_Gualdieri_eds_2012.pdfDanielsen, Swintha. 2015a. Observing the evolution of TMA particles replacing agglutinating

strategies. In Emmanuelle Labeau & Qiaochao Zhang (eds), Taming the TAME systems. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Rodopi (Cahiers Chronos 27), 1-23.

Danielsen, Swintha. 2015b. Multiple valency derivation in Baure. In Francesc Queixals (ed),Proceedings of the Coloquio Internacional Amazonicas III: Fonologa y sintaxis. Bogot: InstitutoCaro & Cuervo, 283-309.

Danielsen, Swintha & Tania Granadillo. 2007. Agreement in two Arawak languages: Baure andKurripako. In Sren Wichmann & Mark Donohue (eds), The Typology of Semantic Alignment.Oxford: Oxford University Press,396-411.

Facundes, Sidney da Silva. 2000. The Language of the Apurin (Arawak) People of Brazil. PhD diss.,State University of New York at Buffalo.

Fonseca, Joo Severiano da. 1881. Viagem ao redor do Brasil 18751878, Vol. 2. Rio de Janeiro:Typographa de Pinheiro and C.

Goodwin Gmez, Gale & van der Voort, Hein (eds). 2014. Reduplication in South-American languages,Leiden, Brill.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The growth of affixes in morphological analysis. In Gert Booij & Jaap vanMarle (eds),Yearbook of morphology 1994. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1-29.

Hurch, Bernhard & Veronika Mattes. 2009. Introduction: Diachrony and productivity of reduplication. InMorphology, 19, 107-112.
http://ffyl.uncu.edu.ar/IMG/pdf/Gonzalez_y_Gualdieri_eds_2012.pdfhttp://ffyl.uncu.edu.ar/IMG/pdf/Gonzalez_y_Gualdieri_eds_2012.pdfhttp://ffyl.uncu.edu.ar/IMG/pdf/Gonzalez_y_Gualdieri_eds_2012.pdfhttp://ffyl.uncu.edu.ar/IMG/pdf/Gonzalez_y_Gualdieri_eds_2012.pdf


26/27

26

de Lacy, Paul. 1999. Morphological Haplology and Correspondence. In Paul de Lacy & Anita Nowak(eds),University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers: Papers from the 25th Reunion. Amherst, MA:GLSA. At: http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/298-0299/roa-298-lacy-1.pdf (accessed June 27, 2010)

Marantz, Alec & Caroline Wiltshire. 2000. Reduplication. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, & JoachimMugdan (eds), Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, Vol. 1,

(Handbcher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 17.1). Berlin/ New York: Walter deGruyter, 557-567.Olza Zubiri, Jess, Conchita Nuni de Chapi, & Juan Tube. 2004. Gramtica moja ignaciana

(morfosintaxis). Versin Boliviana. Cochabamba: Editorial Verbo Divino.Parker, Stephen G. 1995. Datos de la lengua iapari. Lima: Ministerio de Educacin/ILV.Plag, Ingo. 1998. Morphological haplology in a constraint-based morpho-phonology. In Wolfgang

Kehrein & Richard Wiese (eds), Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Tbingen:Niemeyer, 199-215.

Plag, Ingo. 2005.Productivity.In Keith Brown (ed),Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 10,Second Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 121-128.

Rose, Franoise. 2014. When vowel deletion blurs reduplication in Mojeo Trinitario. In Goodwin

Gmez, Gale & van der Voort, Hein (eds), Reduplication in South-American languages, Leiden, Brill,375-399.Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1981. Morphological haplology. Language, 57 (4), 791-817.

Abbreviations

3 = third personABS = absolute morphemeAPRX = approximativeART = article

ATTR = attributiveAUG = augmentativeBEN = benefactiveC = consonantCAUS = causativeCLF = classifierCOME = directional: towards (come)COP = copula affix (progressive &

perfect effects, depending onlexical aspect and context)

COS = change of state; focus on

changed stateDEM = demonstrative (three different

ones:1,2,3)DEP = departitiveDER = derivational suffixDIM = diminutiveDISTR = distributiveEMPH = emphatic markerEXCLA = exclamativeEXTS = extension applicative (extends

the event as durative, or the

goal towards an obliqueobject)

f = feminineFUT = future (same as intentional)HORT = hortativeINTL = intentional, directional away

from speakerIRR = irrealisLK = linkerLOC = locativem = masculineNMLZ = nominalizerO = object(P) = patientPASS = passivePERF = perfectivePL = plural

PTCP = participleQUOT = quotative(R) = recipientRED = reduplicationRECP = reciprocalRED1 = productive reduplication

pattern 1REDN1 = lexicalized nominal

reduplication pattern 1REDV1 = lexicalized verbal

reduplication pattern 1

REFL = reflexiveREP = repetitive
http://www.uni-siegen.de/~engspra/Papers/Morphology/productivity-ell2.pdfhttp://www.uni-siegen.de/~engspra/Papers/Morphology/productivity-ell2.pdf


27/27

S = subjectSBJV = subjectiveSG = singularTH = thematic suffixTRNS = transitivizer

V = vowel (simplex or complex)

WTE = weather/time/environmentmorpheme

X = any phoneme- = affixation= = cliticization

xx.yy = possibly segmentable, butused as a unit

i I apologize to not have properly taken into account the very important publication by GoodwinGmez & van der Voort 2014, even though their work has motivated me to write this article. And itwas written before the publication of this book. Now, revising only slightly, I do not have the bookavailable, nor do I have the time to consider it well. One basic difference is that I use the term

reduplication in a much broader sense, including repetition, which goes against many commontheoretical approaches. I am not making any strong point here. I only thought that I can also comparewhat shows similar structures. Feel free to apply different terminology to repetition and reduplication,but there is no need to argue against me here. I tried to be descriptive, and I still hope that this articlewith its presented data serves for some comparative work to other linguists.

Date post:	24-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	swintha-danielsen
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Reduplication and deduplication in Baure: two processes pulling on different ends

Documents