The structure of reduplicants - unipub

The structure of reduplicantsA typological investigation of iconicity and preferred form

in reduplication

Dissertation

zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophie

an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz

eingereicht von

MAG. PHIL. THOMAS SCHWAIGER

am Institut für Sprachwissenschaft

Erstbegutachter: O. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Bernhard Hurch

Zweitbegutachterin: Univ.-Prof. Dr. M. Evelien Keizer

2017

Acknowledgments

Unsurprisingly, I am indebted to a lot of people for making possible the origin, prog-

ress and completion of this dissertation. The road to its submission has been long, at

times winding and not seldom blocked. Now that the ultimate destination has been

reached, I can finally thank my companions and supporters. First and foremost, there

is Bernhard Hurch, to whom I want to express my gratitude for the trust, backing and

patience which he was able to muster during the last years, not only regarding the

present work but with respect to my linguistic career as a whole. Concerning the

latter, accepting me as a research assistant and later on as a member of the Institute

of Linguistics at the University of Graz have both been such great opportunities on

the professional as well as on the personal level that I surely would not want to have

missed them. And there is Evelien Keizer, who so patiently and in a motivating man-

ner agreed to take over secondary reviewing duties, and fairly spontaneously at that.

Many thanks are also due to the people responsible in the deanery of the Faculty of

Humanities at Graz University, with Theres Hinterleitner as the chief executive, for

awarding me a scholarship to continue writing my dissertation after a not so pleasant

period of unemployment as well as for not putting any obstacles in my way when I

shortly afterwards gave up this scholarship in order to take up the above-mentioned

position at the Linguistics Institute. And although I most probably would have fin-

ished much, much earlier (very, very much to the liking of my supervisor and primary

reviewer, as I am more than aware) had I kept the grant instead of taking the job, any

merits the present study might have to offer are certainly due to the extra time and

academic experience which my employment bestowed on me in spite of the almost

inevitable concomitant diversions (in contrast to the nonetheless extremely valuable

teaching obligations, some of the other side tracks have at least found their way into

a couple of text passages and the references section of this work).

Furthermore, I cannot even begin to thank Veronika Mattes and Johannes Mücke

for reading and commenting on large portions of the present dissertation in times

when I felt that I would not be able to carry on without an opinion from the outside.

Also, I am grateful to the following colleagues and friends who in one way or the

other showed interest in my work and provided linguistic advice as well as general

encouragement: Jaïmé Dubé, Dina El Zarka, Olga Fischer, Ulrike Freywald, Stefan

Frühwirth, Francesco Gardani, Albert Göschl, Steffen Heidinger, Petra Hödl, Andrea

Lackner, Utz Maas, Silvio Moreira de Sousa, Gareth O’Neill, Elisabeth Scherr, Eva

Schultze-Berndt and Ralf Vollmann.

Jens Schwaiger is to be thanked for technical assistance with some of the intricacies

of LATEX 2", which have definitely been worth spending some additional hours on

(besides the fact that problems with a conventional word processor very likely would

have amounted to twice as much troubleshooting time anyway), for I dare to say that,

if only optically, the present pages look pretty damn fine.

Last but not least, I send deepest gratitude to my many good friends outside the

world of linguistics, my family and Stefanie Neulinger. They all had to cope with me

and my reduplication studies in one way or the other in the past years, undoubtedly

not always an easy task.

We have a task before us which must be speedily performed. We know

that it will be ruinous to make delay. The most important crisis of our life

calls, trumpet-tongued, for immediate energy and action. We glow, we are

consumed with eagerness to commence the work, with the anticipation of

whose glorious result our whole souls are on fire. It must, it shall be un-

dertaken to-day, and yet we put it off until to-morrow, and why? There is

no answer, except that we feel perverse, using the word with no compre-

hension of the principle. [. . . ] The clock strikes, and is the knell of our

welfare. At the same time, it is the chanticleer-note to the ghost that has so

long overawed us. It flies — it disappears — we are free. The old energy

returns. We will labor now. Alas, it is too late!

(Edgar Allan Poe, The Imp of the Perverse)

Contents

Abbreviations, glosses and symbols IX

List of Figures XIII

List of Tables XIV

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Definition and terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Assumptions and expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.3 Outline of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2 Base-reduplicant identity, reduplicative semantics and the form-meaning

relationship in reduplication 12

2.1 Base-reduplicant identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.1.1 Rule-based models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.1.2 Prosodic morphology and optimality theory . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.1.3 Morphological doubling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.1.4 Outlook: Phonological hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.2 Meaning and its relationship to form in reduplication . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.2.1 General semantic surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.2.2 Iconicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.2.3 Outlook: Morpho-semantic hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.3 Typological perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.3.1 Macro- and micro-typological studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.3.1.1 The inception of a modern macro-typology of redupli-

cation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

V

Contents VI

2.3.1.2 The macro-typology of reduplication in the world at-

las of language structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.3.1.3 Micro-typological studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2.3.2 Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3 The data: Overview of investigated phenomena 39

3.1 The Graz database on reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.1.1 Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.1.2 Excluded phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.1.2.1 Reduplication in sign languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.1.2.2 Harmonic phenomena and phonological/prosodic dou-

bling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.1.2.3 Doubling in language games and child language . . . 43

3.1.2.4 Repetitive syntactic operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.1.2.5 Recursive morphological operations . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.1.2.6 Contrastive doubling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

3.1.2.7 Expressives, onomatopoeic expressions, ideophones and

lexical reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

3.1.3 Analyzed data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3.2 Reduplication forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.2.1 Full reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3.2.1.1 Word reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3.2.1.2 Stem and root reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

3.2.1.3 Affix reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3.2.1.4 Full reduplication with word linkers . . . . . . . . . . 53

3.2.1.5 Echo-words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3.2.2 Borderline forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3.2.3 Partial reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3.2.3.1 Foot reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3.2.3.2 Syllable reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

3.2.3.3 Single-segment reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3.2.3.4 Partial reduplication with fixed segments . . . . . . . 64

Contents VII

3.2.4 A note on reduplication with simultaneous affixation . . . . . . 66

3.3 Reduplication meanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

3.3.1 Plurality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.3.2 Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

3.3.3 Diminution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

3.3.4 Other meanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

3.3.4.1 Miscellaneous intra-category meaning changes . . . . 75

3.3.4.2 Word-class derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

3.3.5 A note on the meaning of echo-words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

4 A typology of reduplicants: Contributions of iconicity and preferred form 82

4.1 The typology of reduplication meanings: Iconicity . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

4.1.1 The iconic nature of plurality and intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4.1.1.1 Plurality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4.1.1.2 Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

4.1.1.3 The independence of plurality and intensity . . . . . . 92

4.1.2 The iconic nature of diminution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

4.1.2.1 General links between plurality and diminution . . . 94

4.1.2.2 The links of plurality and diminution in reduplication 96

4.1.3 Other intra-category meanings expressed by reduplication . . . 98

4.1.4 Word-class derivation via reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

4.1.5 Semantic restrictions of affix reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

4.1.6 Typological implications for reduplication meanings . . . . . . 109

4.2 The typology of reduplication forms: Preferred form . . . . . . . . . . . 113

4.2.1 Feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

4.2.2 Syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

4.2.3 Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

4.2.4 Fixed segmentism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

4.2.5 Typological implications for reduplication forms . . . . . . . . . 122

4.2.5.1 Synchronic perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

4.2.5.2 Diachronic perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

4.3 The typological status of reduplication as a morphological process . . 129

Contents VIII

5 The derivational nature of reduplication 133

5.1 Inflection versus derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

5.2 Reduplication and the inflection-derivation continuum . . . . . . . . . 136

5.2.1 Lexical versus syntactic function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

5.2.2 Obligatority and grammatical agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

5.2.3 Biuniqueness, uniformity and rule variation/competition . . . 138

5.2.4 Category variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

5.2.5 Abstractness, transparency and degree of meaning change . . . 140

5.2.6 Productivity and lexical storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

5.2.7 Word-class change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

5.2.8 Reapplication and multiple application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

5.2.9 Paradigmatic organization and analogical leveling . . . . . . . . 144

5.2.10 Position preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

5.2.11 Shape variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

5.2.12 Summary and consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

5.3 Explaining the derivational nature of reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 151

6 Conclusion 154

Appendix 157

References 167

Abbreviations, glosses and symbols

1 first person

2 second person

3 third person

ABS absolutive

ACC accusative

ADJ adjective

ADV adverb

Af affix(ation/es)

AF ang-form

AfRED reduplicative affix

APiCS atlas of pidgin and creole lan-

guage structures

ARG argument marker

ART article

Att Attenuation

ATT attenuative

ATTR attributive

Aug Augmentation

AV actor voice

B base

BEG begun aspect

BR base-reduplicant

C consonant

CAUS causative

CLF classifier

COLL collective

CONJ conjunction

COSUB cosubordinator

CT correspondence theory

DECL declarative

DECL1 first declension

DEF definite

DEM demonstrative

Dim Diminution

IX

Abbreviations, glosses and symbols X

DIM diminutive

DS different subject

DYN dynamic

EW echo-word

EXH exhortative

F bi- or polysyllabic foot; seman-

tic feature bundle

F feminine

FIN finite

FUT future

G generalization

GER gerund

GTT generalized template theory

H high tone

HAB habitual

I inference

IDEO ideophone

IF instrumental focus

IMP imperative

INCH inchoative

INDF indefinite

INF infinitive

Int Intensification

INT intensity

INTER interrogative

IO input-output

IPFV imperfective

ITER iterative

L lambda-abstraction; low tone

LIG ligature

LK linker

LOC locative

M metaphor

M masculine

MDT morphological doubling the-

ory

MSD masdar

N nasal; noun

N neuter

NFIN nonfinite

NFUT nonfuture

NMLZ nominalizer

NOM nominative

NPST nonpast

OBJ object

Abbreviations, glosses and symbols XI

OBL oblique

OT optimality theory

PART particle

PF patient focus

PFV perfective

PL plural

PREP preposition

PREV preverb

PROG progressive

PROX proximate/proximitive

PRS present

PST past

PTCP participle

PURP purposive

R reduplicant

R realis

RECP reciprocal

RED reduplication

REFL reflexive

REL relative

REPV repetitive

RES result

RPST remote past

RT root

SBJ subject

SG singular

SPEC specific article

ST stem

STAT stative

TETU the emergence of the un-

marked

TODP today’s past

TR transitive

V verb; vowel

VBLZ verbalizer

VEN venitive

W word

WALS world atlas of language struc-

tures

„ base-reduplicant boundary

= clitic boundary

[. . . ] feature specification; out-

put/phonetic form

> hierarchical domination; se-

mantic extension

/. . . / input/phonological form

Abbreviations, glosses and symbols XII

<. . . > internal position

- morpheme boundary; redupli-

cant position

‚ norm/prototype

Ï optimality theoretic constraint

domination

* reconstructed form; ungram-

matical form

Ñ statistical preference

Ñ structural change; word-class

derivation

. syllable boundary

� syllable potentially more com-

plex/less optimal than CV

Ą typological implication

V universal preference

: vowel length

List of Figures

2.1 Reduplication in the world atlas of language structures . . . . . . . . . 35

2.2 A typology of typologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.1 The interaction of iconicity and semantic extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

4.2 Universal structure for diminutive semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

4.3 Iconic roots of reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

4.4 Structures arranged on a parameter in the order of increasing preference 128

XIII

List of Tables

4.1 Occurrences of broad reduplication meanings in the 87 sample languages 85

4.2 Some reduplicative functions of plurality depending on major word-

(sub-)class of the base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

4.3 Some reduplicative functions of intensity depending on major word-


4.4 Some reduplicative functions of diminution depending on major word-


4.5 Occurrences of reduplicative word-class derivation in the 87 sample

languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

4.6 Occurrences of broad reduplication forms in the 87 sample languages . 122

5.1 Prototypicality of common inflectional and derivational categories . . 148

A.1 Sample languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

A.2 Overview of reduplication forms and functions in the sample languages 163

XIV

1 Introduction

The present study deals with a topic of linguistic research which time and again has

attracted the interest of scholars of language for at least a little more than one and

a half centuries.1 In general, the subject in question is the morphological device of

reduplication; the particular progress aimed for here in its examination lies in the

explicit cross-linguistic integration of the phenomenon’s salient formal (i.e. phono-

logical) and functional (i.e. [morpho-]semantic)2 characteristics on the basis of a large

and detailed data set of relevant constructions drawn from a typologically, areally

as well as genetically diverse sample of languages. In contrast to earlier studies of

similar intent and scope, the following chapters look at and compare reduplication

systems of individual languages by incorporating extensive information on the lat-

ter’s respective reduplicative forms and functions without a restriction to only one or

a few selected patterns regarding the proposed hypotheses, analyses and conclusions.

More specifically, this work is concerned with the typology of reduplication as it

presents itself from the point of view of semantic limitations and phonological pref-

erences, two factors identified as regularly playing a role in reduplicative exponents

as well as in reduplicated word forms as a whole and thus, at least to a great extent,1This temporal estimate rests on the year of publication of the largely pre-theoretical yet descriptively

meticulous early account of various doubling phenomena in language, including reduplication, byPott (1862). See Hurch & Mattes (2009b: 305) and Stolz et al. (2011: 78–83) for the significance, asummary as well as a critical evaluation of Pott’s classic in the context of the history of reduplicationresearch.

2As especially shown in Section 3.3, reduplication can be employed for a variety of purposes cross-linguistically, ranging from the expression of relatively concrete semantics like nominal plural tothe fulfillment of rather abstract functions like word-class derivation. Throughout the presentwork, the terms functional and semantic are used quite interchangeably, though. Interestinglyenough, in Chapter 4 and 5 this turns out to be more than the mere terminological simplifica-tion that is sometimes found in introductory linguistic textbooks (e.g. Haspelmath 2002: 17 onthe linguistic purpose of morphemes in general; but see also Key 1965: 88 in an article dedicatedspecifically to reduplication), because even seemingly abstract functions may display certain con-crete aspects when it comes to reduplication.

1

1 Introduction 2

deemed decisive in governing the make-up of reduplication systems in the languages

of the world. The investigated data hail from various kinds of sources on reduplica-

tion in different languages and have been assembled and analyzed during the past

years in a research project with a typologically oriented online database at its heart:

the Graz database on reduplication.

The subsequent sections serve to set the overall scene for the investigation: Redu-

plication is defined, along with the introduction of some basic terminology, in Section

1.1, where the process is established in a cross-linguistically adequate manner as an

autonomous non-concatenative morphological device. The study’s fundamental as-

sumptions and expectations are stated in Section 1.2, where an essentially word-based

stance is adopted as it fares better in a functional-typological approach to reduplica-

tion than the usually particularistic formal models which concentrate on phonology

but for the most part ignore semantics. Section 1.3 concludes with an outline of the

remaining chapters.

1.1 Definition and terminology

The following examples give a first impression of the formal and functional spectrum

found in reduplication:

(1) Indonesian3

gula ‘sugar’ gula„gula ‘sweets’

laki ‘husband’ laki„laki ‘man’

mata ‘eye’ mata„mata ‘spy’

kuda ‘horse’ kuda„kuda ‘trestle’

langit ‘sky’ langit„langit ‘ceiling’

(Sneddon 1996: 16)

3See Section 3.1 and the Appendix for details on sampled languages, data and their presentation inthis study. Genetic classifications are not given in the chapters for languages that appear in theunderlying sample and are thus listed separately in Table A.1 of the Appendix according to lan-guage name, classification and references. For other, lesser-known languages occasionally referredto their genetic affiliation is added when they are first mentioned in the text.

1 Introduction 3

(2) a. Wangaaybuwan-Ngiyambaa

gi:djan ‘green’ gi:dja„gi:djan ‘greenish’

bulagar ‘two’ bula„bulagar ‘a couple or so’

(Donaldson 1980: 70, 71, 73)

b. Mangarayi

galNbam ‘spouse’ galNbam„bam-yi4 ‘spouses’

bugbug ‘old person’ bugbug„bug ‘old people’

(Merlan 1982: 215)

c. Daga

baraen ‘he put’ ba„ra„raen ‘he put and put

until full’

wadiamopen ‘to teach wa„di„diamopen ‘to teach several

them’ groups’

(Murane 1974: 73)

Looking at (1) and (2), the characterization of reduplication as “[t]he systematic repe-

tition of phonological material within a word for semantic or grammatical purposes”

(Rubino 2005b: 11) serves as a convenient starting point, for with some elaboration

this definition covers the essential features of the phenomenon as it is understood

here:5

• The attribute systematic establishes reduplication as a variably productive lin-

guistic trait which is considerably entrenched in a grammar making use of it.6

In (1) and (2) this can only be hinted at by giving more than one example per

reduplicative pattern in a language.7

4The proprietive suffix -yi is required in Mangarayi kin constructions denoting the relation betweentwo or more kinsmen (cf. Merlan 1982: 215).

5In this section only the most basic terminology is presented. Additional terms and concepts areintroduced throughout this study whenever necessary.

6This is akin to Maas’s (2005: 395) perspective II on doubling in language, i.e. “as the result ofa special type of structuring, thus as learned behavior in a linguistic community, as part of thelanguage system”, in contrast to his perspective I, i.e. doubling “as a reflex of inertia in linguisticactivity” at all conceivable levels, very common in early child language or certain speech disorders,for example.

7This echoes Moravcsik’s (1978: 300) restriction of her definition of reduplicative constructions, whichdemands that in a language a particular meaning distinction paired off with a reduplicated form

1 Introduction 4

• The phrase repetition of phonological material captures the dependence of what is

reduplicated — i.e. the reduplicant8 — on the respective linguistic unit serving

as the base,9 but at the same time permits differing degrees of identity between

these constituents which together make up a reduplicated word form. This is

shown by the contrast of full (or complete or total) reduplication in (1), where

whole words are repeated, and the various types of partial reduplication in (2),

where different phonological elements of the base forms (feet in [2a] and sylla-

bles in [2b, c]) are repeated as reduplicants in different positions (base-initially

in [2a], base-finally in [2b] and base-internally in [2c]).

• The confinement within a word reflects the classification of reduplication as be-

longing to a language’s morphology.10 In accordance with the Leipzig glossing

rules, this is descriptively indicated by the use of a tilde11 to show the borders

between base and reduplicant in (1) and (2).12

• Finally, the disposition for semantic or grammatical purposes characterizes redu-

plication, like Wiltshire & Marantz (2000: 557) do, as a type of word formation

in the broad sense, i.e. as comprising functions traditionally called derivational

difference in one utterance pair has to be paired off in the same way in another utterance pair ofthat language (see also Schwaiger 2011a: 121).

8N.B.: Spaelti (1997: 3) remarks that this designation for the exponents of reduplication is attributedto Spring (1990) by McCarthy & Prince (1993b). As a matter of fact, McCarthy & Prince (1993b: 66)do not refer to a specific publication when adopting the term from Spring. But be that as it may,reduplicant appears to be used in an already established fashion in Spring’s dissertation, leaving theterm’s origin and ultimate history still as unresolved issues (not further pursued here).

9See Section 1.2 for details on the somewhat complicated concept of the base in reduplication re-search.

10As obvious as this may sound today, not too long ago the morphological nature of reduplication hadto be explicitly argued for in the groundbreaking work by Wilbur (1973). See 2.1.1 for details.

11Reference is made here to the revised February 2008 version of the Leipzig glossing rules retrievedonline from http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php on 1 April, 2014. Forconsistency, the tilde as a symbol for a base-reduplicant boundary is used throughout this study,also in cases when the original source in question does not indicate these boundaries or does so byway of a different symbol (e.g. a hyphen).

12At least in full segmental reduplication it is often not clear which part is the reduplicant and which isthe base, a possible decision crucially hinging on additional linguistic evidence like suprasegmentalinexactitudes (see McCarthy & Prince 1995: 76), if indeed such a decision can be reached at all (seeYip 1998: 238 on so-called echo-words in the Malayo-Polynesian language Javanese).

http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php

1 Introduction 5

and inflectional (see also Marantz 1982: 457).13 Hereby it is essential that the

repetition on the formal side does not include a matching repetition on the func-

tional side (cf. Moravcsik 1978: 300, 302, footnote 4), so “that reduplication is

not just saying the same all over again without changing the meaning” (Stolz et

al. 2011: 27), as can once more be seen in (1) and (2) from the respective mean-

ing changes (lexical enrichment in [1],14 attenuation in [2a], nominal plurality in

[2b] and verbal plurality in [2c]).

As a basis for the cross-linguistic comparison aimed at in the present study, this rel-

atively theory-neutral perspective on reduplication is chosen over other, sometimes

more theory-internal and formalistic definitions encountered in the literature (see the

compilations in Saperstein 1997: 8–12 and Stolz et al. 2011: 9–21) for mainly three

reasons. First, although the definition delineates a morphological device, it is not

guided by a strictly concatenative premise that considers reduplication to merely be

a formally somewhat more complicated case of affixation (e.g. Marantz 1982: 437; see

also 2.1.1). Second, neither does it downgrade the device’s phonological properties to

a more or less accidental concomitant of the morpho-semantic identity demanded by

a certain type of compound construction which reduplication is claimed to instanti-

ate according to another line of research (e.g. Inkelas & Zoll 2005: 2–6; see also 2.1.3).

Over the years both views have been popular in reduplication research (see Section

2.1) but, entailing profound presuppositions concerning the specific morphological

nature of the process, have led to the relative neglect of a further crucial dimension,

that of reduplication semantics (see Section 2.2). This is the third essential point put

into focus in the characterization given above, and an indispensable facet in estab-

lishing the typological status of reduplicative phenomena more precisely (see Section

2.3). All this is of course not to say that the present investigation as a whole claims to

be free of theoretical assumptions. It rather means that the defining of the object of

study should be carried out as theory-neutrally as possible in order to not introduce

any bias already at the empirical data level adduced for examination.

13This last point is an especially important one taken up again in Chapter 5, where it is argued thatunambiguous cases of reduplicative inflection are very hard to come by because of the specialmorpho-semantic and phonological properties of reduplication.

14But see Section 1.2 (especially footnote 19) for the in reality somewhat more complicated status ofthe Indonesian examples.

1 Introduction 6

1.2 Assumptions and expectations

Owing to its ultimately functional-typological orientation (see 2.3.2), this study pro-

ceeds from the assumption that, prima facie, reduplication exhibits enough distinct

structural traits to be viewed as a morphological process sui generis (see also Hurch

& Mattes 2009b: 302), which means the investigation is not driven by a formal-

generative effort to capture as much data as possible with as little theoretical machin-

ery as possible. This should not be understood as a denial of Ockham’s razor but in-

stead as directly opposing the mostly (post-)generative axiom to view all sorts of pat-

terns in morphology as concatenative, thereby often neglecting formal and, crucially,

functional characteristics that would speak for the independent status of a certain

morphological process. Accordingly, the adoption and adaption of Rubino’s defini-

tion in Section 1.1 retains what has made reduplication so interesting for researchers

during the past decades in the first place (i.e. repeated phonological substance or,

in Wilbur’s 1973: 5 words, the fact that the process’s “actual phonological shape is

directly dependent on the stem to which it applies”) without a prioristically equating

it with other morphological operations (e.g. affixation or compounding) in order to

downplay the importance of (or even argue away) potential formal and functional

peculiarities.15

Furthermore, although principally of a substantive kind and thus not chiefly con-

cerned with general morphological theory or a specific model of morphology, the

present work shows a strong word-based leaning in that it recognizes words instead

of morphemes as the fundamental elements of morphological systems, with stems,

roots and affixes regarded as abstractions over sets of full forms (cf. Blevins 2006:

531–532; see also Saperstein 1997: 29, 36).16 This stance has in part already been

suggested by the essentially non-concatenative view of reduplication hinted at above

and in Section 1.1, but it most directly follows from the interpretation of an impor-

15Already Hurch & Mattes (2005: 145–146) give synchronic and diachronic reasons against identifying(partial) reduplication and affixation.

16Saperstein’s (1997) unpublished dissertation is a generally less received treatment of reduplicationwithin word-and-paradigm morphology, parts of which are very similar in spirit to the presentapproach.

1 Introduction 7

tant concept in almost any morphological endeavor, to be discussed next: the base of

morphological processes.17

Recently, Haugen (2009) has taken stock of the issue and argued in favor of redu-

plicative theories such as the one put forward in Shaw (2005), whose constituent base

hypothesis (see Shaw 2005: 166–168) allows for the context-dependent assignment

of the base in reduplication in terms of either morphological or, crucially, prosodic

(phonological) categories (cf. Haugen 2009: 505). From the formalist angle predom-

inantly taken by researchers like Haugen and Shaw (along with many others; see

Section 2.1) this conclusion is legitimate in light of the many shapes reduplicants can

have intra- as well as cross-linguistically (see Section 3.2) and which are determined

by phonological factors apparently not decisive in other types of morphology. How-

ever, in seeking to include functional considerations much more than most formal

theories do, this is exactly where a significant line is drawn here: Conceding that

phonology plays a leading role in reduplication in spite of the latter inherently be-

ing a part of morphology, the term base is nevertheless reserved for the word (or one

of its lexically salient morphological subparts like the stem, root or affix; see further

below)18 serving at least as a “rough target” (Spaelti 1997: 6) for the process under

scrutiny, be it of the fully or the partially reduplicating variety. It is assumed that this

is so because, as already mentioned above, the word is the central unit of morphologi-

cal processing (cf. Bybee 1985: 117; see also Bybee 1985: 135, endnote 5), embedded in

a connectionist lexicon with associations to other words primarily based on meaning

(i.e. shared semantic features), which in case of parallel phonological connections can

lead to the establishment of a morphological relation (cf. Bybee 1985: 118; see also

Blevins 2006: 37, 40). For reduplication the analytical challenge is one of properly dif-

ferentiating between a morphological and a phonological level and acknowledging

their potential interactions.

What has been said so far leads to the following general conception and typological

expectation:

17Clearly, this again has to be understood as an abstraction, namely that of a base and different kindsof morphological exponents from surface forms (cf. Blevins 2006: 536).

18See also Dressler (1989: 5) for the word base preference in morphology and Dressler (1995: 23) forthe lexical or morphological character of bases.

1 Introduction 8

(3) Reduplication, being an independent process of morphology, primarily targets

as bases morphological units of varying size (i.e. words, stems, roots or, much

more rarely, affixes), systematically effecting a change of semantics by their rep-

etition. Additionally, due to the unique property of reduplicants to obtain their

form from the respective base in such a direct fashion, reduplication is amenable

to secondary specifications targeting phonological units of different sizes (i.e.

feet, syllables or, more controversially, segments), thus displaying a certain for-

mal independence from the morphological base.

(4) For a typology of reduplication, the differentiation of a morphological and a

phonological level, their relative weighting (i.e. morphology as primary, pho-

nology as secondary) as well as the differing degrees of their possible over-

lapping imply that different morphological and phonological regularities are

expected to exert their respective influence in an intertwined manner when it

comes to more complex reduplicative systems.

The conception in (3) can be illustrated by contrasting again the examples from

Section 1.1. In case of Indonesian full reduplication expressing relatedness or simi-

larity, the morphology and phonology of base and reduplicant are coextensive in that

the repetition applies to entire words irrespective of their length and phonological

constituency (cf. [1]).19 Note that in fully reduplicated stems, roots or affixes (de-

scribed and exemplified in 3.2.1) the morphological and phonological boundaries of

base and reduplicant do not clash either; still, in such instances it is important to

keep in mind that, as assumed above, the entire word remains the central unit of

concern, while the particular subpart selected for reduplication depends on several

factors of morphological processing which influence the saliency of different mor-

phological constituents as well as their probability to serve as a base, discussed at

19Recall that the very same examples have been semantically classified as lexical enrichment in Section1.1. This reflects the interlocking of at least two important functional features of reduplicativeconstructions in general, namely their being part of systematic radial semantic categories as wellas their proneness to lexicalization (see especially 2.2.2, Section 4.1 and 5.2.5 for details). In thisrespect the Indonesian instances in (1) are clearly borderline cases of reduplication for which onecould also argue that they are not productive anymore (and thus they would have to be excludedfrom the investigation). However, at least for the present illustrative purpose nothing prevents onefrom continuing to treat the pattern as if it were productive (see also 5.2.6).

1 Introduction 9

some length by Bybee (1985) in various chapters (see also Saperstein 1997: 33–36). In

case of partial reduplication, the primarily morphological targets are superimposed

by phonological specifications which may exhibit formal independence in a number

of ways: All the examples in (2) exhibit a less than perfect match between the mor-

phology and phonology of bases and reduplicants because the latter are shorter than

the former. Furthermore, while the final repetition of syllables in Mangarayi plural

reduplication (cf. [2b]) and Daga internal reduplication indicating repeated actions

(cf. [2c]) maintain the syllabic constituency of the base, the initial repetition of feet

in Wangaaybuwan-Ngiyambaa attenuative reduplication does not respect base foot

structure in all cases (compare the reduplicant bu.la from the base bu.la.gar with coda-

less gi:.dja from gi:.djan in [2a]).20

The expectation in (4) now comprises the following: In line with usual typolog-

ical practice, the present study aims to describe and explain the phonological and

semantic properties found in morphological reduplication on the basis of a cross-

linguistic data sample. Generally, this means that reduplication is expected to allow

for unifying formal and functional generalizations instead of being an accumulation

of arbitrarily diverse forms and meanings. More specifically, considering the above

assumptions, the subsequent thesis can be phrased: If reduplication is a morpho-

logical process in its own right, the conspicuous properties of which cannot satisfy-

ingly be captured by simply treating it as another, currently better understood kind

of morphology like affixation or compounding, then the make-up and functioning of

reduplication systems should follow from some principle (or principles) correlating

morphological expression directly with aspects of the meaning expressed (cf. Bybee

1985: 4). Put yet a bit differently, the study at hand seeks answers to these questions:

First, what are the cross-linguistic formal and functional properties of reduplication

and how are they shaped by morpho-semantic and phonological regularities to build

reduplicative systems in the languages of the world? And second, what are the rea-

sons for as well as the consequences of an exponent of a morphological process to

be so dependent on the form of its base from the viewpoint of language typology,

universals research and linguistic morphology?

20For formal details on reduplication in Wangaaybuwan-Ngiyambaa see Donaldson (1980: 69).

1 Introduction 10

1.3 Outline of the study

The preceding sections have established the general perspective from which the for-

mal and functional systematics of reduplicants in relation to their bases is dealt with

cross-linguistically throughout the remainder of this study. The outline of the respec-

tive chapters is as follows:

Chapter 2 sketches the current state of theoretical and typological research into

reduplication forms and/or functions, in further consequence formulating the hy-

potheses bearing on the reduplicant typology eventually intended. The key concepts

arising from the discussion are phonological identity and markedness preferences as

well as the morpho-semantic principle of iconicity observable in reduplication, which

both provide the foundation for a comprehensive typological account of the structural

make-up and morphological status of the process.

As an empirical testing ground for the above prelude, Chapter 3 gives an overview

of the consulted language sample and database plus the investigated data. Several

languages and allegedly reduplicative patterns have to be excluded in preparation of

a detailed presentation of the formal and semantic varieties of reduplication that are

typologically analyzed in the next chapter.

Correspondingly, Chapter 4 turns to a meaning-driven typology of reduplicant

structure from the viewpoint of iconicity and preferred form. The analyses show the

majority of reduplication meanings to be straightforwardly captured by iconic con-

siderations, while other functions prove amenable to the same principle after taking a

closer, critical look at their actual properties (and beyond terminology). Likewise, the

co-occurrence of marked and unmarked exponents of partial reduplication displays

phonological regularities across reduplicative systems. On this basis, characterizing

reduplication as an independent morphological device demonstrably obeys a host of

well-defined implications concerning the functional and formal levels involved.

Chapter 5 is finally devoted to the hitherto relatively neglected place of redupli-

cated structures within the traditional division of linguistic morphology, identifying

the process’s essentially derivational nature which in turn is connected to the charac-

teristic iconicity of reduplication and determines many conspicuous aspects of form

and function in the latter when compared to other morphological operations.

1 Introduction 11

Chapter 6 concludes by way of a final comparison of the present study’s most im-

portant findings with the typical attempts of explanation in formal approaches to

reduplication. In the course of this summary, the manifold advantages of a functional-

typological stance on the phenomenon under scrutiny here are once more highlighted.

2 Base-reduplicant identity,reduplicative semantics and theform-meaning relationship inreduplication

So far, the analysis of formal and functional aspects of reduplication has for the

most part proceeded in relatively independent strands of research,1 which in addi-

tion have evolved quite asymmetrically with respect to their progress and output. In-

quiries into reduplication form including all its phonological intricacies (see Section

2.1) dominate the picture considerably from the 1970s on when compared to investi-

gations of reduplication meaning and the latter’s relationship to the phenomenon’s

formal side (see Section 2.2). Accordingly, next to its larger and more detailed data

basis, the merit of the present study is seen in its integration of formal and functional

aspects to yield a comprehensive typological characterization of the reduplication

process without being biased towards the expression or the content pole of the lin-

guistic sign.2 This is all the more desirable as, to date, the typology of the process —

1One could at least mention famous contributions by Pott (1862), Moravcsik (1978) and Bybee et al.(1994: 166–174) as prominent exceptions here for their more or less integrated consideration ofreduplication form and function on an analytical level. However, it has already been pointed outin Chapter 1 (footnote 1) that Pott’s early study is a largely pre-theoretical enterprise, descriptivelyoperating with a fairly wide concept of doubling phenomena in language. Moravcsik, on the otherhand, looks at both reduplication form and function from a typological point of view but refrainsfrom a thorough synthesis of the two levels (see also 2.3.1.1). Bybee and her colleagues come closestto an integration of formal and functional aspects of reduplication but their data set, as the authorspoint out themselves (see Bybee et al. 1994: 173), is relatively limited and they strictly focus on thepossible grammaticalization of the process (see also 4.2.5.2). Furthermore, one needs to mentionthe efforts by the Graz reduplication project in this context, treated more extensively in Section 3.1.

2See Stolz et al. (2011: 31–39) for the risks of exclusively form-oriented or purely semantic-orientedapproaches to reduplication (see also 2.1.4).

12

2 BR identity, semantics and the form-meaning relationship in reduplication 13

in the sense of studying “hierarchical and implicational principles of invariance in the

structure of grammar” (Hurch & Mattes 2009b: 304) — does not seem to have reached

very far beyond a stage of programmatic outlines (typically posing more questions

than providing answers) and relatively restricted surveys of matters of detail as well

as of a few smaller linguistic areas (see Section 2.3). With that said, the ensuing sec-

tions further develop the basic ideas and goals stated as preliminaries in Chapter 1 of

this investigation, including necessary side glances on terminological issues and rele-

vant earlier works treating certain aspects of the reduplication phenomenon. Mirror-

ing the traditional priorities holding in earlier studies, in the following reduplication

form is treated before function (a sequence reversed in Chapter 4 for reasons given

there).

2.1 Base-reduplicant identity

Base-reduplicant (BR) identity3 — i.e. the formal identity between the model of redu-

plication and what has been repeated — is by far the most thoroughly explored area in

reduplication research. As the existing literature on the topic is abundant, this survey

mostly concentrates on relevant hallmarks of the last four decades or so. Moreover,

in order to properly situate the importance of BR identity within a wider context,

the more general concept of identity in grammar as related to reduplication is also

briefly addressed in 2.1.4 along with typological hypotheses concerning the process’s

phonology.

2.1.1 Rule-based models

Wilbur’s (1973) seminal dissertation initiated and significantly shaped the modern in-

vestigation of reduplication. From today’s perspective the study offers a rather exces-

sively in-depth discussion of several shortcomings of the then dominant generative-

derivational linguistic framework, especially generative phonology. Yet, looking into

3Although the term and abbreviation have been borrowed from optimality theory (see McCarthy &Prince 1995; see also 2.1.2), they are used here merely as convenient labels for the central formalcharacteristic of reduplication in general, i.e. without any specific theoretical claim attached tothem.


the common exceptional behavior of phonological rules with respect to reduplication

— e.g. Tagalog mamimigáy, which, proceeding from a base bigáy ‘give’, should be

*mamibigáy if the prefix mang- were to assimilate its final nasal in regular fashion to

the reduplicative output bi„bigáy (see Wilbur 1973: Chapter 2 for this and other cases

of so-called overapplication as well as of failure of a rule, the latter better known as

underapplication from then on, as is also suggested by Aronoff 1988: 4) —, the funda-

mental issues raised concerning rule-based ordering accounts led the author to two

conclusions of persistent relevance: the formulation of the identity constraint, saying

that there is a tendency for base and reduplicant to preserve identity in reduplicated

forms (cf. Wilbur 1973: 58), and the placement of reduplication into a unified mor-

phological component along with other morphological processes (cf. Wilbur 1973:

64–65). Most importantly, incorporating the identity constraint via a so-called mate

relationship to express that one segment is the copy of another (cf. Wilbur 1973: 72)

introduced a reduplication-specific device into linguistic theory the impact of which

can still be seen in the conceptually rather different constraint-based reduplicative

theories favored two decades later (see 2.1.2). As opposed to this, establishing the cru-

cially morphological status of reduplication did not exert the same sort of influence

in the years to come, with reduplication form remaining the main focus of attention

for a long time.

In the wake of early autosegmental phonology and non-linear morphology, Ma-

rantz (1982) put forth his copy-and-association model of reduplication as a solu-

tion to overgenerating transformational accounts (to which he implicitly also counts

Wilbur 1973; cf. Marantz 1982: 435). Building on theoretical proposals regarding

non-concatenative morphology in general (e.g. McCarthy 1981) and observations by

Moravcsik (1978) in particular (see 2.3.1.1), the author treated reduplication as the af-

fixation of a skeletal morpheme to be melodically filled by associating with it a copy

of the stem (cf. Marantz 1982: 439–440), thus shifting the focus of attention from ques-

tions of segmental identity to reduplicative templates (see Urbanczyk 2006: 180). The

basics of copying and association within the Marantzian framework, the exact details

of which are of no immediate concern here, can be illustrated by the reduplicated


Tagalog form talıtalınoh ‘rather intelligent’ from talınoh ‘intelligent’ (cf. Marantz 1982:

452):4

(1) t a l ı n o h t a l ı n o h

C V C C V + C V C V C V C

[+long]

This approach marked the beginning of a long tradition of reduplication-as-affixation

treatments, one goal of which was to take away as much as possible of the special

flavor of reduplication, particularly by equating the process with traditional affixes

and deriving the rest by principles independently motivated in root-and-pattern mor-

phology. The general view of reduplication as affixation is then also the only aspect in

these models explicitly recognizing the former’s morphological nature. In contrast,

the actual analyses undertaken in these frameworks mostly pertain to purely phono-

logical matters, although on this level it is at least the proposed copying mechanism

which still marks the distinctiveness of reduplication.

The influence of Marantz (1982) can perhaps be most clearly seen in the many im-

mediate follow-up studies addressing various shortcomings of the original model as

well as proposing several modifications (e.g. Broselow & McCarthy 1984; Clements

1985; Kiparsky 1986). On the other hand, Steriade (1988) considerably departed from

these approaches with her own full-copy approach, rejecting reduplicative templates

in the form of partial or selective copying (cf. Steriade 1988: 78) and claiming that

even partial reduplication always starts out as full reduplication, while the final shape

of the reduplicant results from operations implementing various requirements of

syllabic structure, crucially improving the reduplicant syllable in markedness when

compared to the base original (cf. Steriade 1988: 92), e.g. Tagalog reduplicative on-

set simplification in ta„trabaho (cf. Steriade 1988: 80, citing McCarthy & Prince 1986:

16).5

4The analysis of the Tagalog example demonstrates the use of the distinctive feature [˘long] for therepresentation of vowel length, a theoretical choice the problems of which are hinted at by Marantz(1982: 451, footnote 13) himself.

5It is a telling characteristic of many formal studies on reduplication like Steriade’s to frequently notgive the meanings of the reduplicative forms under discussion. For the sake of completeness, note


In spite of a theoretical hiatus during the next decade to be explained in the fol-

lowing section, recently there has been an occasional return to derivational models of

reduplication. Yet, as these are mainly formulated within the syntactocentric frame-

work of distributed morphology (e.g. Raimy 2000; Frampton 2009), the morphologi-

cal status of reduplication still appears rather neglected within them.

2.1.2 Prosodic morphology and optimality theory

While early prosodic morphological accounts of reduplication like Marantz (1982)

and Steriade (1988) were as derivational and rule-based in their basic architecture

as the predecessors they argued against on other grounds (see 2.1.1), the later rise

of optimality theory (OT) caused a significant shift to constraint-based declarative

models of reduplication, which have not lost their influence until today in still being

the most popular frameworks for analyzing reduplicative forms.

Adopting central ideas behind Wilbur’s (1973) identity constraint and mate rela-

tionship (see 2.1.1), correspondence theory (CT) set up structural relations (i.e. corre-

spondences) between base and reduplicant as well as between input and output (cf.

McCarthy & Prince 1995: 14) to be implemented by the parallel evaluation of respec-

tive OT constraints, as schematized in McCarthy & Prince’s (1995: 25) basic model of

reduplicative identity:6

(2) Input: /AfRED + Stem/

Ö IO Faithfulness

Output: R Õ B

BR Identity

Its name already implies that this model is especially geared to handle segmental

identity in reduplication. Input-output (IO) faithfulness evaluates the correspon-

dence between the input stem and the output base, while the corresponding rela-

that McCarthy & Prince (1996: 13) — unfortunately their original 1986 manuscript consulted bySteriade was not available for reference — cite the form ka-ta„trabaho ‘just finished working’ asan example of Tagalog core syllable reduplication expressing the morphological category of recentperfective.

6McCarthy & Prince (1995: 25) also schematize a full model, adding a third correspondence relation,namely that between input and reduplicant, which according to the authors can largely be omitted,however, because its effects are fairly limited (see McCarthy & Prince 1995: Chapter 6 for details).


tion between base and reduplicant — i.e. the output of the (typically) segmentless

reduplicative affix in the input — is evaluated by BR identity (cf. McCarthy & Prince

1995: 26). Accordingly, cases of over- and underapplication can be modeled by high-

ranking BR identity constraints.

In contrast to early CT, in a next stage generalized template theory (GTT) was more

interested in general reduplicant shape, striving to derive reduplicative templates

from independently required constraints on phonology, morphology and their inter-

face (cf. McCarthy & Prince 1999: 261). Specifically, while in CT each reduplicative

affix had to be endowed with its own set of constraints to be able to handle lan-

guages showing more than one reduplicative pattern (cf. McCarthy & Prince 1995:

17), in GTT it was enough to have morphology determine the category of a reduplica-

tive morpheme as, say, affix, root or stem and let general phonological and morpho-

prosodic constraints handle the exact properties of reduplicant forms (cf. McCarthy

& Prince 1999: 262). For one, reduplication was now not automatically viewed solely

as affixation anymore but could structurally also turn out to be a form of compound-

ing (of roots or stems). In addition, a key concept in this treatment was the emergence

of the unmarked (TETU; McCarthy & Prince 1994), a constraint ranking effecting un-

marked reduplicant structures to emerge despite the fact that the respective marked

structures are allowed elsewhere in the same language, by way of IO faithfulness

dominating general markedness constraints which in turn dominate BR identity, rep-

resentable by the following general ranking schema in standard OT notation (cf. Mc-

Carthy & Prince 1999: 261):

(3) IO Faithfulness Ï Phono-Constraint Ï BR Identity

The much-greater-than sign indicates dominance from left to right, so that a struc-

tural (phono-)constraint against complex onsets, for example, could be inactive in a

language as a whole because of dominant IO faithfulness but active when the latter

is not relevant, as for reduplicants which are subject to BR identity and thus sacri-

fice exact copying in obedience to the dominating markedness constraint in question

(cf. McCarthy & Prince 1999: 261–262). This way, partial reduplication patterns like

the ones already investigated in Steriade (1988; see 2.1.1) found a coherent treatment

within OT (see also McCarthy et al. 2012: 217–222 for a more recent approach).


TETU as described above belongs to the more general category of dissimilatory

non-identity effects in reduplication (see also Yip 1998). Another frequent phenome-

non in this regard is reduplication with so-called fixed segmentism, i.e. reduplicants

which show additional segments not present in the segmental material of the base

like the Yoruba fixed vowel í in gbí„gbóná ‘warmth, heat’ from gbóná ‘be warm, hot’

(cf. Alderete et al. 1999: 328)7 or the Hindi fixed consonant v in kele„vele ‘bananas

and such fruit’ from kele ‘bananas’ (cf. Keane 2006: 646). Fixed segmentism in con-

junction with full reduplication, as in the latter example, is often called echo-word

formation. Theoretically, cases like Yoruba and Hindi have been analyzed as distinct

types of fixed segmentism within OT: The first type is said to have a phonological

basis in that it substitutes for a base segment a default segment in order to decrease

markedness, making it a further case of TETU, while the second type is attributed

to a morphological basis, an affix being realized simultaneously with the reduplicant

and overwriting part of the latter (cf. Alderete et al. 1999: 328 on fixed segments in

Yoruba and Kamrupi, the second language also an Indo-Iranian one like Hindi; see

also Yip 1992).

Even more generally, as reduplicative peculiarities like overapplication and TETU

result from different rankings of the same general constraint types in (3),8 they fall out

from what is conceived as a crucial test for any proposed sub-theory in OT, a so-called

factorial typology in which by permutation of constraints every logically possible

ranking is checked for attestation in the languages of the world (cf. McCarthy &

Prince 1995: 79; see also McCarthy & Prince 1999: 269). However, in reduplication

research such factorial typologies have seldom led to the formulation of implicational

generalizations as they are commonly sought in linguistic typology, Urbanczyk (2006)

being a notable exception (see 4.2.5.1).

7Based, inter alia, on Somali plurals formed by adding the fixed vowel a followed by a copy of thebase-final consonant to a noun (e.g. buug„ag ‘books’ from buug ‘book’), Haspelmath (2002: 24)interpreted such forms as a “mixture between affix and reduplicant”, coining the term duplifix forthem.

8Underapplication in this approach does not appear as a phenomenon in its own right but is rathera special form of overapplication the details of which are of no immediate relevance here (but seeMcCarthy & Prince 1995: Chapter 5, 1999: 284–289).


2.1.3 Morphological doubling

The latest reduplication model of considerable popularity, morphological doubling

theory (MDT; Inkelas & Zoll 2005), is (in terms of theoretical synthesis) rather re-

markably based on basic tenets of OT (see 2.1.2) as well as of construction grammar.

Accordingly, reduplication is modeled as instantiating a morphological construction

consisting of a mother node and two daughter nodes, each node having its own se-

mantic and phonological specifications (see Inkelas & Zoll 2005: 6–20).

Concerning BR identity, the MDT approach is special in claiming that a reduplica-

tion construction demands semantic identity between its sister constituents (cf. Inke-

las & Zoll 2005: 6), possible phonological modifications being handled by OT through

the interaction of three so-called cophonologies pertaining to the mother and daugh-

ter nodes (cf. Inkelas & Zoll 2005: 19):

(4) [zzz]F+

ð Cophonology Z

[xxx] [yyy]

Cophonology Xñ ð Cophonology Y

/Stem/F /Stem/F

The subscript F in (4) stands for a semantic feature bundle, which must be identical

in the daughters; the construction-specific meaning component in the mother is ex-

pressed by the additional plus sign (cf. Inkelas & Zoll 2005: 7). This, by the way,

formalizes the definitional condition that reduplication expresses more than the sum

of its repeated parts as discussed in Section 1.1. Phonological identity is no more

perceived as fundamental in reduplication, indeed it only occurs as a side effect of

semantic identity (cf. Inkelas & Zoll 2005: 18) and is not required at all in synonym

compounds like Vietnamese tô. i-lôi [offense-fault] ‘sin’ (cf. Nguyên 1997: 70), the latter

belonging to a construction type which Inkelas & Zoll (2005: 59–61) also treat as redu-

plication. Furthermore, this shows that, morphologically speaking, reduplication is

conceived of solely as compounding in MDT and not as affixation anymore like in

previous models (see 2.1.1 and 2.1.2).


2.1.4 Outlook: Phonological hypotheses

Constituting an extreme form of similarity (see also Rose & Walker 2004: 490), iden-

tity as it is strived for in reduplication can be related to a general human inclination

towards analogy, the latter not only being the essence of scientific analysis but also

of everyday perception and understanding (cf. Anttila 2003: 425). As such, analogy

unsurprisingly is also a fundamental driving force in grammar at large, relying on

similarity relations both in the meaning and the form of linguistic signs (cf. Anttila

2003: 426) and active via concepts like leveling, extension (cf. Anttila 2003: 427) as

well as metaphor creation (see Anttila 2003: 431–432).

More directly linked to the phenomenon of reduplication, psycholinguistic neu-

roimaging research in language acquisition shows that already newborns respond

more strongly to adjacent sequences of repeated syllables by greater brain activation

than to random syllable sequences, suggesting a general neural capability to detect

repetitive speech structures very early on in life (see Gervain et al. 2008).9

Seen from this background, it has been shown in 2.1.1–2.1.3 that when zooming

in on the more specifically grammatical device of reduplication itself it is a matter

of some debate whether the strive for identity has to be located on the phonological

or on the semantic level. This is one reason why studies in the past have frequently

tried either to interpret reduplication as a subtype of another morphological proce-

dure (cf. especially reduplication-as-affixation approaches) or to completely eliminate

it as a morphological phenomenon with defining special properties in its own right

(cf. especially MDT). Being sign-based in nature (see Stolz et al. 2011: 27–31), the

present study settles somewhere in-between the above positions because phonologi-

cal identity in reduplication is regarded as essential and partially subject to indepen-

dent structural regularities but at the same time as intimately related to the semantics

expressed, yielding a tight and potentially complex form-meaning interconnection

mediated by way of a distinct morphological process (see also Section 1.2 as well as

2.2.3).

9The generality of Gervain et al.’s (2008) findings is underscored by the fact that the respective testsubjects were neonates born to Italian-speaking families, Italian commonly being viewed as a redu-plication avoider like other western Indo-European languages (but see Stolz et al. 2011; see also2.3.1.3).


Now, often formal studies of reduplication nicely display what Blevins (2006: 541)

ascribes to most theoretical approaches in general linguistics: a narrow focus at the

cost of broad descriptive coverage.10 Accordingly, theoretical work on specific redu-

plication patterns in specific languages normally does not take into consideration the

fact that one and the same language may also show further reduplicative patterns,

which may even be in conflict with the explanation proposed for one or more of the

other patterns.11 One aim of the present study is to do away with such narrow fo-

cus by trying to understand reduplication forms in their broader context within and

across languages. Consequently, the (in-)adequacy of theoretical mechanisms that

bring about these forms are of less interest here, the focus lying on the differing de-

grees of BR identity as well as their consequences and explanation from a wider ty-

pological perspective. Incidentally, such an approach is to a large extent in line with

Raimy’s (1999: 44–45)12 statement that

[a]ll theories of reduplication will have to account not only for the reduplicative

patterns that do occur and others that do not, but also for why a particular pattern

appears in a particular language. The second requirement is independent from

the actual machinery used to produce the possible reduplicative patterns and is

the same as explaining why particular words in a language are of a particular

shape and melodic content.

Contrary to Raimy’s (1999: 45) position, however, the issue is not shifted to the realm

of language acquisition and the lexicon13 here but to the domain of language typology10In case of reduplication, this narrow focus at least partly also hails from the fact that for a long time

the investigated data used to belong to a relatively small and repetitive set, an empirical drawbackwhich the study at hand does not suffer from (see Section 3.1 for details).

11As one exception, Spaelti (1997: 3; original emphasis) acknowledges this fact when he states “thatin such languages [i.e. those showing multi-pattern reduplication; TS] the various patterns mustbe treated as a single system” (see also footnote 15). Still, Spaelti’s proposals for improvement re-main within the confines of an OT architecture and are ultimately restricted again to just a fewlanguages which are each treated as a single system independent from one another. Building onthis basic reasoning, Kennedy (2008) expands it into an optimality theoretic model of morpho-prosodic alignment for treating pattern alternations in reduplicative systems, which also yields aninteresting typological generalization the details of which are evaluated in 4.2.5.1.

12Raimy (1999) is the doctoral dissertation which has been considerably revised and shortened (thelatter especially in matters of research history as well as general theoretical considerations relevantin the present context) for publication as Raimy (2000), an example of a later derivational model ofreduplication mentioned at the end of 2.1.1.

13On that score, although not going into too much detail himself, the author assumes in a veryreduplication-as-affixation-like fashion


in order to find a possible explanation for why reduplication systems look the way

they do phonologically.

Keeping the above goal in mind, then, the approach of this study regarding redupli-

cation form is moving along lines similar to those found in the landmark typological

work on syllable structure by Vennemann (1988), aiming at a comprehensive account

of larger grammatical (sub-)systems. With respect to the assumptions and expecta-

tions formulated in Section 1.2 concerning the relative independence of morphology

and phonology as well as the pervasiveness of what have been called TETU effects

in reduplication by optimality theorists (see especially 2.1.2), the maxims proposed

by Vennemann in connection with his preference laws for syllable structure14 are hy-

pothesized to equally hold for formal aspects of reduplicative systems:

(5) Synchronic maxim (Vennemann 1988: 3):

A language system will in general not contain a structure on a given parameter

without containing those structures constructible with the means of the system

that are more preferred in terms of the relevant preference law.

(6) Diachronic maxim (Vennemann 1988: 2):

Linguistic change on a given parameter does not affect a language structure as

long as there exist structures in the language system that are less preferred in

terms of the relevant preference law.

Translated into words better suited for the present context, synchronically speaking,

partial reduplication — for it is this type of reduplication in which phonology is play-

ing out its peculiarities — is expected to only show marked reduplicant structures in

that part of acquiring a given language is the determination of the particular shapes of words and affixes andthis includes reduplicative morphology. Thus, each reduplicative morpheme will contain structural informa-tion about its surface realization just as any other morpheme that has a fully specified melody. (Raimy 1999:45)

14Vennemann (1988: 1) states that the conception of these preference laws “differs from most ap-proaches to linguistic naturalness by characterizing linguistic structure not as good or bad (naturalor unnatural, unmarked or marked), but as better or worse” and thus “develops a graded conceptof linguistic quality relative to a given parameter.” Additionally, Vennemann (1988: 69, endnote2) suggests that the latter property is shared by conceptions of markedness which are deemed asessential not only in phonology but also in some functional approaches to morphology that are ofinterest to the present study (e.g. Mayerthaler 1980, 1981; see 2.2.2, especially footnote 19).


the presence of less marked ones within a language.15 In principle, this expectation

is met on all levels of the phonological structure of reduplicants, i.e. segmentally and

suprasegmentally (see Section 4.2). On the other hand, as the diachrony of reduplica-

tion (like its productivity; see 5.2.6) is still a relatively unexplored area (cf. Hurch &

Mattes 2009a: 108),16 the diachronic expectation can only be tested much less system-

atically but is addressed where possible (see especially 4.2.5.2).

2.2 Meaning and its relationship to form in

reduplication

The semantic study of reduplication has lagged behind form-related studies ever

since Wilbur (1973) kicked off modern reduplication research and initiated the long-

lasting predominance of a fundamentally formal tradition barely interested in redu-

plicative function (see Section 2.1; see also Saperstein 1997: 9, 37). One reason for this

surely was the general neglect of semantics in early Chomskyan linguistics and the

ensuing lack of theoretical tools to properly handle semantic structure in language.

But, interestingly, even after the development of more sophisticated generative mod-

els dedicated to semantics, reduplication does not seem to have ever received partic-

ular attention within any of them. This, in turn, certainly also had to do with the fact

that in the by then popular reduplication models the view of the process as a kind

of affixation on the formal side (see 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) could automatically be paralleled

by the view that the same semantics are in principle possible for both reduplication

and the more traditional affix types (cf. Wiltshire & Marantz 2000: 560–561; see also

Section 4.1). Consequently, the following survey has much less preliminary work to

draw on and is thus limited to two broad semantic overviews and a slowly though

ever-growing body of studies guided by a functional theoretical stance, adducing in

one way or another the non-(perhaps even anti-)generative concept of iconicity in

15Spaelti (1997: 1; emphasis TS) even goes so far as to claim “that partial reduplication results onlyfrom the desire to avoid marked structures.” In languages showing multi-pattern reduplication(see also above, especially footnote 11), this brings with it that one should “expect shape variation,since which shape is considered unmarked will vary depending on the context.”

16But see the articles that follow Hurch & Mattes’s (2009a) introduction to the mono-thematic issue ofthe journal Morphology, guest-edited by the two authors.


order to explain certain aspects of the form-meaning relationship in reduplication.

Eventually, iconicity also underlies the specific morpho-semantic hypotheses of the

present investigation furnished in 2.2.3.

2.2.1 General semantic surveys

The first modern survey of reduplication functions, even predating Wilbur’s (1973)

major formal study (see 2.1.1) by almost a decade, is arguably Key (1965). Although

the article’s title is slightly misleading in that its intention was also to present the

formal diversity of reduplicative patterns (cf. Key 1965: 88), the author specifically

concluded that the latter are used “in many languages to indicate emphasis, or some

shade of plurality or augmentative” (Key 1965: 100), while leaving the reader merely

with a host of typological future research questions concerning reduplication form

and the geographic distribution of the process (see Key 1965: 100).

More than thirty years later, in the introductory part to her diachronic study of

verbal reduplication in Indo-European, Niepokuj (1997: Chapter 3) also surveyed

the cross-linguistic behavior of reduplicative semantics in a more or less theory-free

manner and to a large extent independently of considerations on reduplication form,

highlighting the frequency of plurality, intensification and diminutives as well as the

strikingly similar fundamental form-meaning associations in echo-words and expres-

sives (cf. Niepokuj 1997: 86–87).

Evidently, neither the periods between Key (1965) and Niepokuj (1997) nor after

have been devoid of general semantic reduplication studies, but these have either

been part of a more comprehensive typological undertaking (and are therefore re-

viewed in Section 2.3)17 or they have been conducted under the assumption of an

explanatory concept of linguistic iconicity.18

17In addition, the present overview due to its general orientation skips many studies treating redu-plication in single languages, although these often have a fair amount to say about semantics aswell. However, most such works only enlarge the empirical data set rather than attempt a theoret-ical treatment of the reduplicative meaning patterns in the respective language (but see Botha 1988on Afrikaans for a notable exception). Furthermore, a typological study like Dressler’s (1968) onverbal plurality does not figure here either, for although it frequently touches upon the subject ofreduplication this is not the primary focus of the investigation (see 4.1.2.1 and 4.1.2.2).

18Note that after her survey of reduplication semantics mentioned above, Niepokuj (1997: 86–87) alsobriefly assesses iconic explanations for reduplicative systems but dismisses too much reliance uponthem as too simplistic an approach.


2.2.2 Iconicity

Haiman (1980) is a pertinent example of how the concept of iconicity was (re-)intro-

duced into linguistics through a growing body of work with a more functional orien-

tation, drawing heavily on (pre-)structuralist ideas of Peircean semiotics and Jakobso-

nian markedness theory (see Haiman 1980: 515–516) and not least meant as a reaction

to the preceding decades of generative dominance during which such partly extra-

linguistic factors played either no or a rather different role in linguistic explanation

(but see Newmeyer 1992: 783 for a refutation of the latter point). In the German-

speaking world this development was especially prominent in the framework of nat-

ural morphology, an early example of which is the study by Mayerthaler (1977), who

also addresses iconicity in reduplication.

Haiman’s article is primarily concerned with diagrammatic iconicity in language,

i.e. the relationship of linguistic signs to each other mirroring the relationship of their

respective referents,19 as opposed to imagic iconicity, in which a single sign resembles

its referent with regard to some characteristic (cf. Haiman 1980: 515). In this general

context, Haiman (1980: 530–531) also treated reduplication as an iconically motivated

grammatical operation, “insofar as it expresses any of the broad categories of inten-

sity, plurality, or repetition—which it almost always does” (Haiman 1980: 530). On

a theoretical level, the author thus offered a possible explanation for the relative se-

mantic uniformity of reduplication across languages which in a similar fashion had

already been described by Key (1965; see 2.2.1).

As shown below, the basic appeal of the concept of iconicity to explain conspicu-

ous reduplicative properties has been exploited to different degrees in reduplication

research. Notably, even if the relevance of iconicity is acknowledged at all, there is

nevertheless much debate around the issue of exactly how important it actually is.

This disagreement stems mainly from the fact that apart from plurality and intensity

another widespread meaning expressed by reduplication cross-linguistically is the

seemingly non- or even counter-iconic notion of diminution (see also Haiman 1980:

19See Mayerthaler (1977: 34, 1980, 1981: 23–27) for the natural morphological stance, in which suchmulti-layered relationships between morphological forms and their meanings with respect to for-mal and semantic markedness asymmetries have been called constructional iconism/iconicity, adesignation later on amalgamated with diagrammatic iconicity by Dressler (1995: 33) to yield theterm constructional diagrammaticity (see also Dressler 1995: 35–36, endnote 6 for discussion).


530, footnote 14), a fact which is handled differently by different proponents of redu-

plicative iconicity.

In light of what has just been said, Naylor’s (1986) study of Tagalog reduplication

semantics is telling in its aim “to seek out the underlying common denominator that

characterises the various and apparently divergent functions and meanings of redu-

plication” (Naylor 1986: 178). In this regard, the author proposed aspectual imperfec-

tivity20 as the iconically established semantic core of reduplication from which vari-

ous submeanings like plurality, intensification and diffuseness are derived (cf. Naylor

1986: 182, especially her Figure 1, reproduced in [7] with slight modifications):

(7) ROOT (BASE): ONE POINT OF REFERENCE

(absolute/perfective)

REDUPLICATION (DOUBLING)

REDUPLICATED FORM: TWO POINTS OF REFERENCE

(relative/imperfective)

plurality intensification diffuseness repetitiveness etc.

The formal doubling in reduplication “also results in the presence of more than one

point of reference and a change of perspective from absolute to relative”, allowing

that the process “conveys both additive as well as subtractive meanings” (Naylor

1986: 178) like plurality and intensification or diffuseness and the diminutive, respec-

tively. Details of and problems with this analysis aside, the departure from formal

approaches towards a theoretical treatment of reduplication semantics is noteworthy

and very likely connected to Naylor’s (1986: 177) overall position that reduplication

is not merely a form of affixation.

Kiyomi (1995) significantly broadened the cross-linguistic empirical coverage by

looking at semantic features of noun and verb reduplication in no less than thirty

Malayo-Polynesian languages. Theoretically, she took a less comprehensive stance,

though, by dividing reduplication into both iconic and non-iconic functions:21

20In spite of any implications the used terminology may suggest, Naylor (1986: 179) states that thissemantic characterization is meant to hold not only for reduplicated verbs but also for nouns andadjectives, “provided that the lexical content of the word includes such features as duration, phases,continuity, punctuality, etc. that are associated with aspect”, and eventually is said to be not onlytrue of Tagalog but for “a wide variety of languages” (Naylor 1986: 182).

21The scheme in (8) conflates several schemes found in Kiyomi (1995: 1151, 1155, 1159).


(8) Iconic

(i) Reduplication as a consecutive process

REPETITION/CONTINUATION

PLURALITY

(ii) Reduplication as a cumulative process

INTENSITY

Non-iconic

(iii) Reduplication as regular affixation

DIMINUTION

OTHERS

According to Kiyomi (1995: 1148–1149), the iconic interpretations of reduplication in

(8) are brought about either by a consecutive or a cumulative process. Via the consec-

utive process, a reduplicated form is perceived as representing two stems, the inde-

pendent meanings of which prototypically bring about the notion of PLURALITY in

nouns and REPETITION/CONTINUATION in verbs (cf. Kiyomi 1995: 1149). These

prototypical categories in turn subsume more specific meanings like nominal plural-

ity, distribution or numerousness and verbal repetition, habituative or progressive,

respectively (see Kiyomi 1995: 1152–1153, 1156). Via the cumulative process, redupli-

cation is said to reinforce a stem, leading to the prototypical meaning of INTENSITY

and its various submeanings in nouns as well as verbs (cf. Kiyomi 1995: 1149).

In addition to endowing all sorts of reduplicative plurality (including verbal plu-

rality; see 3.3.1) and intensity with independent iconic motivations, Kiyomi (1995:

1149) decided to set apart the prototypical category of DIMINUTION (adding the

meaning component ‘a little’ to the stem in case of verbs) by motivating it through

a non-iconic process, which she compared to regular affixation. But even in doing

so the author highlighted one respect in which “reduplication should be considered

distinct from ordinary affixation [. . . ]: there is a much wider range of meanings pro-

vided by the noniconic process of reduplication in contrast to the limited number of

meanings given by a nonreduplicative affix” (Kiyomi 1995: 1149). This can be taken

as further indication of how important it is to include semantic considerations into an

even remotely comprehensive assessment of the reduplication phenomenon (see Sec-

tion 1.1). With this in mind, the OTHERS category collected reduplicative meanings


not subsumable under the other three categories, including the surprisingly frequent

function of word-class change (see Kiyomi 1995: 1151, 1161–1162).

Regier (1998), too, reduced reduplication to three general functions, but assigned

them all an equally iconic status in order to capture “a core set of meanings which

recur so frequently and in so many languages as to demand explanation” (Regier

1998: 887). Specifically, the author took the senses of plurality, repetition and baby

(talk register) to be sound-symbolically related to reduplicative forms themselves and

thus as the basic functions; a host of related concepts can be derived with respect to

each of these three root nodes, forming a radial category structure of interconnected

and ultimately iconically motivated reduplication meanings (cf. Regier 1998: 887–

889). Interestingly, Regier (1998: 890) did not set up intensity as a basic function in

his framework (opposed to Kiyomi’s 1995, summarized in [8]; see 4.1.1.2 and 4.1.1.3

for discussion) but derived it as a semantic extension from the plurality node because

expressions of quantity may sometimes be used in an intensified sense, not only in

reduplication (e.g. English a thousand pardons).22

The above lines of argumentation were taken up again by Fischer (2011), who to

some measure settled on a middle ground. Like Regier (1998), the author assumed all

reduplication meanings to be iconically grounded in cognition and further divided

this iconicity into diagrammatic increase in quantity — broken up in turn into hori-

zontal and vertical increase, not unlike Kiyomi’s (1995) consecutive and cumulative

process, respectively — and into imagic baby babbling (again like Regier),23 from

which all the other meanings found in reduplication are derivable either directly or

via semantic shift (cf. Fischer 2011: 64–67).24

There have also been even more reductive attempts of implementing iconicity into

the explanation for reduplication semantics. The study by Kouwenberg & LaCharité

22See also Figure 4.1 in 4.1.1.2.23See also Niepokuj (1997: 72–73) for the association between reduplication in child language and

reduplicative diminutives. While such a link seems feasible in cases of proper nominal diminution(because, as briefly addressed in 3.1.2.3, doubling is a typical feature of children’s language, makingit — in the words of Niepokuj 1997: 73 — “likely that a child will refer to a child-sized object usinga reduplicated form” and thus promoting “an association between small size and reduplication”),relying exclusively on this kind of motivation seems overhasty especially regarding the many otherforms of diminution (i.e. attenuation and the like) mostly in verbs, adjectives and minor word-classes as exemplified in 3.3.3 (see also below and the discussion in 4.1.2.2).

24See also Figure 4.3 in 4.1.2.2 and Section 4.1 in general, where Fischer’s model is discussed in detail.


(2005) is a case in point, for the authors — proceeding from their iconic principle of

reduplication, i.e. “[m]ore of the same form stands for more of the same meaning”

(Kouwenberg & LaCharité 2005: 534) — tried to derive meanings like attenuation,

tentativity, approximation and similarity (i.e. semantic nuances related to diminu-

tion, also in most of the approaches examined up to now) by the extension of iconic

dispersive (i.e. a semantic nuance related to plurality) interpretations in the following

way (cf. Kouwenberg & LaCharité 2005: 540):25

(9) discontinuous occurrence > attenuation, tentativity > approximation,

similarity

Their paradigm example is the ambiguous Jamaican Creole English yala„yala/yelo„

yelo ‘yellow-spotted, yellowish’ from yala/yelo ‘yellow’ (a pattern found also with

other color terms, adjectives and further word-classes; cf. Kouwenberg & LaChar-

ité 2005: 537–538), in which “[t]he real-world effect of such scattered distribution of

colour [i.e. ‘yellow-spotted’; TS] is to tone down [. . . ] the colour [i.e. ‘yellowish’; TS]”

(Kouwenberg & LaCharité 2005: 538).

In stark contrast to the other approaches reviewed here, Stolz (2007) argued for a

fundamental revision of the concept of reduplicative iconicity. Inspired by an early

statement found in Pott (1862: 102),26 Stolz (2007: 342–345) outlined the principle of

iconicity in reduplication anew, first by invoking a common core meaning ‘deviation

from X’ (cf. Pott’s 1862: 102 “Abweichung von der Norm”) for such cases as plu-

rality and diminution that are often found as potential readings with one and the

same reduplicated form (cf. Stolz 2007: 343). The author then essentially adopted a

markedness approach, stating that

[i]f we accept the idea that the non-reduplicated form represents a kind of norm

or prototype, then both plural and diminutive count as deviations from the norm/

prototype. The fact that there is a deviation from a norm/prototype affects the

conceptual representation of the categories because the concepts of plural and

diminutive require two components in lieu of one: in addition to what constitutes

the concept of the prototype there must also be information about the failure to

coincide fully with the norm. (Stolz 2007: 344)

25See also Figure 4.2 in 4.1.2.1 and the general discussion in 4.1.2.26See Chapter 1 (footnote 1) and footnote 1 above for Pott’s classic work on doubling in language.


The parallel behavior of plural and diminutive reduplication within this deviation-

based markedness model is schematized by Stolz (2007: 345) in the following way:

(10) Conceptual representation

prototype deviation

‚ ‚ + X concept

simple complex expression

singular plural categories

basis diminutive

The bullet in (10) represents the norm or prototype of the category to which a de-

viation X can be ascribed (cf. Stolz 2007: 344). This line of argumentation has later

on been continued by Stolz et al. (2011: 178–191) and its specific problems — essen-

tially boiling down to the fact that the iconicity of reduplication in such an approach is

nothing special anymore compared to general constructional iconicity/diagrammatic

iconicity/constructional diagrammaticity in morphology (see above) — are address-

ed in more detail in 4.1.2.

2.2.3 Outlook: Morpho-semantic hypotheses

The present approach considers reduplicative semantics to have at least the same

significance for study as the forms of reduplication. In line with the Bybeean stance

(going back at least to Roman Jakobson) from Section 1.2 of correlating morphological

expression types (e.g. zero expression/morphemes) directly with aspects of meaning

expressed (e.g. basic or conceptually simpler members of grammatical categories; cf.

Bybee 1985: 4), the formal peculiarities of reduplication are at least partly expected

to be connected to its functional properties. As the research reviewed in 2.2.1 and

especially 2.2.2 shows, some version of the principle of iconicity is a likely candidate

to mediate between the two poles of the linguistic sign (the idea of icons going back

at least to Charles Sanders Peirce), capable of explaining the relatively limited range

of reduplicative meanings encountered across languages.


But note that it is in a particular way that iconicity is here hypothesized to make

reduplication so prone for some meanings while apparently excluding others more

or less completely. In a recent overview article on linguistic iconicity, Downing &

Stiebels (2012: 394–397) also recapitulate the concept’s place in reduplication, sum-

marizing that the principle as formulated in Kouwenberg & LaCharité (2005), for

example (see 2.2.2), actually comprises two types of iconicity, namely the diagram-

matic as well as the imagic type:27 Concerning the first, “[a]dding the reduplicative

morpheme to a base makes its output more phonologically and more semantically

complex”, while concerning the second, “repetitive form mirrors repetitive mean-

ing” (Downing & Stiebels 2012: 394). In the present study it is also this specific form-

meaning constellation which is argued to be the overall driving force behind redu-

plication systems and which is thus established as an essential second component

of a comprehensive typological account of the phenomenon under scrutiny (next to

BR identity; see Section 2.1). This hypothesis is evaluated in Section 4.1, where it is

demonstrated that there are generalizations to be drawn from cross-linguistic redu-

plication semantics which result in a systematic meaning network as it has already

been proposed in one variant or another in previous studies.

However, one important way in which the present approach departs from most ear-

lier ones relying on a close relationship between form and meaning in reduplication

is the functional unity ascribed to the semantic contributions of reduplicants effected

in full and partial reduplication. That is to say, due to the assumptions and expecta-

tions formulated in Section 1.2, it is not a priorily expected that partial reduplication

should in any way be semantically special when compared to full reduplication, the

differences between the two types mainly stemming from purely phonological fac-

tors that turn out to be more influential in some languages than in others (see Section

4.3).

27At least implicitly this in one way or the other also seems to be the conceptualization found in May-erthaler (1977: 35–36, 1980: 31–32, 1981: 115–116), Haiman (1980), Naylor (1986), Kiyomi (1995),Regier (1998) and Fischer (2011), with only Stolz (2007: 344) explicitly — and problematically (see4.1.2) — deviating from this view by propagating a model which “dissociates iconicity from dia-grammaticity – at least as diagrammaticity is most commonly understood, namely that there mustbe more of a property Y expressed by more segmental material as opposed to another linguisticsign.”


2.3 Typological perspectives

Unlike most formal studies of reduplication (see Section 2.1), many of the seman-

tically oriented works reviewed in Section 2.2 show a strong typological leaning in

looking at data from a vast number of languages and highlighting certain overall ten-

dencies that are independent of genetic origin, language contact as well as of shared

cultural environment (see Moravcsik 2013: 5, 18). However, to arrive at a compre-

hensive characterization of a linguistic phenomenon in terms of the major task of lan-

guage typology, which is to identify certain implications and universals (cf. Moravc-

sik 2013: 9–10), one needs to thoroughly investigate and compare both the form as

well as the function of said phenomenon intra- and cross-linguistically. This section

presents modern studies which in this sense concentrate on the genuinely typological

dimension of reduplication. What is summarized in the following also forms an im-

portant background against which the findings of the present work can be checked

(especially in Chapter 4).28

2.3.1 Macro- and micro-typological studies

In general, studies on the typology of reduplication can be classified as either macro-

or micro-typological in scope. Macro-typologies cover an as broad as possible array of

reduplicative forms and functions in a large number of genetically and areally diverse

languages, while micro-typologies put their focus more narrowly on specific redupli-

cation types, language families or geographical areas (or any mixture thereof).29

2.3.1.1 The inception of a modern macro-typology of reduplication

The programmatic article by Moravcsik (1978) as part of the Stanford project on lan-

guage universals certainly is the most influential of the macro-typological studies,

offering a blueprint for all typological work on reduplication to come after it, includ-

ing the present one. Next to providing the first systematic overview of possible and

28Testing already proposed generalizations found in the typological literature is a crucial endeavor oflinguistic typology according to Moravcsik (2013: 20).

29See also Moravcsik (1978: 316, footnote 10) for a similar classification of cross-linguistic discussionsof reduplicative constructions into genetically and/or areally restricted as opposed to unrestrictedones.


occurring reduplication types in the languages of the world, the author also offers a

handful of cross-linguistic generalizations.

Concerning reduplication form, the most important universal observation is that

whereas the relevant string [i.e. the phonetic string to be reduplicated; TS] could

in principle be defined by any phonetic property (segmental or suprasegmental)

or in terms of absolute linear position, or in terms of simply the number of adja-

cent segments involved; and it could also be left undefined (i. e. “reduplicate any

one or more segments in the total string”), reduplicated phonetic strings I found

invariably defined in reference to consonant-vowel sequences and absolute linear

position. (Moravcsik 1978: 307)

Incidentally, it was this passage which suggested to the formalist Marantz (1982: 440)

“that reduplication rules involve the affixation of a C–V skeleton to a stem, the C–

V skeleton borrowing phonemes from the phonemic melody of the stem to which it

attaches” (see also 2.1.1).

Two further generalizations regarding the forms of reduplication that Moravcsik

(1978: 328) mentions are implicational in nature: The first grows out of the assump-

tion, familiar from many formal theories (see 2.1.1 and 2.1.2), that reduplicants be-

have the same as (or essentially are) affixes, hypothesizing the predictability of the

position of a reduplicant vis-à-vis its base from the ordering of synonymous affixes

in a language (but see Section 4.3 and 5.2.10). The second generalization claims that

the existence of partial reduplication predicts the existence of full reduplication in a

language, so that there should be no languages which only show partial patterns (but

see 4.2.5).

Concerning reduplication meaning, Moravcsik (1978: 324) notes the fact that “in-

creased quantity, intensity, diminution and attenuation [. . . ] are concepts capable

of pulling together many superficially disparate uses of reduplicative constructions”

(see also Section 2.2, 4.1.1 and 4.1.2) and that even some cases of word-class deriva-

tion additionally “do appear to be relatable to one or another of the above-mentioned

broad meaning categories” (see also 4.1.4). In her concluding remarks, Moravcsik

(1978: 330) even alludes to the principle of iconicity when she discusses “a tendency

[. . . ] for languages to use reduplicative patterns – i. e. quantitative form differentia-

tion – for the expression of meanings that have something to do with the quantity of


referents”, but somewhat surprisingly an earlier intermediate conclusion specifically

on reduplicative meaning reads as follows:

Given that reduplication is neither the exclusive expression of any one meaning

category in languages, nor are the meanings that it is an expression of all sub-

sumable under general classes, no explanatory or predictive generalization about

the meanings of reduplicative constructions can be proposed. (Moravcsik 1978:

325; emphasis TS)

Studies on reduplicative iconicity of the past decades (see 2.2.2) show that this view

has significantly changed (see also Moravcsik 2013: 131),30 and it is likewise refuted

in the study at hand (see especially Section 4.1).

2.3.1.2 The macro-typology of reduplication in the world atlas of language

structures

Almost three decades after Moravcsik (1978), Rubino (2005a, 2013)31 revitalized in-

terest in a broader reduplication typology through his contribution to Haspelmath et

al.’s (2005) world atlas of language structures (WALS) project.32 As can be seen in

Figure 2.1, the WALS map offers one component not really considered by Moravcsik,

namely geographical distribution (revealing a global pervasiveness of reduplication

with the striking exceptions of Europe33 and the Arctic Circle), though the details con-

cerning reduplication form are rather superficial (making only a three-way feature

distinction between languages with full reduplication, with full and partial redupli-

cation or with no productive reduplication), while function is left completely out of

the picture (but see the texts in Rubino 2005a, 2013 as well as Rubino 2005b for some

30In her recent introductory textbook on language typology, Moravcsik (2013: 126–131) also recapitu-lates her typological work on reduplication, explicitly stating there certain cross-linguistic general-izations which are only implicitly found in Moravcsik (1978) or not at all.

31Rubino (2013) is a slightly updated online version of what appeared in print as Rubino (2005a).Another contribution from the latter year, Rubino (2005b), can be regarded as an article-lengthcomplement to this work, featuring more examples and details.

32See also Štekauer et al. (2012: 101–131) for a WALS-inspired section on reduplication as part oftheir typological survey of word-formation in the world’s languages. For the most comprehensive(macro-)typological undertaking to date, which yielded the Graz database on reduplication andwhich is the basis of the present study, see Section 3.1.

33See also 2.3.1.3 for the controversial status of reduplication in European languages.


expository details). Note also that the features differentiated on the map reflect one of

Moravcsik’s generalizations in not allowing for the possibility of languages making

use of only partial reduplication (see 2.3.1.1).

Figure 2.1. Reduplication in the WALS (cf. Rubino 2005a: 116–117)

2.3.1.3 Micro-typological studies

There are quite a few typological studies focusing on reduplication within a geo-

graphically or genetically limited linguistic space, recent ones being Abbi (1992) on

South Asian languages (with a special attention to areal matters), Fabricius (1998)

on Australian languages (a large-scale formal and functional comparison), Zeitoun &

Wu (2006) on Formosan languages (a survey of forms and functions as well as a re-

assessment of earlier generalizations) and the collective volume edited by Goodwin

Gómez & van der Voort (2014) on South American languages (containing articles on

several aspects of reduplication in various representatives of this hitherto relatively

understudied part of the globe).

Kajitani (2005) is concerned exclusively with the semantics of reduplication in a

small but diverse sample of sixteen languages, and the author also adduces iconic-

ity in explaining her findings (see Kajitani 2005: 102–103). Nevertheless, the study is

mentioned in this section instead of Section 2.2 because its main outcome is the for-


mulation of implicational hierarchies34 like the one below from Kajitani (2005: 102),

basically expressing the dependency of decreasing functions (attenuation, diminu-

tion) on increasing functions (augmentation, intensification; see 4.1.6 for the specifics):

(11) Augmentation V Intensification Ñ [Attenuation V Diminution]

Although a weighty tome containing many digressions into the wider territory of

reduplication typology, the heart of the work by Stolz et al. (2011) must ultimately

also be counted to the micro-typological studies for putting its main focus on full

reduplication only, next to being mostly confined to European languages. Especially

the latter point is a controversial one as the status of reduplication in (particularly

western Indo-)European languages is far from clear (see Schwaiger 2015: 478–479),35

a fact which, with respect to form at least, is acknowledged by the authors themselves

when they state “that there is indeed no compelling evidence of P[artial]R[eduplica-

tion] as a systematically employed grammatical device in Europe” (Stolz et al. 2011:

490).36

Lastly, within the atlas of pidgin and creole language structures (APiCS) project,

Haspelmath & the APiCS Consortium (2013) recently published a WALS-style ge-

olinguistic map (see 2.3.1.2), this one concentrating on the functions of reduplication

(roughly differentiating languages into whether they use the process for iconic func-

tions only or for attenuation and/or word-class change as well37 or whether they

do not use reduplication at all; cf. Haspelmath & the APiCS Consortium 2013: 101)

but with the expectable restriction to pidgins and creoles hailing from the narrower

34Conversely, from Section 2.2 one could at least mention Kiyomi (1995) in the present context as well.Nevertheless, in comparison with Kajitani (2005), the former is primarily concerned with the func-tional motivation of reduplicative forms, while the latter shows a stronger interest in typologicalimplications.

35See also 2.3.1.2 for Europe as an essentially reduplication-free area according to the WALS.36Stolz et al. (2011: 26) are able to classify languages like Italian as fully reduplicating by “disso-

ciat[ing] reduplication from the domain of the word” and thereby also subsuming the repetition ofsyntagms (syntactic total reduplication, in their terminology) under the phenomenon. Obviously,the definition of reduplication given in Section 1.1 does not follow this controversial move (seealso Mattes & Schwaiger 2013: 591) but sticks to the traditional morphological conception whichonly includes partial reduplication and word-internal total reduplication (in Stolz et al.’s terminol-ogy). The issue of distinguishing morphological reduplication from repetitive syntactic operationsis briefly touched upon in 3.1.2.4.

37Haspelmath & the APiCS Consortium (2013: 100) point out that none of the sample languages usingreduplication lacks the iconic functioning of the process (see also 4.1.6).


scope already reflected in the title of the APiCS. On the formal side, Haspelmath &

the APiCS Consortium (2013: 100) observe full reduplication to be much more fre-

quent but they are unsure “whether this is because the substrate languages tended to

lack partial reduplication or because partial reduplication is more difficult to transfer

from a substrate.”

2.3.2 Outlook

In sum, previous typological studies of reduplication as reviewed in 2.3.1 show one

or the other limitation aimed to be overcome in the following chapters. Moravcsik

(1978) is an important benchmark deservedly called the modern classic of redupli-

cation research (see also Stolz et al. 2011: 22), but a pioneering work of this sort

almost naturally poses more questions than it can offer answers to, at least when it

comes to the so-called big(ger) picture.38 Also, Moravcsik’s presentation of exam-

ples is rather eclectic and by now can be supplemented by a much greater database,

which again is perfectly understandable from the programmatic nature of the article

in question as well as from the simple fact that the study is nearly forty years old.

Yet, the latter’s sometimes unfortunate influence on long-standing views regarding

the synchrony and also the diachrony of reduplication should not be underestimated,

a circumstance which the feature selection of Rubino’s (2005a, 2013) WALS map and

a handful of grammaticalization studies from the 1990s onward most clearly bear

witness to (see 2.3.1.2 and 4.2.5.2).

The present study tackles anew the typology of reduplication and thereby tries to

be more integrative and comprehensive with respect to formal, functional, language

genetic as well as geographical/areal aspects than most of the macro- and micro-

typological works that came before. Accordingly, if the premises of Chapter 1 are

correct, the typological predictions concerning reduplication phonology (see 2.1.4)

and morpho-semantics (see 2.2.3) are expected to be borne out. This is investigated

and tested within the frame of a typological project on reduplication to be discussed

in detail throughout the course of the next chapter. In general, however, the endeavor

38Thus, Moravcsik (1978: 330) concludes that her “paper [. . . ] has been an informal study and no trueexplanations will even be attempted.”


can be classified as a mono-constructional, non-holistic typology according to the

systematics proposed by Himmelmann (2000) and summarized in Figure 2.2.

HOLISTIC . . . . . . NON-HOLISTICMONO- typology of a single typology of a singleCONSTRUCTIONAL . . . construction based on construction based on

an in-depth study of (usually large) samples ofeach specimen isolated specimens

. . . CROSS- ‘great underlying work on cross-constructionalCONSTRUCTIONAL groundplans’ co-occurrence patterns based

on (usually large) samples ofisolated specimens

Figure 2.2. A typology of typologies (cf. Himmelmann 2000: 8)

On the basis of the data presented in Chapter 3, the single construction investigated

(mono-constructional approach) is the phenomenon of reduplication as defined in

Section 1.1 in all its possible variations (cf. Himmelmann 2000: 9). The approach

is furthermore non-holistic in that the overall grammatical context in which redu-

plication occurs is for the most part not taken into consideration in the analyses (cf.

Himmelmann 2000: 7).39 Being thus maximally removed from exploring the ‘great

underlying groundplans’ of language, the present study instead is specifically en-

gaged in the cross-linguistic regularities of phonological and semantic reduplicant

structure (see Section 4.2 and 4.1, respectively) as well as in the consequent picture of

the typological status and morphological nature of reduplication in relation to other

operations of morphology (see Section 4.3 and Chapter 5).

39Nevertheless, as pointed out by Himmelmann (2000: 8), the two parameters of number of con-structions investigated and methodological holism should not be understood as discrete categoriesshowing clear-cut boundaries (this is indicated by the dots between the parameter values in Figure2.2). Occasionally, this becomes evident in the chapters to follow, most obviously when in 4.1.1.2the existence of fully reduplicated imperatives is called into question despite their postulation inseveral data sources (marking a drift towards a holistic methodology; cf. Himmelmann 2000: 7–8) or when in Section 4.3 reduplication is correlated with overall morphological language types(essentially applying a very general cross-constructional point of view; cf. Himmelmann 2000: 8).

3 The data: Overview of investigatedphenomena

This chapter introduces the data on the basis of which the assumptions, expectations

and hypotheses unrolled in Chapter 1 and 2 are evaluated (see especially Chapter

4). For this purpose, Section 3.1 outlines the language sample, carves out in more

detail the domain of investigation and describes the basic method of analysis. Subse-

quently, Section 3.2 and 3.3 — following the usual practice of presenting the form of

linguistic phenomena before their function (an order to be reversed in Chapter 4 for

reasons explained there) — give an overview of reduplication forms and meanings,

respectively, as they occur in the investigated languages.

3.1 The Graz database on reduplication

The main source of data on which this study draws is the Graz database on redu-

plication. This online platform is the centerpiece of two interconnected past projects

specifically dedicated to the reduplication phenomenon from a typological perspec-

tive (see Hurch & Mattes 2007, 2009b).1 One of the original motivations for creating

the Graz database as a research tool was to reduce the repetition of data in discus-

sions of reduplication as well as to minimize the concomitant danger of distorting

the respective examples (cf. Hurch & Mattes 2009b: 303–304). It is above all the

1A pilot project was funded by the Austrian National Bank (Österreichische Nationalbank) fromSeptember 2002 to June 2004 and received additional financial support from the Faculty of Artsand Humanities (Geisteswissenschaftliche Fakultät) at the University of Graz. As a follow-up, theGraz reduplication project was then carried out from November 2005 to July 2010 with fundingfrom the Austrian Science Fund (Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung) under theproject number P18173-G03. Both endeavors were headed by Bernhard Hurch at the Institute ofLinguistics, University of Graz. For further information, the project website can be accessed viahttp://reduplication.uni-graz.at/.

39

http://reduplication.uni-graz.at/


solid empirical basis thus offered to linguistic typology as well as the relatively un-

restrained possibilities for inquiry provided by the database structure (cf. Hurch &

Mattes 2009b: 304) which are exploited here (see Hurch & Mattes 2009b: 307–318

for the technical details). Nevertheless, for present purposes certain deviations from

the vast amount of data groundwork provided by the database are also motivated at

various places in this section.

3.1.1 Languages

Neither the languages in the Graz database of reduplication itself nor the ones ex-

tracted from it for partaking in the present study (see below) are typologically bal-

anced according to a specific sampling method. First and foremost, although when

setting up the database the basic decision was to follow the core sample underlying

the then trend-setting WALS (see Comrie et al. 2005: 4–6 for details) for reasons of

comparability (cf. Hurch & Mattes 2009b: 307, footnote 8), the overall selection of

languages in the end turned out to be relatively unbalanced, mainly because of the

desire to also include interesting reduplication patterns found outside the WALS list,

the individual research interests of different members involved in the Graz reduplica-

tion project over the years as well as the (un-)availability of data (cf. Hurch & Mattes

2009b: 307).2

Secondly, in the work at hand some of the languages in the Graz database them-

selves are left out either because of the controversial status reduplication as a morpho-

logical process occupies within them (this concerns mainly western Indo-European

languages like French or Portuguese; see also 2.3.1.3) or due to the relatively limited

reduplicative data available for them in comparison to other languages in the sample.

For in general and where possible, this study tries to rely on a single source offering

the broadest possible information on reduplication for a specific language, which in

many cases amounts to the use of a reference grammar. The practical reason for this

restriction is to keep the analyzed data manageable for a one-man undertaking like

the present one. The more relevant methodological reason is to miss as few types

of reduplication in a language as possible, a danger which is much greater when

2The unavailability-of-data criterion for exclusion from the sample mostly applies to languages onthe WALS list classified by Rubino (2013) as having no productive reduplication (see also 2.3.1.2).


only consulting intra-linguistic studies with a focus on specific reduplication forms

and/or functions. To take a hypothetical example from Kajitani (2005: 97), by relying

on a study on Pluralization expressed by partial reduplication in language X one could

obviously be led into wrongly believing that said language does not have full redu-

plication or does not use partial reduplication for functions other than pluralization.3

The above provisions are intended to ensure a fairly comparable sample concern-

ing the investigated data, even if as a whole it thus becomes one of mere convenience

concerning the individual languages that make it up. This renders the present study

more qualitative than quantitative in nature, as any count of typological features may

be interesting to a certain degree (and is in fact performed where deemed to be so; see

especially Section 4.1) but certainly does not live up to more rigid statistical exami-

nation. However, all in all the qualitative merits of scope and detail concerning the

languages and data examined are believed to counterbalance the quantitative short-

comings.4

Moreover, at this point it can be noted, too, that when very roughly comparing

the present language sample with fairly sophisticated procedures of typological sam-

pling like Rijkhoff et al.’s (1993) diversity value method, things appear in not that bad

a shape anyway: In general, while long extinct languages are not considered here at

all and most language isolates can be said to have been replaced (i.e. Ainu, Karok,

Korean and Kwaza instead of Ket, Nahali, Burushaski and Gilyak), the only unrep-

resented phyla from the above authors’ list (see Rijkhoff et al. 1993: 186, Table 6) are

Eskimo-Aleut and Na-Dene (i.e. [Eyak-]Athabaskan). This should not be too dam-

aging to the study at hand, however, as said language groupings have repeatedly

been claimed to show little or no reduplication (e.g. Rubino 2005b: 22; see also Stolz

et al. 2011: 125–126) and thus most likely would not add anything essential to the

typology of reduplicative forms and functions. More specifically, apart from a con-

siderable though less serious overrepresentation of Malayo-Polynesian as well as of

creole languages, only the Indo-Pacific (essentially comprising Papuan language fam-

3Of course, one should not judge from titles alone: For Kwaza, this work draws on an article by vander Voort (2003), which despite being named Reduplication of person markers in Kwaza is not confinedto this one type but gives a useful overview of all reduplication patterns in the language.

4See also Himmelmann (2000: 9–10) for a critique, especially of the fact that “sampling procedureshave been elevated to the status of a general measure of the quality of typological work, regardlessof whether or not it involves claims about frequency” (Himmelmann 2000: 9).


ilies, Andamanese and extinct Tasmanian) and Niger-Kordofanian (i.e. Niger-Congo)

phylum seem to be more severely underrepresented concerning their respective sub-

phyla when compared to Rijkhoff et al.’s (1993: 189–190, Table 8) example of a fully

specified 100-language sample. But then it has to be anticipated that the sample of the

present study comprises thirteen languages less (see 3.1.3 and the Appendix), a fact

which would necessitate a new calculation when strictly sampling according to the

diversity value method (cf. Rijkhoff et al. 1993: 187). This in turn would inevitably

lower the number of languages as well as change their distribution over language

phyla, which again might render the above-mentioned quantitative flaws just a bit

less serious.

3.1.2 Excluded phenomena

On the surface, reduplication as defined in Section 1.1 is very similar to a cluster of

other phenomena characterized by the meaningful or semantically empty iteration of

linguistic material (see Schwaiger 2011a: 122), making some sort of principled delim-

itation necessary. Thus, similar to Saperstein’s (1997: 12–21) differentiation between

apparent and actual reduplication, certain cases of linguistic doubling are explicitly

ruled out from consideration before moving on to the basic mode of analysis for the

remaining cases of morphological reduplication proper in 3.1.3.5

3.1.2.1 Reduplication in sign languages

At first it needs to be stressed that, in contrast to the other phenomena below, the

exclusion of signed language from the Graz database on reduplication and the sys-

tematic parts of the present study should not be misunderstood as a neglect of the

independent morphological status of reduplicative signs (cf. Schwaiger 2011a: 123).

In fact, reduplication as a morphological process essentially in the sense established

in Section 1.1 does occur in the grammar of sign languages6 and the latter are thus

chiefly excluded for technical reasons pertaining to the difficulty of integrating signed

5See also Hurch et al. (2008) for further details on many of the excluded phenomena discussed below.6See Pfau & Steinbach (2006) for (mostly modality-specific) differences but also many parallels be-

tween reduplication in sign and spoken languages in the domain of pluralization.


patterns of reduplication into the existing database structure (cf. Hurch & Mattes

2007: 196).

3.1.2.2 Harmonic phenomena and phonological/prosodic doubling

Unlike sign language reduplication, harmonic phonological phenomena like assim-

ilation or vowel harmony as well as the phonological/prosodic doubling for purely

templatic reasons like euphony (e.g. Hurch 2002) or stem formation are out of the pic-

ture for both the Graz database and the present study because they do not contribute

to the meaning of a resulting word form (cf. Schwaiger 2011a: 123).

3.1.2.3 Doubling in language games and child language

As opposed to harmonic phenomena and phonological/prosodic doubling, exclud-

ing certain characteristics of playful language and language acquisition from both

the Graz database and the present study is a less obvious move, as pointed out in a

similar context by Schwaiger (2011a: 123), but is legitimate in light of the fact that a

(morpho-)semantic contribution of doubling with regard to a base form is very ques-

tionable in language games7 and doubtable in at least many instances of (early) child

language (e.g. Dressler et al. 2005).

3.1.2.4 Repetitive syntactic operations

Entering the even fuzzier area of delimiting morphological reduplication from other

grammatical phenomena showing repetitive structure, Gil (2005: 31) states that the

repetition of elements applying across words is a discourse or syntactic phenomenon,

usually having a reinforcing and/or iconic semantic effect (see Gil 2005: 39–46).8 The

repeated verb for the expression of iteration in (1) is a case in point:

(1) Gayo

Beluh ulubelang=ni renyel ku Pulô Pinang. Beluh beluh

go domain.lord=this continue to island Pinang go go

7Especially in the case of secret languages it is rather the unintelligibility for the uninitiated listeneror eavesdropper which is often desired (cf. Yip 1982: 637).

8See also Schwaiger (2011a: 124–125) for a similar discussion of repetitive syntactic operations andreduplication.


beluh . . .

go

‘The domain lord went on to Pulau Pinang. (He) went and went and went

. . . ’ (Eades 2005: 54)

While the number of repetitions often is a reliable distinguishing feature in that mor-

phological reduplication is normally restricted to one repetition and repetitive syn-

tactic operations are in principle open-ended, even more clearly a result of the latter

kind are constructions which may or must also employ a linker to explicitly conjoin

the repeated elements (e.g. the conjunction and in the English translation of [1]) or

which offer prosodic cues for the relative independence of the constituents involved

(e.g. potential pauses between or separate intonational curves for each repeated ele-

ment). Still, in most cases formal characteristics pertaining to the hierarchical level of

the repeated component (e.g. complex phrases as opposed to simple words) and/or

the number of its potential repetitions are sufficient to decide whether one is deal-

ing with a repetitive or a reduplicative form. Consequently, these diagnostics are

especially fruitful for making a distinction in languages that abundantly use both

construction types.9

Now, on the one hand, there are the cross-linguistically rare cases of morphological

full triplication10 which could be mistaken for syntactic repetition when superficially

judging from the number of iterations alone (see also Blust 2001: 324).11 But consid-

ering an example like Mokilese kak„kak„kak ‘keep bouncing’ (cf. unreduplicated kak

‘jump’ and reduplicated kak„kak ‘bounce’; Harrison 1976: 223), to view this tripli-

cated form as an instance of repetition can easily be rebutted by virtue of its system-

9Gil (2005) is a thorough treatment of such diagnostics and their application to the Riau dialect ofIndonesian (see also 5.2.12).

10Fully as well as partially triplicating patterns are found for Fijian (see 5.2.8), Hiligaynon (see 3.2.3.4,footnote 41), Mokilese (see below) and Vietnamese (see 3.3.2) in the present sample.

11The data at hand also show an isolated case of apparent quadruplication in Sénoufo:

(i) Sénoufo “quadruplication”KErEmasáabíí pi a tEEn-tEEn-tEEn-tEEn diñE i.warlords.DEF they PFV sit-sit-sit-sit world in‘It was the warlords who were in power throughout the world.’ (Carlson 1994: 328)

But as this seems to occur only occasionally and not necessarily with a restriction to exactly threerepetitions (cf. Carlson 1994: 328), it is more likely an instance of reinforcing repetition overlappingwith distributive reduplication (for the latter see Carlson 1994: 327–328).


atic meaning opposition vis-à-vis the unreduplicated and reduplicated counterparts12

as well as by the impossibility to add more than two repetitions to the base for the

same semantic effect. Conversely, a language like English can pose problems if exam-

ples like He is very very bright or He is an old old man (Moravcsik 1978: 301) are looked

at in isolation. Contrary to Moravcsik, however, it is maintained here that the latter

does not instantiate a case of reduplication but rather repetition (see also Gil 2005:

61, endnote 1), an opinion which gains support from Moravcsik (1978: 312; emphasis

TS) herself when she states that “it is perhaps true in all languages that an emphatic

modifier [. . . ] can be open-endedly reduplicated for additional degrees of emphasis.”

This possibly universal open-endedness of the process definitely holds for English

and consequently runs counter to the usual restrictions found with morphological

reduplication mentioned above.13

3.1.2.5 Recursive morphological operations

There are also genuinely morphological operations which may at times be confused

with reduplication.14 A German word like Ur-ur-großvater ‘great-great-grandfather’

illustrates what might be mistaken for an instance of affix reduplication (see 3.2.1.3

and 4.1.5) as in Fijian veı„veı-gauna ‘times, ages’ (cf. gauna ‘time’ and veı-gauna ‘times,

all the time’; Schütz 1985: 365, 367). While the Fijian collective or distributive prefix

veı- (see Schütz 1985: 364–366) is reduplicated for the expression of greater number in

the prefixed noun, the repeated prefixation of ur- in the German example is a recur-

sive morphological operation in that the potentially infinite repetition adds the same

12Harrison (1976: 223) entertains the possibility that at least for some Mokilese verbs there existsa threefold aspectual distinction between single occurrence (unreduplicated verb), progressive(reduplicated verb) and continuative (triplicated verb). Other verbs show exclusively triplicationfor progressive and/or continuative aspect (see Harrison 1976: 222, 224 for examples).

13Moravcsik (2013: 128) follows her original conception when formulating the following generaliza-tion with an explicit restriction to partial reduplication:

(ii) Partial reduplication is generally numerically restricted and it mostly involves simpledoubling.

Full reduplication (again exemplified by English words like very or old) is still claimed to have morefreedom regarding the potential number of repetitions (cf. Moravcsik 2013: 128–129). Yet, as sug-gested by the discussion of the Mokilese example above, there seems to be no principled reasonwhy the tendency in (ii) should not hold for full reduplication as well.

14See also Schwaiger (2011a: 125) for a similar discussion of recursive morphological operations andreduplication.


meaning (roughly ‘belonging to the preceding generation of the base noun’) again

and again with each occurrence of the prefix. Consequently, the meaning of Ur-ur-

ur-ur-ur-großvater, for example, can be computed by knowing the basic meanings of

ur- and Großvater and simply adding them up, deriving the intended overall linguis-

tic content of the resulting form step by step. Each instance of ur- makes its own

independent meaning contribution to the respective base forms (i.e. Großvater, Ur-

großvater, Ur-ur-großvater, etc.),15 while in comparison the reduplication of veı- is, in

line with the definition in Section 1.1, a semantically non-repetitive, grammaticalized

expression for a special plural meaning and does not simply say the same all over

again. Furthermore, there is no indication that the latter affix can be repeated more

than once, so *veı„veı„veı-gauna, for example, would be ungrammatical. Finally, the

recursive stacking of affixes as in the German example very likely only works when

certain meanings are involved which lend themselves to such a multiplication, a con-

dition which seems to be less clearly met in the Fijian affix exemplified above.16

3.1.2.6 Contrastive doubling

The following case to be excluded is at first sight perhaps the hardest to keep apart

from reduplication proper.17 Contrastive doubling (a bit misleadingly also called con-

trastive [focus] reduplication in the literature) can be illustrated by (colloquial) En-

glish SALAD-salad, which yields a kind of prototype reading of the doubled item in

question (in the case at hand designating prototypical green salad in opposition to,

say, less prototypical tuna salad; see Ghomeshi et al. 2004). Formally, this looks like

reduplication, also in that the base can only be repeated once (*salad-salad-salad), but

it is quite different from it because also whole phrases like I don’t LIKE-HIM-like-him

(Ghomeshi et al. 2004: 321) may be doubled. Functionally, this seems to be restricted

to very special contexts in which a contrast to an explicitly or implicitly present, less

typical counterpart is desired. Nevertheless, a certain affinity to genuinely reduplica-

tive meanings like specificity (‘specific type of X’; see Kiyomi 1995: 1154) cannot be

denied. But given the construction’s special information structural and formal status

15See also Aboh et al. (2012: 18) on the nested structure of Latin cist-el-l-ul-a [[[[[chest]-DIM]-DIM]-DIM]-DECL1.NOM] ‘little casket (nominative feminine)’.

16But see 4.1.5 for another semantic restriction crucial for the possibility of affix reduplication.17See also Schwaiger (2011a: 126) for a similar discussion of contrastive doubling and reduplication.


(Ghomeshi et al. 2004: 342 sum up for English that “the base is of variable size, in

both syntax and phonology”), all in all the exclusion of contrastive doubling from the

present study is not at odds with the overall morphological conception of reduplica-

tion purported here.

3.1.2.7 Expressives, onomatopoeic expressions, ideophones and lexical

reduplication

Finally, because of independent research interests concerning mainly the possible di-

achronic origin and development of reduplication (see Hurch & Mattes 2007: 193–

194; see also below), the Graz database on reduplication also contains expressive,

onomatopoeic, ideophonic and lexical constructions as exemplified in (2):

(2) a. Expressives in Hindi

c@m c@m ‘shining-twinkling’

cIp cIp ‘sticky’

bhUr bhUra ‘brittle’

(Abbi 1992: 17, 18)

b. Onomatopoeic expressions in Lezgi

murr-murr awun18 ‘purr’

c’arx-c’arx awun ‘crunch’

ziw-ziw awun ‘clink’

(Haspelmath 1993: 181)

c. Descriptive and intensifying ideophones in Bagirmi

NgwopNgwop ‘hop! hop! (of a frog jumping)’

njap t0lt0l [white IDEO] ‘as white as snow’

l0’d l0kwOd-l0kwOd [flat IDEO] ‘very flat’

(Stevenson 1969: 179)

18In all of these examples, the onomatopoeic expression appears in a verbal compound with the verbawun ‘do, make’ (see Haspelmath 1993: 178–183 for details).


d. Lexical reduplications in Bikol

sapsap (kind of fish)

bubutkan ‘wrist’

kimot-kimot ‘mumbling’

(Mattes 2014: 99)

These phenomena are not always rigidly distinguished in the literature,19 and for the

present purposes it is enough to see that such constructions share the property of

looking like reduplication on the surface due to their repetitive forms but lacking an

independently existing unreduplicated counterpart, for which reason they obviously

do not figure in the present study, as there is no base to which a morphological process

of reduplication may be said to have applied.20 Diachronically, however, at least some

lexical reduplications may have arisen from once productive reduplication processes

in a language, with subsequent loss of the base. This is supported by the fact that

very often lexical reduplications show plural, intensive or diminutive semantics (see

also Schwaiger 2015: 477–478).

3.1.3 Analyzed data

The scope of the examined linguistic data essentially boils down to productive redu-

plication patterns which show an independent, semantically related base form (see

also Wiltshire & Marantz 2000: 558). As a consequence, the criterion of productivity

(see also Section 1.1) represents a final obstacle for whether a reduplicative pattern

is included in this study or not. This affects two languages. The Eastern Musko-

gean language Koasati (also a part of the WALS core sample, erroneously classified

by Rubino 2013 as having productive full and partial reduplication) is excluded from

consideration because its reduplications are described as being one of “numerous

relics of now unproductive morphological processes” by Kimball (1988: 431; emphasis

19There is a tendency, though, to use expressives as a cover term for all of the above and other sound-symbolic expressions like imitatives or phonesthemes (e.g. Abbi 1992: 15–16; Mattes 2014: 105–110).

20See also Saperstein (1997: 15–19) on issues of productivity and so-called allolinguistic uses of redu-plication.


TS).21 The examples in (3) exemplify the two kinds of reduplication in Koasati, one

reduplicating the first consonant and vowel of the penultimate syllable in the base

for continuous-repetitive purposes (3a), the other reduplicating the first consonant

of the base with fixed segmentism22 and placing the reduplicant inside the base for

punctual-repetitive purposes (3b):

(3) Unproductive reduplication patterns in Koasati

a. cikáplin ‘to glitter’ cika„ká„plin ‘to gleam’

wacíplin ‘to feel a waci„cí„plin ‘to feel repeated

stabbing pain’ stabbing pains’

b. wáykan ‘to be hanging out’ way„wóh„kan ‘to be hanging outspread

(like tree branches)’

kalóhkan ‘to gobble’ kaloh„kóh„kan ‘to gobble on and on’

(Kimball 1988: 432, 435)

Moreover, the Tiwian language Tiwi (again a member of the WALS core sample erro-

neously classified as productively employing full and partial reduplication by Rubino

2013) is likewise excluded as its sole domain where reduplication occurs is described

in this way: “Plural nominals are formed by either of two methods — suffixation

or reduplication plus suffixation. Suffixation alone is by far the more common (and

currently the only productive) method” (Osborne 1974: 52; emphasis TS).23 Examples

of reduplication plus suffixation as in (4) are limited to a few nouns and often show

formal irregularities (cf. Osborne 1974: 53):

21Rubino (2013) bases his classification on Kimball’s (1991) Koasati grammar, though the latter’sdiscussion of reduplication only recapitulates Kimball (1988) and in addition also states that“[r]eduplication is now a nonproductive method of verb formation” (Kimball 1991: 352).

22Rarely, the first vowel of the base is reduplicated along with the consonant (e.g. mis„míh„lin ‘toflutter the eyelids’ from míslin ‘to blink the eyes’; cf. Kimball 1988: 434).

23Rubino’s (2013) assessment of Tiwi reduplication relies on Fabricius (1998), who in turn also consultsOsborne (1974) as a source, but Fabricius’s (1998: 10) use of the term productive to indicate “that theapparent base of the reduplication occurs as a separate free form in the language with a more-or-less closely related meaning” seems too one-sided in ignoring statements like the ones just citedwhich pertain to the overall (un-)systematicity of reduplication in a language.


(4) Unproductive Ca- reduplication with -Wi24in Tiwi

Nja ma„m@ôam-pi [my PL„child-PL] ‘my children’

a-ôi-ka„kula-pi [he-LK-PL„to.be.big-PL] ‘big (plural)’

wa„wuôala-wi [PL„young.girl-PL] ‘young girls’

ma„murunta-wi [PL„white-PL] ‘white (plural), white people’

(Osborne 1974: 53, 54)

In conjunction with the methodological provisions of 3.1.1, this study is thus left to

operate with the eighty-seven languages listed in Table A.1 of the Appendix. The

next sections outline the formal and functional variety of reduplication patterns in

this sample and are summarized in Table A.2 of the Appendix.

3.2 Reduplication forms

In accordance with the definition and assumptions explicated in Chapter 1, this sec-

tion surveys the forms of reduplication found in the present sample within the logical

space outlined by Pulleyblank (2009: 311), covering a scale range from undistorted

full reduplication to fairly minimal partial reduplication with or without fixed seg-

mentism (cf. Pulleyblank 2009: 353).25 The basic points in this logical spectrum are

derived from the familiar distinctions commonly made in reduplication research and

recently summarized by Hyman (2009: 187) and Hyman et al. (2009: 302) in the

form of a morphological and a phonological scale for paring down reduplicants. In

(5), these scales are adopted in a slightly modified (word and stem reduplication in

[5a] replace the Bantuist I[nflectional]-stem and [extended] D[erivational]-stem, re-

spectively, gemination in [5b] is renamed to segment reduplication) and minimally

elaborated manner (affix reduplication is added in [5a]; see also McCarthy & Prince

1993a: 85). However, in contrast to their original use by Hyman and his coauthors,

the scales should not be read so much as diachronic pathways in the historical devel-

opment of reduplication but as the most salient linguistic points of reference that play

24The plural suffix has the morphologically conditioned, unpredictable variants -wi and -pi, thoughthe latter occurs much more scarcely (cf. Osborne 1974: 53).

25In a wider morphological context, the endpoint of such a scale would be “an ‘ordinary’ affix whosesegmental and prosodic makeup is fully independent of the base to which it attaches” (Pulleyblank2009: 311).


a synchronic role in the formation of reduplicants. As such they concretize the two

levels differentiated in Section 1.2, of which the morphological level (5a) has been

argued to be the primary one, with the phonological level (5b) potentially exerting

additional influence:

(5) a. Morphological scale

word > stem > root > affix

b. Phonological scale

full > foot > syllable > segment

This conception is compatible with Moravcsik’s (1978: 305) general claim “that in

reduplication reference is always made both to the meaning and to the sound form

of the constituent to be reduplicated”, the only additional assumption here being the

primacy of the meaningful constituents on the morphological scale, which is a natural

consequence of the morphological character of reduplication as devised in Chapter 1.

Next to the frame predetermined by (5), the presentation to ensue is guided by

some aspects of Moravcsik’s (1978: 303–315) formal classification of reduplication

according to parameters not reflected in the above scales, most notably the relative

position of base and reduplicant to each other, the exactness of the reduplicated ma-

terial compared to the base material as well as the adjacency of base and reduplicant.

3.2.1 Full reduplication

Full reduplication may target entire words, single affixes and various morphological

units in-between. Examples are given below.

3.2.1.1 Word reduplication

Whole-word reduplication can best be illustrated by a repeated word which itself is

morphologically complex as in (6), where an infinitival suffix is reduplicated together

with the verb stem:


(6) Quichua

kanda-y„kanda-y shamu-rka-ni

sing-INF„sing-INF come-PST-1

‘I came singing.’ (Cole 1982: 62)

3.2.1.2 Stem and root reduplication

As the terminological and conceptual differentiation between stems and roots is a

notorious problem in linguistic morphology, where possible the classification of a

reduplicative pattern as targeting an entity of one or the other type is taken over from

the consulted source as in examples (7) and (8), respectively:

(7) Keres stem reduplication (cf. Miller 1965: 80)

k’ûdu-/k’û:du- ‘round, spherical’ k’údú„k’údú ‘candy’

š’í:n’a- ‘crunched, cracked’ š’ín’a„š’ín’a ‘cookies, crackers’

(Miller 1965: 155)

(8) Malagasy root reduplication (cf. Keenan & Polinsky 2001: 570)26

ló ‘rotten’ lò„ló ‘somewhat rotten’

ráy ‘grasp’ rài„ráy ‘touch everything’

fótsy ‘white’ fòtsi„fótsy ‘whitish’

máimbo ‘stinky’ màimbo„máimbo ‘somewhat stinky’

háfa ‘different’ hàfa„háfa ‘somewhat different’

(Keenan & Polinsky 2001: 571)

Where the relevant information is missing, the convention is adopted to speak of

root reduplication when a morphological subconstituent of a word is reduplicated

without any affixes, while stem reduplication is used to designate patterns in which

at least one affix is reduplicated along with the root but, crucially, not the entire word

form is repeated (see also Rubino 2005b: 11).

26The acute and grave accents mark primary and secondary stress, respectively (see Keenan & Polin-sky 2001: 571 for details on the assignment of stress in Malagasy reduplication). The vowel i iswritten as y word-finally (cf. Keenan & Polinsky 2001: 564).


3.2.1.3 Affix reduplication

Although considerably less frequent than reduplicated words, stems or roots, full

reduplication of affixal material as exemplified in (9) is also found:

(9) Amele

fenun(„fenun)-du„du-eĳ [press(„press)-3SG„3SG-INF] ‘to press it

repeatedly’

iwes(„iwes)-du„du-eĳ [sweep(„sweep)-3SG„3SG-INF] ‘to sweep it

repeatedly’

wal(„wal)-du„du-eĳ [turn(„turn)-3SG„3SG-INF] ‘to turn it repeatedly’

(Roberts 1991: 131)

While the verb stem in these examples may be optionally reduplicated too, it is the

object marking suffix which has to be reduplicated in any case for the expression of

iterativity (cf. Roberts 1991: 130–131).

3.2.1.4 Full reduplication with word linkers

As illustrations of the first deviation from pure full reduplication by the introduction

of morphologically fixed segments, the Yoruba reduplicative pattern of noun quan-

tification (see Adewole 1997: 112–113), described by Pulleyblank (2009: 317) as using

a word linker -kí- between the components of a fully reduplicated noun (e.g. fìlà-kí-fìlà

‘any cap’ from fìlà ‘cap’; Adewole 1997: 112), is formally similar to verb intensifica-

tion via the repetition of a (stative) verbal root with a conjoining ligature -ba- in the

following example from a geographically and genetically very distant language:

(10) Alamblak

hingna-marña-ba-marña-më-r

work-straight-LIG-straight-RPST-3SG.M

‘He worked very well.’ (Bruce 1984: 165)

In contrast to forms of repetition employing a general conjunction from the gram-

matical repertoire of a language (see 3.1.2.4), the present word linkers are, in the con-

sulted sources at least, not described to have any conjoining function outside the


reduplicated structures in question and therefore are treated here as a grammatical-

ized, integral part of the latter.27

Turning to an example of phonologically fixed segmentism linking the constituents

of full reduplication, in one of the many reduplication patterns of Ilocano a nasal

appears between the components of a fully reduplicated noun, assimilating its place

of articulation to the following consonant (see also footnote 30):

(11) Ilocano

rupan„rupa (cf. rúpa ‘face’; Rubino 2000: xlix) ‘face to face’

gurang„gura (cf. gúra ‘hate’; Rubino 2000: 207) ‘mutual hatred’

(Rubino 2000: xvii)

3.2.1.5 Echo-words

Echo-words are a formally special case of full reduplication with morphologically

fixed segmentism in that different syllabic positions of a fully reduplicated word may

be replaced by prespecified melodic material, apparently in order to explicitly avoid

full identity with the unreduplicated base. The following examples illustrate several

of the possibilities:

(12) Mongolian onset replacement

a. thaÐx ‘bread’ thaÐx„maÐx ‘bread and such things’28

nut ‘eye’ nut„mut ‘eyes and such things’

b. ar ‘back’ ar„mar ‘backs and such things’

ont@g ‘egg’ ont@g„mont@g ‘eggs and such things’

c. maÐ ‘cattle’ maÐ„caÐ ‘cattle and such things’

miÐxi ‘frog’ miÐxi„ciÐxi ‘frogs and such things’

(Svantesson et al. 2005: 60)

27Such patterns are called discontinuous word reduplication by Abbi (1992: 27).28These examples are translated according to Svantesson et al.’s (2005: 59) description that the Mongo-

lian echo-word construction “has a meaning like ‘X and such things’, ‘X and people like him/her’and is slightly pejorative or at least shows an indifferent or disrespectful attitude.”


(13) Mai Brat nucleus replacement

a. krox ‘they make a loud krox„krax ‘they make a long loud

noise’ noise’

ptok ‘immediately’ ptok„ptak ‘randomly’

b. surut ‘it is broken’ surut„surat ‘it is completely broken’

nini ‘pitch-dark’ nini„nina ‘pitch-dark, ignorant’

(Dol 2007: 58)

(14) Kannada syllable body replacement

a. hallu ‘tooth’ hallu„gillu ‘teeth and the like’

huli ‘tiger’ huli„gili ‘tigers and the like’

b. sphu:rti ‘inspiration’ sphu:rti„gi:rti ‘inspiration, etc.’

a:Ta ‘game’ a:Ta„gi:Ta ‘games and the like’

autaNa ‘banquet’ autaNa„gi:taNa ‘banquet, etc.’

(Sridhar 1990: 268, 285)

(15) Vietnamese rhyme replacement

a. thiêt ‘deeply interested’ thiêt„tha ‘insistent, earnest’

xinh ‘cute’ xinh„xán ‘pretty, well-proportioned’

b. do ‘to measure’ d án„do ‘to weigh the pros and cons’

loè ‘to flare up’ lâ. p„loè ‘to flare, flick, waver’

nhô ‘to surge’ nhâp„nhô ‘to rise and fall’

(Nguyên 1997: 47, 48)

The Mongolian forms in (12c) clearly show the strive for non-exactness in echo-word

formation29 because an m, which is the default fixed consonant as can be seen from

other consonant-initial (12a) and vowel-initial bases (12b), is replaced by dissimilar c

29See Stolz (2007: 346–347) for a functional explanation of this rather unexpected strive in a domainlike reduplication, which for the most part tends exactly towards the opposite, namely identity(see Section 2.1): Slightly reformulated for present purposes, his explanation says that in echo-words the minor deviation from the conceptual properties of the base (‘X and/or the like’, calledthe “Et Cetera interpretation” by Singh 2005: 266) is iconically reflected in the minor segmentaldeviation accomplished by replacing one syllabic position in the reduplicant. From a semanticpoint of view, such an interpretation is relatively uniform across different word-classes and at leastplausible for Mongolian and Kannada (14) here, but the phenomenon has been shown to be muchmore widespread especially in South Asian languages by Abbi (1992).


when itself being the first speech sound of a base. In Mai Brat bisyllabic bases (13b)

only the vowel of the second syllable gets replaced by a, which is also the replace-

ment of monosyllabic base nuclei (13a). Comparing the two sets of Kannada forms in

(14), one can see that the quantity of the base syllable body is conserved in echo-word

formation, as originally short vowels or original vowel length as well as a base diph-

thong are reflected as a short or a long vowel in the replacing sequences gi and gi: in

(14a) and (14b), respectively. Finally, the Vietnamese examples in (15b) demonstrate

that, unlike the other examples in (12)–(15a), the first constituent in an echo-word

may be subject to several replacements as well.

The logical possibility of coda replacement could not be illustrated above because

no relevant data show up in the sample.30At least from the point of view of Yip’s

(1992) overwriting approach this gap is perhaps no coincidence since the basic premise

of such a prosodic morphological theory (i.e. left-to-right association of a melody to

an independently motivated template as the unmarked case; cf. Yip 1992: 467) pre-

dicts coda overwriting to be very rare (see Yip 1992: 467–470 for theoretical discus-

sion).

3.2.2 Borderline forms

There are reduplicative patterns which for one reason or the other cannot be unam-

biguously classified as full or partial. One reason for this in-between status is already

given by Moravcsik (1978: 306) when she mentions “cases where what appears to

be a distinction between total and partial reduplication is actually a distinction be-

tween forms of different length whose reduplication, however, is governed by the

same principle.” Consider the following examples:

30Although the Ilocano word-linking nasal illustrated in (11) above can also yield forms superfi-cially looking just like coda-replacing echo-words as in (iii), these more likely are the result of thepurely phonological processes of nasal coalescence and assimilation so common in Austronesianlanguages:

(iii) Ilocano “coda replacement”patem„pateg (cf. patég ‘value’; Rubino 2000: 448) ‘mutual caring’ayan„ayat (cf. ayát ‘love’; Rubino 2000: 72) ‘mutual love’

(Rubino 2000: xvii)


(16) Lavukaleve CVCV reduplication

a. namu ‘shake’ namu„namu

b. hului ‘go round’ hulu„hului

ruvale ‘huge’ ruva„ruvale

(Terrill 2003: 35)

Reduplication in Lavukaleve (see Terrill 2003: 35–36) is a relatively unconstrained

process, applying to many word-classes, displaying a range of often freely inter-

changeable forms (CV, CVV and full word reduplication also occur in addition to

CVCV) and used for several functions (distributive, iterative and intensive mean-

ings), but sometimes also without making a functional difference. In the present con-

text it is significant that the forms in (16) look like either full or partial reduplication,

depending on the length of the respective base. Following the surface-oriented word-

based approach advocated in Section 1.2, a pattern of this kind is counted as both full

as well as partial reduplication here (and in Table A.2 of the Appendix) since there are

two abstraction patterns available for the language user, one purely morphological

(stem reduplication in [16a]), the other with additional phonological superpositions

(yielding foot reduplicants in [16b]).

Other cases of reduplication with an unclear behavior concerning the full-partial

distinction are segmentally full patterns exhibiting suprasegmental differences. Ob-

serve the following examples, where several semantic effects are achieved by redu-

plicating a stem and assigning a fixed tone pattern to the reduplicated word form as

a whole:

(17) Hausa full reduplication with tone pattern imposed on output

santala„sàntàlà (H-L)31 ‘svelte (plural)’

ruÎu„rùÎù (H-L) ‘large (plural; of round things)’

bàdàm„badam (L-H) ‘floundering about’

zàngà„zangà (LL-HL) ‘demonstration’

dùrù„durù (LL-HL) ‘dim-sighted person’

(Newman 2000: 510)

31In the Hausa transcription system, a high tone (H) remains unmarked and a low tone (L) is markedby a grave accent (see Newman 2000: 3).


As suprasegmental features like tone are often argued to be located on an indepen-

dent level of analysis and because these properties are not relevant in the phonolog-

ical systems of all languages, patterns as the one in (17) are treated as full redupli-

cation. Also, the tonal specifications of both full and partial reduplication patterns

are not recorded in Table A.2 of the Appendix, but they are mentioned in the text

whenever crucial or interesting for the discussion at hand.

3.2.3 Partial reduplication

Despite the nowadays prosodically more elaborate inventory of phonological con-

stituents argued to be involved in partial reduplication (see [5b]), the gist of Moravc-

sik’s (1978: 307) original generalization that in her sample “reduplicated phonetic

strings [were] invariably defined in reference to consonant-vowel sequences and ab-

solute linear position” (see also Moravcsik 1978: 315, 330) basically still holds up.32

This can be seen most clearly from the independence which reduplicants may show

with respect to the phonological make-up and constituency of their base (a character-

istic captured by reduplicative templates in some theories; see 2.1.1 and 2.1.2). The

following presents several of the possibilities found.

3.2.3.1 Foot reduplication

The highest phonological level involved in partial reduplication seems to concern

patterns yielding binary foot reduplicants of various kinds, avoiding, in Moravcsik’s

(1978: 310) pre-prosodic terms, “any reduplicated partial string that involves more

than two vowels.” As shown in (18) and (19), such feet can be of different consonantal

and vocalic make-up as well as occur before ([18a], [19a]), within (19b) or after the

base (18b).

32Moravcsik (2013: 128) gives terminologically updated versions of these observations:

(iv) Frequent forms of duplifixes are a C, a syllable, or two syllables.

(v) Duplifixes are in most cases strictly ordered relative to the base. They may be prefixed,suffixed, or infixed; but in each case, they are adjacent to the portion of the base thatthey duplicate.

Note that duplifix is used as a general term for reduplicative exponents here and not in its originalsense of a reduplicant with fixed segmentism (see 2.1.2, footnote 7).


(18) Gooniyandi

a. jaddandi ‘twig’ jaddan„jaddandi ‘twigs’

nyamani ‘big’ nyama„nyamani ‘many big ones’

b. jiginya ‘little’ jiginya„ginya ‘very little’

(McGregor 1990: 237)

While the reduplicative feet in (18) respect the phonological constituency of the

base (e.g. the reduplicant ja.ddan in relation to the base ja.ddan.di in [18a]),33 there

are also languages as exemplified in (19), in which the second syllable of the redupli-

cant foot is simplified by leaving out the coda found in its base counterpart (see also

Section 1.2 for a similar case in Wangaaybuwan-Ngiyambaa):

(19) Paiwan

a. umaq ‘house’ uma„umaq ‘houses/little house’

berhung ‘hole’ berhu„berhung ‘holes/little hole’

b. laleqer ‘cold’ la„leqe„leqer ‘very cold’

rhamaleng ‘the old one’ rha„male„maleng ‘the old ones’

(Egli 1990: 34, 35)

In addition, the forms in (19b) fill one of the gaps identified by Moravcsik (1978: 310)

after surveying a range of partial reduplication patterns in her sample, namely what

she calls internal CVCV reduplication.

Finally, apparent counterexamples in Malagasy to the binarity restriction stated

above need to be addressed:34

(20) Malagasy

làvarángana ‘verandah’ làvarànga„ndrángana

vòalóhany ‘first’ vòalòha„ndóhany

antóniny ‘average’ antòni„ntóniny


33For the assignment of syllable boundaries in Gooniyandi polysyllabic roots see McGregor (1990: 91–92). The orthographic sequence dd stands for an apico-alveolar tap or flap (see McGregor 1990: 37,Table 2-1A).

34Ilocano initial CVC(C)(V)V reduplication in its maximal expansion (e.g. buttua„buttuag ‘rockingchair’; Rubino 2000: xvii) can be discarded more quickly since it only seems to concern bases inwhich the two word-final vowels do not maintain their own syllable each, i.e. they are syllabifiedtogether (see Rubino 2000: xxxix).


In general, Malagasy reduplication is found with adjectives, verbs and nouns for

meanings like attenuation, diminution or frequentative (cf. Keenan & Polinsky 2001:

571). The process may be either full or partial, depending on the stress pattern of

the base, as it is from the stressed syllable that reduplication starts and continues

in a rightward manner, accordingly copying one, two or three syllables (cf. Keenan

& Polinsky 2001: 573). (20) exemplifies the latter case (examples of one- and two-

syllable [full root] reduplication can be seen in [8]), which seems to violate the limita-

tion on reduplicant feet to not be longer than two syllables. However, these instances

involve so-called weak roots, characterized inter alia by the fact that their endings

(-na/-ny in the cases at hand) are deleted from the base in reduplication (cf. Keenan

& Polinsky 2001: 572).35 Their special behavior speaks for an extrametrical analysis

of these final syllables in the base as well as in the reduplicant. This considerably

weakens the status of the Malagasy forms as a threat to the generalization that not

more than a binary foot can be partially reduplicated, for although a third syllable is

copied along, under the assumption of extrametricality it strictly speaking does not

belong to the foot structure at all.

3.2.3.2 Syllable reduplication

On the next phonological level below the foot, there are reduplications involving syl-

lables of varying complexity which likewise can appear initially (21), medially (22) or

finally (23) with respect to the base:

(21) Amele

bileĳ ‘to sit’ bi„bilen ‘as he sat’

taweĳ ‘to stand’ ta„tawen ‘as he stood’

dahig ‘his ear’ da„dahig ‘ears of everyone’

(Roberts 1991: 119)

35Although not directly relevant to the point made here, the Malagasy forms in (20) show the addi-tional workings of morphophonemic processes: The initial consonant of a reduplicant following adeleted weak-root syllable is replaced by a prenasalized stop counterpart (cf. Keenan & Polinsky2001: 572), hence the segmental mismatches between r, l, t and ndr, nd, nt, respectively.


(22) Mangarayi

waNgij ‘child’ waN„gaN„gij36 ‘children’

jimgan ‘knowledgeable person’ jim„gim„gan ‘knowledgeable people’

jalwayi ‘mud’ jal„wal„wayi ‘very muddy’

(Merlan 1982: 216)

(23) Mokilese

pwirej ‘dirt’ pwirej„rej ‘dirty’

sakai ‘rock’ sakai„kai ‘rocky’

limwij ‘to slip’ limwij„mwij ‘slippery’

(Harrison 1976: 61, 62)

In contrast to the foregoing, there are once more cases which do not respect the

syllabic constituency of the base, frequently by copying across constituent borders

([24], [25]) or by ignoring certain segments ([26], [27]):

(24) Somali

cusub ‘new’ cus„cusub ‘new (plural)’

fiican ‘good’ fiic„fiican ‘good (plural)’

fudud ‘light’ fud„fudud ‘light (plural)’

(Berchem 1991: 159)

(25) Amele

a. eben ‘his hand’ eb„eben ‘hands of everyone’

iloeĳ ‘to fall as small drops’ il„iloeĳ ‘to fall repeatedly as

small drops’

b. manaden ‘he cooked them’ manad„ad„en ‘as he cooked them’

ĳedaden ‘he got them’ ĳedad„ad„en ‘as he got them’

(Roberts 1991: 119, 120)

36The Mangarayi pattern is fairly unusual in that the internal reduplicant is composed of the onset ofthe second and the rhyme of the first base syllable (cf. Merlan 1982: 216).


(26) Chukchi

eme„em (type of tree [absolutive singular])

weni„wen ‘bell (absolutive singular)’

ĳitu-ĳit ‘goose (absolutive singular)’

(Dunn 1999: 108)

(27) Bikol

Nag-a-bantay siya kan

BEG.AV-PRS-watch 3SG.AF ARG.SPEC

nag-a-pa-harong kan nag-ta„trabaho.37

BEG.AV-PRS-CAUS-house ARG.SPEC BEG.AV-IPFV„work

‘He watches the work(ing) of the house constructors.’ (Mattes 2014: 45)

The examples of initial and internal VC reduplication ([25a] and [25b], respectively)

as well as of internal CVC reduplication (22) just given again illustrate patterns not

discovered by Moravcsik (1978: 310). Another formal lacuna identified there, that of

partial reduplication involving more than one adjacent consonant, is confirmed by

the present data, though this may well have to do with the general rarity of clusters

of three or more consonants in the languages of the world. The latter fact can be

explained especially by the (a) components of the head (28) and coda law (29) as

developed in Vennemann’s (1988) treatise on preference laws for syllable structure

(see also 2.1.4):

(28) Head law (Vennemann 1988: 13–14):

A syllable head is the more preferred: (a) the closer the number of speech

sounds in the head is to one, (b) the greater the Consonantal Strength value

of its onset, and (c) the more sharply the Consonantal Strength drops from the

onset toward the Consonantal Strength of the following syllable nucleus.

(29) Coda law (Vennemann 1988: 21):

A syllable coda is the more preferred: (a) the smaller the number of speech

sounds in the coda, (b) the less the Consonantal Strength of its offset, and (c)37Syllable-internal consonant clusters do not appear in native Bikol words but only in loanwords from

languages like Spanish or English (cf. Mattes 2014: 46).


the more sharply the Consonantal Strength drops from the offset toward the

Consonantal Strength of the preceding syllable nucleus.

Lastly, the simplification of structures like the consonant cluster of trabaho in (27)

can also take place on the tonal level. In Lango diminutive reduplication of adjectives

(see Noonan 1992: 174–175) one finds a reduplicant deprived of a base coda, if there

is one, on the segmental level. Furthermore, if the vowel targeted by reduplication

has a (complex) contour tone in the base, it is reduced to the (simple) level-tone onset

in the reduplicant (cf. Noonan 1992: 114) as in cO„cOl below:

(30) Lango

bùlú ‘blue’ bù„bùlú ‘bluish’

cèk ‘short’ cè„cèk ‘sort of short’

cOl ‘black’ cO„cOl ‘blackish’

(Noonan 1992: 174)

3.2.3.3 Single-segment reduplication

On the lowest level of the phonological scale one finds the reduplication of single

consonants (31) and vowels (32):

(31) a. Initial consonant reduplication in Woleaian

bug(-a) ‘boil (it)’ b„bug ‘boiled’

foori ‘make it, do it’ f„foor ‘to make, to do’

(Sohn 1975: 103, 130)

b. Internal consonant reduplication in Arabic

kasar ‘to break’ ka„s„sar ‘to break into many pieces’

kad¯

ib ‘lying’ ka„d¯„d

¯ab ‘lying (habitual)’

(El Zarka 2009: 51)

c. Final consonant reduplication in Jakalteko

ch-a pitz’„p-e

NPST-2SG squeeze.gently„ITER-TR

‘you squeeze something gently several times’ (Day 1973: 45)


(32) a. Initial vowel reduplication in Chamorro

adda’ ‘mimic’ á’„adda’38 ‘mimicker’

égga’ ‘watch’ é’„egga’ ‘watching’

(Topping 1973: 182, 259)

b. Internal vowel reduplication in Maori

tangata ‘man’ t„a„angata ‘men’

tupuna ‘ancestor’ t„u„upuna ‘ancestors’

(Biggs 1973: 107)

There is no instance of final vowel reduplication in the data. This hole also shows

up in Moravcsik’s (1978) survey, although she does not explicitly mention it. A pos-

sible explanation could be the cross-linguistic proneness of word-final sounds to be

longer than their word-medial equivalents (cf. Gordon & Munro 2007: 293, 295). On

this account, across-the-board phonetic lengthening would lead to the masking of

the functional load of reduplication in this specific position in the word. In general,

it is important to bear in mind here the inherent difficulty of distinguishing single-

segment reduplication from phonetico-phonologically or morphologically motivated

vowel lengthening and consonant gemination (e.g. El Zarka 2005; see also Saperstein

1997: 19–21 on segmental separability and 4.2.3).

3.2.3.4 Partial reduplication with fixed segments

Partial reduplications with fixed segmentism typically involve the expansion of redu-

plicated material by vowels and/or consonants to achieve longer segmental sequenc-

es. The following examples show fixed segmentism in connection with foot redupli-

cants. As in pure reduplication, the possibility for the reduplicant is to come before

(33), within (34) or after (35) the base:

38The acute accent marks primary stress (see Topping 1973: 41). Furthermore, an excrescent glottalstop (marked by the apostrophe) is inserted between the reduplicant and base-initial vowels (cf.Topping 1973: 259).


(33) Bikol Curu- reduplication (see Mattes 2014: 76–77)

balyo ‘change, transfer, return’ buru„balyo ‘keep on changing’

banggi ‘night’ buru„banggi ‘every night’

rara ‘poisonous’ ruru„rara ‘somewhat poisonous’

(Mattes 2014: 75)

(34) Pakaásnovos -CVrV- reduplication

a. Wixicao’ na-in.

throw.PL 3SG.R.PST/PRS-3.N

‘He threw them away.’

b. Wixi<„cara„>cao’39 pi’ pin na-in.

<„INT„>throw.PL finish completely 3SG.R.PST/PRS-3.N

‘He threw them all away.’ (Everett & Kern 1997: 329)

(35) Hausa -aCCe reduplication (see Newman 2000: 19–21)

shafà ‘wipe’ shàf„affe ‘wiped’

komàâe ‘buckle’ kòmàâ„aââe ‘buckled, bent’

(Newman 2000: 510)

Also, there is fixed segmentism taking part in syllabic reduplicants, again involving

prespecified consonantal or vocalic segments:

(36) a. Turkish

uzun ‘long’ up„uzun ‘very long’

güzel ‘pretty’ güp„güzel ‘very pretty’

(Göksel & Kerslake 2005: 90)

b. Cree

nokwan- ‘be visible’ na„nokwan ‘it is visible from here, right now’

nah„nokwan40 ‘it is visible off and on’

(Ahenakew & Wolfart 1983: 374)

39Since the Leipzig glossing rules do not provide for the notation of internally reduplicated parts ofa base, a combination of the tilde (see Section 1.1, footnote 11) and angled brackets for infixes isadopted here.

40The h symbolizes the typical devoicing of the long fixed reduplicant vowel in Cree (see Ahenakew& Wolfart 1983: 370–371), the phonological status of which remains to be explored more fully (cf.


(37) Hiligaynon

B<„al„>akal ko sang libro ini nga kwarta.

<„for„>buy41 by.me of.the book this LIG money

‘This money will be used for buying a book.’ (Wolfenden 1971: 146)

(38) Somali

ul ‘stick’ ul„al ‘firewood’

fool ‘face’ fool„al ‘faces’

nin ‘man’ nim„an42 ‘men’

(Berchem 1991: 100, 102)

Vowels slightly predominate over consonants in fixed-segment configurations, and

all in all fixed segmentism often — but by no means always — is of a default type and

thereby helps to establish reduplicant structures of an overall unmarked nature.

3.2.4 A note on reduplication with simultaneous affixation

Several languages in the sample show patterns of reduplication that are tied to the

simultaneous addition of an affixational exponent.43 Researchers often interpret such

forms as displaying a kind of reduplicative stem formation with no meaning con-

tribution of itself next to the semantic import of the affix (e.g. Niepokuj 1997: 83;

Saperstein 1997: 160; Inkelas & Zoll 2005: 200; see also Schwaiger 2015: 472–473).44

Ahenakew & Wolfart 1983: 371, footnote 1) and which accordingly does not seem to be a genuinepart of the fixed segmentism itself. For more details on Cree verbal reduplication see 5.2.8.

41More precisely, the Hiligaynon internal fixed-segment reduplicant -Vl- expresses “the purpose forwhich something is used in an intense desire or specialized use” (Wolfenden 1971: 92) and “thatthe action is the normal, or sometimes habitual, use of the topic of the action” (Wolfenden 1971:146). In addition, the same pattern can be triplicatively employed for a “[p]lural action in whichthe action is pluralized and sometimes also the number of actors” (Wolfenden 1971: 147–148).

42In Somali plural formation (of which reduplication is just one example; see Berchem 1991: 98–100for an overview), singular nouns ending in n are subject to a morphonological rule which changesthis base-final nasal to m (cf. Berchem 1991: 102).

43This mainly concerns the Austronesian language family but also occurs in languages of the Afro-Asiatic, Khoisan and Uto-Aztecan stock.

44For classical Indo-European languages, this role of reduplication is particularly vividly described asa way “of extending the morphological domain of some stems”, as having had “more or less a kindof completive function to perform, i.e., before adding any affixes to the root, the morpheme had tofirst go through the process of reduplication [. . . ] to make it complete” and thus as constituting “aprerequisite to further add-ons” by Abbi (1992: 147; original emphases).


Sometimes this seems plausible, for instance in Lavukaleve reciprocal derivations

with the suffix -ria, described by Terrill (2003: 366) as involving additional obligatory

reduplication of the verbal stem only if the latter is not longer than two syllables:45

(39) Lavukaleve “reduplication” with -ria

fele-re hano nu-numa-ria-v lavea-ham

return-NFIN then RED-choose-RECP-PL marriage-PURP

‘They went back, then they [all] chose each other for marriage.’ (Terrill 2003:

366)

Under these circumstances, the partially doubled verb can indeed be understood as

the result of a semantically empty operation satisfying purely templatic needs im-

posed on the base by the reciprocal suffix and therefore does not fall under the scope

of the present investigation (see 3.1.2.2).

Very often, however, reduplication and affixation cannot be disentangled in such

a straightforward manner. Consider as illustration Fijian full reduplication preceded

by the prefix vaka- for the expression of pretense:

(40) Fijian full reduplication with vaka-

vaka-mate„mate-a46 ‘pretend to die’

vaka-lati„lati-a ‘pretend to stop him’

vaka-soli„soli-a ‘pretend to give it’

vaka-leve„leve-a ‘pretend to hit him’

vaka-tosi„tosi-a ‘pretend to scratch it’

(Schütz 1985: 230)

As Schütz (1985: 231) points out, it is hard to tell what exactly conveys the meaning

of pretense here: reduplication, the prefix or both. The same problem arguably ob-

tains in the following examples of partial reduplication and simultaneous affixation,

although this is not specifically mentioned by the respective authors:

45Unfortunately, the Lavukaleve situation is misrepresented in Schwaiger (2015: 472–473) due to alack of attention during final proofreading on behalf of the author.

46The suffix -a in these examples marks the third person singular object (cf. Schütz 1985: 97).


(41) a. Hiligaynon CV- reduplication with mang-

tudlo’ ‘teach’ ma-nu„nudlo’47 ‘teacher’

kahoy ‘wood’ ma-nga„ngahoy ‘wood-gatherer’

(Wolfenden 1971: 87)

b. Pima Bajo CV- reduplication with -em

há„hadn-em [PL„brother-PL] ‘brothers’

(Escalante H. & Estrada Fernández 1993: 51)

In the absence of structural evidence of the sort given for the Lavukaleve construc-

tion of reciprocity (see also Inkelas 2014: 177–178 for discussion of a stem type anal-

ysis of reduplication in the Southern Wakashan language Ditidaht), patterns of redu-

plication with concomitant affixation are interpreted in an equilibrated way in the

present study. As demonstrated for Fijian, in practice it can be difficult to decide

which of the formal mechanisms contributes meaning and which does not. Thus it

seems warranted to simply attribute the semantic import to both reduplication and

affixation by means of extended exponence in forms where the two occur simultane-

ously,48 a fact which is accordingly marked in Table A.2 of the Appendix. A closer

look at reduplication semantics gives additional support for this decision because,

as can be gleaned from the next section, the meanings of reduplication with an affix

perfectly align themselves with the meanings of reduplication as the sole marker of a

morphological category (see also Stolz et al. 2011: 58).

3.3 Reduplication meanings

Semantic and typological studies on reduplication (see Section 2.2 and 2.3, respec-

tively) have time and again revealed that the meanings expressed by the process are

fairly limited on a general conceptual level and applicable with similar effects to all

sorts of base word-classes. Building on this apparent cross-categoriality of redupli-

47These forms show assimilation of the prefix-final nasal to and subsequent loss of the stem-initial con-sonant (cf. Wolfenden 1971: 35) overapplying in the reduplicated word form (for overapplicationsee 2.1.1).

48This is sometimes called automatic reduplication, which “is obligatory in combination with anotheraffix, and which does not add meaning by itself to the overall construction; the affix and redupli-cated matter together are monomorphemic” (Rubino 2005b: 18).


cation (see also Botha 1988: 150), in what follows the reduplicative functions within

major and some minor word-classes (a distinction here made in a fairly general sense,

without claiming that each class is equally well established or important in every lan-

guage under scrutiny; see also Key 1965: 88–89) are presented for the present lan-

guage sample according to the broad semantic categories already identified in many

previous works. As several of the nuances of meaning have already played a role

in the examples given in the formal overview in Section 3.2, many references to the

latter can be found in the survey below.

3.3.1 Plurality

Plurality covers different functions of reduplication brought about by what has been

variously called (increased) quantity of referents (see 2.3.1.1), a consecutive process

or a horizontal increase in quantity (see 2.2.2). Several semantic notions belonging to

the realm of nominal plurality have already shown up in Section 3.2:49 simple plural

in Mangarayi human nouns ([22]; cf. Merlan 1982: 215) and Maori (32b), the plural of

countable (i.e. not too many) individuals in Somali ([38]; cf. Berchem 1991: 99), distri-

bution or totality in Amele ([25a]; cf. Roberts 1991: 123) and Bikol (33), multiplicity in

Paiwan ([19]; cf. Egli 1990: 35), collectivity in Gooniyandi ([18a]; cf. McGregor 1990:

238) and reciprocity in Ilocano (11). This list can be extended at least by the notions of

considerable number or numerousness (42)50 and variety or diversity as in Jamaican

Creole English bor„bor ‘various burs’ from bor ‘bur’ (Kouwenberg et al. 2003: 105).

(42) Afrikaans

Bakke„bakke veldblomme versier die tafels.

bowls„bowls wild.flowers decorate the tables

‘The tables are decorated with wild flowers by the bowlful.’ (Botha 1988: 92)

Distinctions of verbal plurality or pluractionality already encountered in Section

3.2 are repetition in Arabic ([31b]; cf. El Zarka 2009: 51), iterativity in Amele ([9],

49Very often the translations of the examples alone do not convey the specific meanings mentioned inthe following. Such cases are backed up by respective references to the data sources describing thesemantics of a pattern in more detail.

50See also the example of Fijian affix reduplication discussed in 3.1.2.5 in the context of recursivemorphological operations.


[25a]; cf. Roberts 1991: 130–132) and Jakalteko ([31c]; cf. Day 1973: 45), continuity

(durativity) or progressivity in Bikol (33) and Cree ([36b]; cf. Ahenakew & Wolfart

1983: 374), frequentative in Malagasy ([8]; cf. Keenan & Polinsky 2001: 571), habit-

uality in Hiligaynon ([37]; cf. Wolfenden 1971: 146), imperfective in Bikol ([27]; cf.

Mattes 2014: 44–57) as well as simultaneity in Amele ([21], [25b]; cf. Roberts 1991:

127–130) and Quichua (6). This catalog can be expanded at least by expressions of

distribution or dispersion (43), reciprocity (44) and argument plurality (45):

(43) Réunion Creole French

lé fane„fané dan tout kréol Zantiy

PST spread„spread in all creole Antilles

‘It has spread across all the creoles of the Antilles.’ (Daval-Markussen 2009: 6)

(44) Amele

Age>gbo-ĳo-b„

>gbo-ĳo-b eig-a.

3PL hit-DS-3SG„hit-DS-3SG 3PL-TODP

‘They hit each other.’ (Roberts 1991: 141)

(45) a. Kwaza verb reduplication expressing plural subject

kui=hãrã„’rã-ki

drink=stop„PL.SBJ-DECL

‘Many people stopped drinking.’ (van der Voort 2003: 76)

b. Oromo verb reduplication expressing plural object

kúrsíi gug„gurgura

chair PL.OBJ„sell

‘He sells chairs.’ (Owens 1985: 85)

Reduplicated adjectives with a pluralizing function have been illustrated already

for Hausa (17), Somali (24), Gooniyandi (18a) and Arabic (31b) in Section 3.2. In

addition, one also finds plurality in the reduplication of adverbs:

(46) a. Abkhaz

waž˝@„waž˝@ d@-c˝àž˝o-n

now„now he-talk.DYN-FIN

‘He was forever talking.’ (Hewitt 1979: 254)


b. Réunion Creole French

Demoun tipa„tipa i avanss an vil.

people slowly„slowly PRS walk in town

‘People gather little by little to the town.’ (Daval-Markussen 2009: 8)

With respect to minor word-classes, the data exhibit plurality in all sorts of pro-

nouns (e.g. Ainu onun„onun ‘from various places’ from the interrogative pronoun

onun ‘from where’; Refsing 1986: 104), numerals (typically conveying a sense of dis-

tribution [47]) as well as in adpositions (48):

(47) Sénoufo

baa-shùùnni„shùùnnì51

five-two„two

‘seven each’ (Carlson 1994: 210)

(48) Amele

na ‘in, at’ na„na ‘in every one, at every place’

nu ‘for’ nu„nu ‘for everyone’

(Roberts 1991: 123)

3.3.2 Intensity

Turning to different functions of reduplication which have been characterized either

as (increased) amount of emphasis (cf. Moravcsik 1978: 317; see also 2.3.1.1), a cu-

mulative process or a vertical increase in quantity (see 2.2.2), Section 3.2 has already

contained examples of reduplicative intensification of verbs ([10], [34]) and adjectives

([18b], [19b], [36a]). The imperative can be counted as a further type of a verbal in-

tensifier (see also 4.1.1.2):

(49) Yaqui

Katee kik„kikte

do.not IMP„start.to.stand

‘Don’t start to stand up!’ (Harley & Amarillas 2003: 113)

51In Sénoufo complex numbers only the last element is reduplicated (cf. Carlson 1994: 210).


Augmentation of a noun appears to be present in cases like the Vietnamese tripli-

cation vui„vui„vui ‘lots of fun’ from vui ‘fun’ (Nguyên 1997: 51–52). Furthermore,

adverbs may also be intensified:

(50) Réunion Creole French

Souvan„souvan i kas koko.

often„often PRS break coconuts

‘They very often break coconuts in two.’ (Daval-Markussen 2009: 7)

The notion of uniqueness (or exclusiveness; see Abbi 1992: 73–76), belonging to

intensity because the meaning of a base is reinforced by limitation (cf. Kiyomi 1995:

1153), is especially common with reduplicated numerals as in Bikol ki„kinse ‘only/ex-

actly fifteen’ and te„twelf ‘only/exactly twelve’ (Mattes 2014: 58).52 Moreover, the

specificity of reduplicated nouns like Fijian beka„beka (specific type of bat) from beka

‘bat’ (Schütz 1985: 366) can be argued to belong here as well, as in this case the mean-

ing of a base is also limited or narrowed down. Concerning minor word-classes other

than numerals one finds intensive reduplication of pronouns (e.g. the Hebrew in-

definite pronoun kulam ‘all’ which can be reduplicated to kulam„kulam ‘really all’;

Levkovych 2007: 122) and adpositions (e.g. the Bagirmi reduplicated preposition

da„dan(a) ‘between, in the middle’ from dan ‘beside’; Stevenson 1969: 160).

3.3.3 Diminution

Next to plurality and intensity, diminution is the last of the three prototypical func-

tions of reduplication found in the languages of the world. Section 3.2 has already

exemplified diminution of nouns ([19a]) and attenuation of adjectives ([8], [30], [33]).

The latter nuance is also found with verbs:

52The bases in the two examples are borrowings from Spanish (quince) and English (twelve), respec-tively, speaking for the high productivity of the process in Bikol (cf. Mattes 2014: 58).


(51) Tukang Besi

No-heta„he-tade-’e.53

3.R-ATT„VBLZ-stand-3.OBJ

‘They are building it, sort of.’ (Donohue 1999: 299)

Different notions of approximation which plausibly have been related to attenua-

tion (see Moravcsik 1978: 323; see also Stolz 2007: 336–337) are similarity, imitation

and pretense in reduplicated nouns (52) and verbs (53):

(52) Tagalog

bahay ‘house’ bahay„bahay-an54 ‘doll house/house (the game)’

bulaklak ‘flower’ bulaklak„bulaklak-an ‘artificial flower’

pari ‘priest’ pari„pari-an ‘pretense of being a priest’

(Schachter & Otanes 1972: 100, 357)

(53) Ilocano

agin-tu„túrog55(cf. túrog ‘sleep’; Rubino 2000: lxv) ‘pretend to sleep’

madi ‘to not want’ agin-ma„madi ‘to pretend to not want’

ammó ‘to know’ agin-a„ammo ‘to pretend to know’

(Rubino 2000: xxxix, 10, 35)

Similarly, there are verbal base meanings that are diminished by reduplication be-

cause they acquire a sense of aimlessness, indeterminacy or randomness (54), express

attempted actions or tentativity (55) or become intransitive. The latter function, an

example of which has already been given in (31a) of Section 3.2, is regarded as an

instance of diminution also in Table A.2 of the Appendix following Kiyomi’s (1995:

53Observe how the attenuative reduplicant straddles morpheme boundaries in being built from partsof both the root and the verbalizing prefix. Not all prefixes in Tukang Besi behave in this way, asubject prefix like no- being exempt from reduplication, for example (cf. Donohue 1999: 298–299).

54To be more precise, imitation of what the base designates in Tagalog is expressed by a combinationof full reduplication and a suffix -an (cf. Schachter & Otanes 1972: 100). Another, closely relatedMalayo-Polynesian language, Bikol, uses only full reduplication for the same meaning (see Mattes2014: 84).

55More precisely, pretense of the action expressed by the base in Ilocano is formed by a combinationof partial reduplication and a prefix agin- (cf. Rubino 2000: lxxi). Note that the last of the examplesgiven is also a case of initial CV reduplication, as all Ilocano syllables must have an onset consonant,which in orthographically vowel-initial syllables is a glottal stop (see Rubino 2000: xxxv–xxxvi).


1150) proposal that transitivity gets weaker or lower in the reduplicated word than

in the base, as intransitivity correlates with low affectedness of the patient.56 Inter-

estingly, just as Kiyomi (1995: 1150) does not find cases of the reverse intra-category

functional change in Malayo-Polynesian, the genetically broader sample examined

here also does not contain transitive verbs formed by reduplicating intransitive ones.

(54) Tagalog

g<um>ala„gala57 ‘wander here and there (in)’

s<um>ama„sama ‘accompany occasionally’

t<um>ira„tira ‘live (at) sometimes’

(Schachter & Otanes 1972: 216)

(55) Afrikaans

Hy skop„skop teen die deur.

he kick„kick against the door

‘He tentatively kicks the door a couple of times.’ (Botha 1988: 112)

Lastly, one finds diminution also in minor word-classes, for example in the form of

approximation in Gayo numerals like se„sara58 ‘approximately one’ from sara ‘one’

(Eades 2005: 55) or as indefiniteness in Amele reduplicated pronouns:

(56) Amele

oso ‘one’ oso„oso ‘anyone’

ana ‘where’ ana„ana ‘wherever’

eeta ‘what’ eeta„eeta ‘whatever’

(Roberts 1991: 123)

56This correlation is derived from the parameter of transitivity termed affectedness of the object in Hop-per & Thompson (1980: 252–253). Bybee et al. (1994: 171) proceed in a similar vein when corre-lating imperfectivity (i.e. Hopper & Thompson’s 1980: 252 atelic aspect) and intransitivity becauseboth “are typically used in backgrounded clauses where the focus is on the situation as continuing(while something else occurs) and not on the outcome of the situation with respect to a particularobject” (see also 4.1.2.2).

57The infix -um- in Tagalog verbs expresses actor focus (see Schachter & Otanes 1972: 78–79) and isnot confined to the reduplicated, moderative verb forms exemplified here expressing perfunctory,occasional or random activities (cf. Schachter & Otanes 1972: 340).

58The fixed vowel spelled e in Gayo initial partial reduplication is actually a schwa (cf. Eades 2005:53–54).


3.3.4 Other meanings

In order to complete the picture of reduplication semantics, reduplicative functions

need to be addressed which do not seem easily subsumable under the broad cate-

gories discussed so far.

3.3.4.1 Miscellaneous intra-category meaning changes

There are relatively few meanings of reduplication affecting a change within a word-

class and not directly classifiable as plurality, intensity or diminution in the sample.

Verbs show the greatest variety in this respect. The tone and click language Nama

expresses reduplicatively what Hagman (1977: 73) calls a causative meaning, though

this is not meant in the sense of ‘compelling someone to do something’ (for which

there is a distinct auxiliary káí) but rather of ‘cause something to happen or to be’:

(57) Nama

/haó ‘come together’ /haó„/hao ‘collect’

=/ ’án59 ‘know’ =/ ’án„=/ ’an ‘inform’

//xáa ‘be able’ //xáa„//xaa ‘teach’

(Hagman 1977: 73)

Saisiyat has a verbal reduplication pattern expressing future instrumental focus:

(58) Saisiyat

hini’ malat rim’an ka„kilmaeh ka kaehoey

this knife tomorrow FUT.IF„chop ACC wood

‘This knife will be used to chop wood tomorrow.’ (Yeh 2009)

For Kwaza verbs, van der Voort (2003: 81–86) illustrates a combination of redupli-

cated person marking and nominalization creating a sense of remote past which ac-

cording to the author does not intensify an already existing past tense (cf. van der

Voort 2003: 86):

59As suggested by the second accent mark, morpheme-final nasals can also carry tone in Nama (cf.Hagman 1977: 10).


(59) Kwaza

na-ay-’wy o’nE-da„day-hy-ki

PROX-that-time arrive-1SG„1SG-NMLZ-DECL

‘I arrived at that time long ago.’ (van der Voort 2003: 82)

Luvale displays reduplication of the applied suffix in verbs to express the perfective

(i.e. an action carried on to fullness or completion, as in [60a]) or the proximitive (i.e.

an action proceeding in proximity of, sometimes also in opposition to, someone or

something, as in [60b]; cf. Horton 1949: 101). However, the meaning change here

additionally includes emphasis, i.e. intensification (cf. Horton 1949: 94):

(60) Luvale

a. Nalyecelela.60 ‘He has let himself go completely,

balanced himself.’

b. Vali nakumuvembelela. ‘They are creeping up on him.’

(Horton 1949: 101)

Similar to perfectivity, Tagalog shows the reduplicative verbal meaning of acciden-

tal result, expressing “events viewed as accidents or involuntary acts resulting from

conditions expressed in the preceding linguistic context” (Schachter & Otanes 1972:

342):

(61) Tagalog61

ma-hulog ‘fall’ magkang-hu„hulog ‘fall accidentally (as a result)’

ma-wala ‘get lost’ magkang-wa„wala ‘get lost (as a result)’

um-iyak ‘cry’ magkang-i„iyak ‘cry involuntarily (as a result)’

(Schachter & Otanes 1972: 342, 343)

Paiwan forms the future of verbs by reduplication and the patient focus suffix -en:

60For lack of segmentation and glossing in the original source note that it is the first part of the appliedsuffix allomorph -ela (other allomorphs of the same suffix are -ila, -ina and -ena; see Horton 1949:89) which is reduplicated in these examples.

61In this pattern, major affixes like ma- or -um- are replaced by the prefix makang- and the partialreduplication of a root. The initial reduplicant of i„iyak in the last example is also CV as everyTagalog syllable has an onset, which in the case of a glottal stop is not spelled out in the orthography(cf. Schachter & Otanes 1972: 26).


(62) Paiwan

ku-pi-qaya„qayaV-en tjanu-sun

I-put.down-FUT„in.front.of-PF OBL-you

‘I will put (it) down in front of you.’ (Egli 1990: 38)

In the related languages Fijian and Woleaian there is a type of verb62 reduplication

resemblingly classified as partitive or inchoative and as expressing change of state,

respectively:

(63) a. Fijian

bota ‘ripe’ bo„bota ‘beginning to ripe’

(Schütz 1985: 233)

b. Woleaian

cha ‘red’ che„cha63 ‘to become red’

(Sohn 1975: 110)

With respect to adjectives, Hupdë evinces the following reduplicative pattern of

extremely limited productivity, in which the adjective in a noun-adjective compound

is marked as a compound-internal attributive (cf. Epps 2008: 221):

(64) Hupdë

cob tæ„t ˇæh [finger ATTR„small] ‘pinky finger’

cob po„pog [finger ATTR„big] ‘thumb’

nuh to„toy’ [head ATTR„support] ‘average’

(Epps 2008: 221)

Finally, reduplicated nouns display the least clear instances of non-prototypical

intra-categorial changes. As in Hiligaynon (41a), several examples are equipped with

an agentive meaning, though mostly this pattern involves an additional change of

word-class. Chukchi, on the other hand, has been claimed to express absolutive sin-

gular case via reduplication (see [26]); however, this is so rare and unusual for a

reduplicative meaning and has moreover been interpreted in so many different ways

in the literature that a closer look at it along with the other meanings just discussed

is called for in 4.1.3.62As is not unusual for many languages, what appears to be an adjective in the English translation in

fact is a stative verb.63A low vowel a dissimilates to e before another low vowel in Woleaian phonology (cf. Sohn 1975: 31).


3.3.4.2 Word-class derivation

A quite frequent function of reduplication which seems rather arbitrary compared to

other uses of the process is changing the word-class of a base. But although it looks as

if in its most basic essence this function lacks a grammar-external conceptual anchor,

the data interestingly show word-class derivation to be often accompanied by more

concrete semantic changes along the general lines of plurality, intensity or diminution

discussed in 3.3.1–3.3.3.

Nouns are formed by reduplicating verbs (which includes the formation of gerunds

[65a]) and adjectives (65b). With respect to less widespread word-classes one also

finds the case of nouns derived from ideophones in Luvale (65c), a reduplicative func-

tion additionally implying repeated actions, i.e. plurality (cf. Horton 1949: 60).

(65) Derived nouns

a. Yoruba deverbal nouns (gerunds)

lo ‘go’ lí„lo64 ‘the act of going’

mu ‘drink’ mí„mu ‘the act of drinking’

(Adewole 1997: 121)

b. Papiamentu deadjectival nouns

fini ‘fine, small’ fini„fini ‘fine cactus hairs’

frio ‘cold’ frio„frio ‘crushed ice’

(Kouwenberg 2003: 163)

c. Luvale deideophonic nouns65

mbílù (jerky movement) ka-mbìlu„mbílu ‘mosquito larva’

sòto (dropping) li-sòto„sóto ‘falling drop’

(Horton 1949: 60)

Adjectives can be derived by the reduplication of nouns (66a) and verbs ([66b],

including the formation of participles [66c]):

64This partial reduplication pattern exhibits a fixed high-toned front high vowel í (cf. Adewole 1997:121; see also 2.1.2).

65The nominal status of these fully reduplicated forms is underscored by their appearing with thenoun class prefixes ka- and li-, respectively (see Horton 1949: Chapter 3 for details on the Luvalesystem of noun classification).


(66) Derived adjectives

a. Paiwan denominal adjectives

siuts ‘waist’ siu„siuts-an66 ‘with waist (i.e. waisted)’

qurhip ‘scale’ qurhi„qurhip-an ‘with scales (i.e. scaly)’

(Egli 1990: 36)

b. Éwé deverbal adjectives

gblé ‘get spoiled’ gbe„gblé67 ‘spoiled, bad’

tri ‘be thick’ ti„tri´ ‘thick’

(Claudi 2009)

c. Daga deverbal participles

wara ‘get’ wara„wara ‘getting’

dia ‘declare’ dia„dia ‘declaring’

(Murane 1974: 74)

Similarly, although adjectives in the narrow sense do not exist in the language, some

reduplicated Fijian verbs are allowed to modify nouns (cf. Schütz 1985: 229), a func-

tion akin to the adjectival intra-category change described for Hupdë noun-adjective

compounds (64):

(67) Fijian deverbal noun modifiers

na tamata nı„nini [DEF person ATTR„tremble] ‘trembling person’

na tamata garo„garo [DEF person ATTR„lust.for] ‘lustful person’

na tamata sa„saga [DEF person ATTR„strive] ‘striving person’

(Schütz 1985: 229)

Adverbs are formed by reduplicating nouns (68a), verbs (68b) and adjectives (68c).

In addition, the Meitei pattern in (68b) implies an action performed in an apathetic

or partial manner, i.e. diminutive notions (cf. Chelliah 1997: 269), while the Turkish

forms in (68c) demonstrate that full reduplication aided by the particle mI (the exact

66This full reduplication pattern exhibits the simultaneous suffixation of -an (see Egli 1990: 36–37, 146).67In this partial reduplication pattern, the reduplicant syllable is reduced in markedness by simpli-

fying base-initial consonant clusters and denasalizing a nasalized base vowel. Furthermore, thesereduplicated forms include a floating high tone, as can be seen from the unlinked accent in titri´(Claudi 2009).


vowel quality of which is subject to vowel harmony) carries the additional meaning

of intensity (cf. Göksel & Kerslake 2005: 92).

(68) Derived adverbs

a. Chachi denominal adverbs

tsala ‘beach’ tsala„tsala ‘along/over the beach’

pi ‘water’ pi„pi ‘along/through the water’

(Floyd 2009)

b. Meitei deverbal adverb formation

tum-li„tum-li t@w-p@68

sleep-PROG„sleep-PROG do-NMLZ

‘not quite asleep’ (Chelliah 1997: 269)

c. Turkish deadjectival adverb formation

yavas ‘slow, quiet, gentle’ yavas„yavas ‘slowly, gradually’

yavas mı yavas ‘very slowly’

(Göksel & Kerslake 2005: 190, 93)

Curiously, verbs are the rarest major word-class derived by reduplication, and nor-

mally with relatively specific extra semantic import. Thus, the Swahili transfer of

meaning in (69a) is also based on the diminutive notion of similarity (cf. Novotna

2000: 65), while Woleaian derivations from inalienable nouns and classifiers exempli-

fied in (69b) indicate “temporary ownership, i.e., ‘to use’” (Sohn 1975: 136), a transla-

tion which is reminiscent of the future instrumental focus meaning in Saisiyat verbs

(58):

(69) Derived verbs

a. Swahili denominal verb formation

bata (a kind of duck) -bata„bata ‘waddle’

(Novotna 2000: 65)

68A progressive verb reduplicated to function as a manner adverb in Meitei is used together with theverb t@w- ‘do’ (cf. Chelliah 1997: 269).


b. Woleaian possessive neutral verb formation69

tema- ‘father’ tame„tam ‘to be a father (for)’

waa- (classifier for vehicles) waa„wa ‘to use as vehicle’

(Sohn 1975: 136)

Mokilese, on the other hand, has been shown in (23) to have a fairly pure process

of stative verb formation (translated by English adjectives) operating on a variety of

roots, including other verbs.

Lastly, concerning more marginal word-classes as reduplicative bases, Gayo dis-

plays an adverb urum„urum ‘together’ derived by a reduplicated preposition urum

‘with’ (cf. Eades 2005: 54). Adverbs themselves do not occur in the sample as the base

of word-class changing reduplication.

3.3.5 A note on the meaning of echo-words

Echo-words, examples of which have been adduced in 3.2.1.5, may also be used for

expressing typically reduplicative functions like plurality, intensity and diminution

(see examples in [13] and [15]). They are often semantically special, however, in that

they prefer to express at least some of these notions simultaneously, most notably

plurality and diminution (see especially [12] and [14]; see also 4.1.2.2), by conveying

a mixture of generality, vagueness, multiplicity and/or indefiniteness with respect to

the meaning of the base (cf. Keane 2001: 56–57). When this is the case, a respective

language in Table A.2 of the Appendix is marked as having echo-word reduplication

for every function that the respective construction fulfills.

69Woleaian neutral verbs, as opposed to transitive and intransitive ones, may or may not take an object(cf. Sohn 1975: 74). Sohn (1975: 67) lists an alternative form tame- for ‘father’, which seems to bethe base for the respective reduplicant in the examples here. In addition, voiceless vowels at theend of words are not spelled out (cf. Sohn 1975: 19), while a long vowel becomes short in the sameenvironment (cf. Sohn 1975: 28).

4 A typology of reduplicants:Contributions of iconicity andpreferred form

Having surveyed the language sample under scrutiny with respect to reduplication

forms and functions in the course of the previous chapter, the data described there

in a next step are put into typological perspective by scanning them for regulari-

ties and generalizations underlying reduplicative systems in the languages of the

world. As announced in Chapter 2, the familiar sequence of treating form before

meaning (already found in the early treatise by Brandstetter 1917: Chapter 2 and 3,

respectively) is reversed here, for the following reasons: Similar to many prior cross-

linguistic works on the phenomenon, the impression gained from the overview of

reduplication in Chapter 3 strongly suggests a universally non-arbitrary structural

make-up of both the process’s formal as well as its functional features. What is more,

the fact that the general semantic concepts covered by reduplication are so strikingly

few and in most cases plausibly reflected iconically in their particular phonologi-

cal expression makes a meaning-driven approach as sketched in Section 1.2 appear

the most promising one in terms of explaining these observations. Consequently,

the morpho-semantic characteristics of reduplication are regarded as central and are

therefore discussed in detail from a functional-typological viewpoint in Section 4.1,

ensued by a cross-linguistic evaluation of phonological generalizations in Section 4.2.

As the present chapter to a large extent, then, deals with functional and formal regu-

larities of reduplicant structure, the findings of the first two sections are subsequently

combined into a more comprehensive typological characterization of reduplication as

an independent morphological process in Section 4.3.

82


4.1 The typology of reduplication meanings: Iconicity

This and the following sections incorporate, modify and extend work commenced in

Schwaiger (2013) as a pilot study for the present one (cf. Schwaiger 2013: 216–217,

including footnote 7). Specifically, they evaluate the hypotheses outlined in 2.1.4 and

2.2.3 against the language data which have been collected and analyzed according

to the methods delineated in Section 3.1. At the same time, various generalizations

proposed in previous typological reduplication studies (see Section 2.3) are put to the

test, occasionally highlighting the need for adjusting some of the long-standing views

regarding the process under investigation as well as for discarding those which turn

out to be downright wrong in light of present insights.

As pointed out in Section 2.2, formal approaches to reduplication considering the

process to be a type of affixation (see 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) tend to perceive reduplicative

semantics in a parallel fashion. This is succinctly expressed in the following quote by

Wiltshire & Marantz (2000: 560–561):

Cross-linguistically, reduplicating affixes serve the same types of functions that

any affix with its own phonological form can serve, including all derivational and

inflectional functions. Thus reduplication functions in the morphology just like

other forms of affixation.

After giving several examples of reduplicative meanings generally viewed as iconic

(i.e. plurality, both nominal and verbal, as well as intensity), the authors underscore

their above claim by pointing out functions of reduplication which are said to lack

an apparent motivation in terms of iconicity: perfective aspect, diminished inten-

sity, diminutive formation and reduplication with simultaneous affixation, the latter

being interpreted as a kind of stem extension serving no function by itself (cf. Wilt-

shire & Marantz 2000: 561).1 Akin to this reduplication-as-affixation stance, Inkelas

& Zoll (2005: 13), advocating the likewise concatenative, albeit compositional, MDT

approach to reduplication (see 2.1.3), at first state that

[a] natural null hypothesis as to the meaning of reduplication constructions might

be that the meaning of a given reduplication construction is a purely iconic func-

1But see 3.2.4 for the more balanced take on reduplications with concomitant affixes in the presentstudy.


tion of the meaning of its daughters: for nouns, plurality; for verbs, iterativity or

pluractionality; for adjectives and adverbs, intensity, and so forth

but they too dispense with this hypothesis on the grounds that “[i]conic semantics is

not, however, the general rule. Reduplication, especially partial reduplication, is as-

sociated cross-linguistically with all sorts of meanings, both inflectional and deriva-

tional, whose degree of iconicity is often negligible” (Inkelas & Zoll 2005: 14).

While the view of reduplication as affixation and/or compounding is evaluated

in detail in Section 4.3, the present section concentrates on regularities of reduplica-

tive meaning across languages. At least impressionistically, the bulk of the data sur-

veyed in Section 3.3 supports the idea that there are generalizations to be drawn from

cross-linguistic reduplication semantics which can be captured by way of a system-

atic categorial network (see 2.2.3): Most of the functions and expressions of redu-

plication appear to be straightforwardly mediated by a diagrammatically as well as

imagically salient type of iconicity, capable of unifying under fairly general semantic

concepts many different specific kinds of meaning found in all sorts of reduplicatable

word-classes. In line with a number of contributions in the functional literature (see

2.2.2), but obviously at odds with formal opinions of the sort demonstrated above,

this study thus holds on to a fairly strong version of the principle of iconicity in redu-

plication as a possible common source for all reduplicated forms (see especially also

Fischer 2011). This is also in sharp opposition to the skepticism sometimes existing in

the functionalist camp itself, recently and uncompromisingly formulated by Kouwen-

berg & LaCharité (2013: 483) when they write that “[o]ne wonders who would claim

that all reduplication or reiteration is iconic, or that iconicity is expected to capture all

the interpretive properties of all reiterative structures.” The similarly uncompromis-

ing answer to this question offered here is that when confronted with cross-linguistic

data of the kind found in the present work, iconicity as a comprehensive explanatory

device simply looks too promising and lacking in better alternatives to be discarded

for good solely because of one or the other problematic instance dug up from the

descriptive literature.

Admittedly, especially 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 contain some reduplicative functions which

on the surface indeed seem to withstand any possibility of interpreting them as iconic.

Yet, from a functional-typological angle it is advisable to take a closer look at the


quality and quantity of alleged counterexamples, often adduced by skeptics as a de-

molishing argument to the iconicity of reduplication in its entirety. Accordingly, it

appears more reasonable to stick to a line of investigation promoted in Botha (1988:

6–8) as a version of the so-called (lax) Galilean style of (linguistic) inquiry (see Botha

1988: 162, endnote 5 for details on the term), the following aspect of which is crucial

for the problem at hand:

(1) Epistemological tolerance in the Galilean style of inquiry (Botha 1988: 7):

To keep up the momentum of the inquiry, we should adopt an attitude of epis-

temological tolerance towards promising theories that are threatened by still

unexplained or apparently negative data.

To give first impressions of this scientific guideline in the treatment of reduplicative

iconicity, it can be shown that some of Inkelas & Zoll’s (2005: 14–15) counterexam-

ples qualitatively seem to fit within the iconic spectrum of reduplication after all (e.g.

dual and plural subject marking on verbs; see also 4.1.1.1), while others belong to the

realm of diminution (e.g. pretense and intransitivization), the iconic status of which is

reassessed more thoroughly in 4.1.2, and yet others need to be inspected more closely

concerning their actual semantic traits (e.g. word-class derivation; see 4.1.4). More-

over, bearing in mind the caveats on sampling and statistics outlined in 3.1.1, seeming

counterinstances have to be put into a quantitative perspective. The relevant counts

for the present sample can be seen in Table 4.1, indicating the number of languages

that express a certain broad domain of meaning by full and/or partial reduplication.

Table 4.1. Occurrences of broad reduplication meanings in the 87 sample languages

Plurality Intensity Diminution Others

Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial

77 44 49 29 40 23 31 13

The sums show a clear majority of the undisputedly iconic functions of plurality and

intensity but at the same time warrant a more detailed inspection of diminution and

other cases for their mere presence and/or relative rareness. Note also that irrespec-

tive of methodological, terminological and sampling differences the figures in the


table roughly echo the findings of Kiyomi (1995: 1155, 1160) for her thirty Malayo-

Polynesian languages (see 2.2.2), those of Kajitani (2005: 102) for her smaller but ge-

netically more diverse sample of sixteen languages (see 2.3.1.3 and 4.1.6), the prelimi-

nary results in Schwaiger (2013: 220, Table 3, 225) as well as the rather impressionistic

generalization arrived at by Moravcsik (2013: 131):

(2) The crosslinguistically most common meaning of reduplication is the quantita-

tive or qualitative augmentation of the meaning of the base. Its second most

common meaning is the diminution of size or intensity.

It remains to introduce the specific conceptualization of iconicity in reduplicant

structure as pursued and gradually developed from here on. Basically, the present

approach is a synthesis (and, where felt to be necessary, modification) of most of

the partially overlapping approaches discussed in 2.2.2. According to Mayerthaler’s

(1977: 34) early formulation, constructional iconicity exists if conceptual featuredness

is mapped onto morphological featuredness, i.e. when what is conceptually ‘more’

is also constructionally ‘more’ (see also 2.2.2, footnote 19). His general example that

languages tend towards having a plural instead of a singular exponent (cf. May-

erthaler 1977: 34–35) is a paradigm case of reduplication, furthermore illustrating the

latter’s additional imagic dimension of more of the same form expressing more of the

same meaning (in contrast to affixational pluralization as in German Kind-er, Tag-e or

Frau-en, which merely illustrates the diagrammatic dimension of more form express-

ing more meaning; see also 2.2.3). However, at this point it is of utmost importance

to avoid the pitfall of trivializing the workings of iconicity in reduplicative construc-

tions. For one, it is crucial to acknowledge Fischer’s (2011: 64) explicitly more abstract

interpretation of the ‘more of the same’ principle, which she deems to often be related

to the idea of plurality in too literal a sense. Rather, there is a strong dependence on

the lexical and word-class semantics of the base in that “the eventual meaning of

the reduplication is the result of a combination of the particular meaning of the verb,

noun, adjective, etc. in question [. . . ] and the general notion of doubling or ‘increase’”

(Fischer 2011: 65). To give a slightly exaggerated example, in the literal interpretation

of iconicity in a reduplicated form like Japanese yama„yama ‘mountains’ (the mean-

ing of unreduplicated yama is ambiguous between singular and plural; cf. Iwasaki


2013: 99) one would expect a dual meaning instead of the actually occurring plural.

But it is a legitimate assumption that for reduplication to be the cross-linguistically

widespread grammatical resource it appears to be, it needs to be entrenched in gram-

mars of the world’s languages according to general linguistic principles. First and

foremost, like with any other morphological operation this means for reduplicative

semantics that

in most languages, a limited number of rough distinctions [i.e. those in some

semantic domain like number, tense, aspect or mood; TS] have as it were sedi-

mented into the grammatical system. These distinctions are not identical across

languages, but they seem to be drawn from limited sets of possible distinctions

which are especially liable to grammatical expression. (Dik 1997: 160–161)

In view of the Japanese example above, the literal reading of iconicity within the

semantic domain of number in a next step would thus favor a marked member of the

typologically established hierarchy of distinctions in Corbett (2000: 38):

(3) singular > plural > dual > trial

Now, given the overall rareness of duals in the languages of the world and the specific

fact that Japanese has no dual at all (i.e. also not expressed by some other morpho-

logical process like affixation), the plural meaning of yama„yama aligns perfectly with

this implicational scale of number distinctions, which is to be read as any value on

the right implying the presence of all values to the left of it in a language.

Hence, what according to Fischer (2011: 64–65) is crucial in reduplication is the

isomorphism that marks the combination of a base and its reduplicant (e.g. Japanese

yama„yama), as this allows the recognition of a similarity which makes reduplication

prone to the expression of only certain meanings as opposed to more arbitrary lan-

guage conventions like affixes (e.g. German -er, -e, -en), although the specific mean-

ings found undoubtedly depend on additional factors like the meaning of the base

and its word-class as well as general restrictions on grammatical (sub-)systems (e.g.

[3]). In the following, the occurring meaning nuances and their place in such an

iconic interpretation of reduplication are investigated in more detail. The discussion

begins with uncontroversial cases (see 4.1.1), moves on to the more controversial ones


(see 4.1.2) and finally deals with some hitherto understudied phenomena (see 4.1.3–

4.1.5) before turning to a general typological evaluation of reduplication meanings

(see 4.1.6).

4.1.1 The iconic nature of plurality and intensity

Plurality and intensity are the least controversially iconic meanings of reduplication,

a fact which even many formalists at least pay lip service to. But as it has also been

mentioned that the iconic grounding of reduplication is additionally influenced by

factors like base word-class and general grammatical principles like the ones reflected

by implicational hierarchies in typology, a closer look at the finer distinctions within

these prototypical meaning categories seems worthwhile.

4.1.1.1 Plurality

That plurality is a general notion applying to even both the maximally distinct and al-

legedly universal word-classes of nouns and verbs is accepted at least since Dressler’s

(1968) seminal study on verbal plurality, where it is claimed that the essence of plu-

rality in the nominal and verbal domain is ultimately the same (cf. Dressler 1968:

52–53; see also Dressler 1968: 21, 94). As has become apparent from the overview in

3.3.1, nothing prevents this reasoning to be extended to adjectives and minor word-

classes like pronouns, numerals and adpositions (see also Dressler 1968: 58), which

can all appear reduplicated for some nuance of plurality. Since in Section 3.3 this

cross-categoriality has turned out to be the case with the remaining major reduplica-

tive meanings as well,2 word-class peculiarities from now on are only highlighted

where necessary (and accordingly are not differentiated in Table A.2 of the Appendix

except where word-class changes are concerned), while on the whole it is argued that

it is precisely the general iconic potential of reduplication which makes the process

so prevalent across languages and word-classes, though even so this does not mean

that the influence of lexical classes and the general grammatical dispositions of lan-

guages do not play any role. As a matter of fact, interferences of this kind are exactly

2See also Hurch (2000) on the cross-categorial, so-called intensive category of the Uto-Aztecan lan-guage Tarahumara, formed inter alia by the reduplication of nouns, verbs, numerals or adverbsand subsuming not only intensity but also different notions of plurality.


what shapes the reduplicative system of a language into something which, despite all

iconically motivated similarities, is still unique and different from any reduplicative

system in another language. Thus one finds great variety in the specific submeanings

identified, some well-known in linguistic terminology, others more idiosyncratic, but

all related to a prototypical notion of plurality (cf. Kiyomi 1995: 1152–1153, 1160;

Štekauer et al. 2012: 123, 124, 125–130, Table 3.44; see also 3.3.1):

(4) Plurality

iterativity, repetition, continuity, distribution, dispersion, plural, totality, variety, di-

versity, reciprocity, collectivity, simultaneity, numerousness, considerable number, spa-

tial extension, habituative/habituality, progressive, imperfective, locative alternation,

countable plural, multiplicity, frequentative, argument plurality, etc.

Some examples reflecting the dependence of the pluralizing function on the specific

(sub-)class of reduplicated words are given in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Some reduplicative functions of plurality depending on major word-(sub-)class ofthe base (based on Fischer 2011: 59–60)

Function Example

Nouns— count plurality Mangarayi: bugbug„bug ‘old people’

(Merlan 1982: 215)Verbs— telic iteration Amele: il„iloeĳ ‘to fall repeatedly as small drops’

(Roberts 1991: 119)— atelic continuity Bikol: nag-ta„trabaho ‘working’ (Mattes 2014: 45)— stative discontinuity Cree: nah„nokwan ‘it is visible off and on’

(Ahenakew & Wolfart 1983: 374)Adjectives— color dispersion Jamaican Creole English: yala„yala ‘yellow-spotted’

(Kouwenberg & LaCharité 2005: 537)

4.1.1.2 Intensity

As already hinted at in 2.2.2, Fischer (2011: 59) speaks of “increase or enhancement

of some sort” when it comes to the iconicity of reduplication, something which can


be broadly conceptualized either vertically as intensification (symbolically”) or hori-

zontally as plurality (symbolically – – –), with the particular functions again depend-

ing on the general word-class of or finer lexical distinctions pertaining to the base.

Nonetheless, the two notions are not always easily teased apart in a reduplicated

form. A few examples from the surveyed literature should suffice to show this: Con-

cerning Hindi reduplicative expressions, McGregor (1972: 140) states that in most of

the cases expressing intensive force a distributive idea is present as well. For redu-

plication in Hmong Njua, Harriehausen (1990: 47) notes that verbs are intensified

insofar as they denote actions which are either repetitive, progressive or frequent

(e.g. quaj„quaj ‘cry incessantly, whine’ from quaj ‘cry loudly’). Reduplicated adjec-

tives in Paiwan may sometimes be ambiguous between emphasis and plural (cf. Egli

1990: 41). Occasionally, as in Figure 4.1 from Regier (1998), such a state of affairs is

interpreted as intensity being derived from plurality (see also 2.2.2), for instance in

Harley & Amarillas’s (2003: 107) analysis of Yaqui reduplicative intensification as a

metaphoric extension of plurality (likened by the authors to the use of the plural as a

singular respect marker in languages like French).

Figure 4.1. The interaction of iconicity and semantic extension (cf. Regier 1998: 888)

In the present study it is maintained that while they may not always be easily dif-

ferentiated, the notions of plurality and intensity are basically independent from each

other, cognitively grounded in slightly different ways (see 4.1.1.3), as is also assumed

by other authors (e.g. Kiyomi 1995; see also 2.2.2).3 The submeanings of intensity are

3Actually, the idea is already around at least since the end of the nineteenth century, when therenowned Völkerpsychologe Wilhelm Wundt set up a psychological scheme of various uses of dou-


inter alia the following (cf. Kiyomi 1995: 1153, 1154, 1160; Štekauer et al. 2012: 123,

124, 125–130, Table 3.44; see also 3.3.2):

(5) Intensity

intensification, augmentativity/augmentativeness, restriction, uniqueness, specificity,

imperative, etc.

The imperative in this list merits closer attention. Pace Kiyomi (1995: 1158, 1160),

who classifies it as a non-iconic residual category, its intensifying underpinnings in

reduplicative verbs are obvious. Moreover, Schwaiger (2011a: 128, 2013: 222) goes

too far in completely excluding the possibility of morphologically reduplicated im-

peratives. Rather, this function seems to be taken over solely by partial reduplication

and mostly only with additional affixation or some other kind of structural bolster-

ing.4 So it is only the fully reduplicative imperative meaning which is excluded from

consideration (see also Stolz et al. 2011: 194 and 5.2.12), because apparent examples

like Swahili chapuchapu ‘hurry up!, quick!’ from -chapua ‘speed up’ (Novotna 2000:

60) and Lavukaleve leon-leon ‘hurry up!’ from leon ‘quickly’ (Terrill 2003: 36) turn

out to be marginally morphological at best, perhaps even syntactically repetitive, for

reasons of pragmatic effect, input promiscuity, output alternatives, imperfect control

or interspeaker variation (see Schwaiger 2011a: 129–130 for details).

bling in language, distinguishing repetitive events as well as intensification of properties and ac-tivities as the universal objective (i.e. perceptual) and subjective (i.e. emotional) basis, respectively(cf. Wundt 1900: 592–593; see also Stolz et al. 2011: 92–93; Schwaiger forthc. c).

4However, Aikhenvald’s (2010: 33) statement that “reduplication is never the sole marker of an im-perative” needs to be qualified in view of examples like the following:

(i) Yaquia. Uka vachi-ta chi„chiwe

that.ACC corn-ACC IMP„hull‘Hull the corn!’

b. Tu’isi’e bwa’am-ta ko„ko’oawell food-ACC IMP„chew‘Chew the food thoroughly!’

(Harley & Amarillas 2003: 110)It is nevertheless remarkable that most of the imperative examples in Harley & Amarillas (2003) are

of the negative (prohibitive) type involving a specific syntactic configuration with a supplementarygrammatical element kat ‘do not’ (cf. Harley & Amarillas 2003: 110). An instance of this has alreadybeen presented in 3.3.2.


Further examples mirroring the dependence of the intensifying function on the spe-

cific (sub-)class of reduplicated words are given in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3. Some reduplicative functions of intensity depending on major word-(sub-)class ofthe base (based on Fischer 2011: 60, 61)

Function Example

Nouns— non-countable augmentation Vietnamese: vui„vui„vui ‘lots of fun’

(Nguyên 1997: 51–52)Verbs— atelic intensification Alamblak: hingna-marña-ba-marña-më-r ‘he

worked very well’ (Bruce 1984: 165)Adjectives— gradable intensification Gooniyandi: jiginya„ginya ‘very little’

(McGregor 1990: 237)

4.1.1.3 The independence of plurality and intensity

The major patterns of pluralizing and intensifying reduplication and their conceptual

parallels can be figured like this (cf. Stolz 2007: 333):

(6) Conceptual parallels between major patterns of reduplication

simple reduplicated

X

‚

y

XX

Y

singular/plural

punctual/extended

norm/intensive

But if, as suggested in 4.1.1.2, the prototypically iconic plurality and intensity func-

tions are basically independent from each other, there remains the question of why

the former are a bit more frequent than the latter in Table 4.1. A possible reason is

their somewhat different cognitive grounding in terms of iconicity, meaning that hor-

izontal repetition (i.e. consecutivity) mirrors the respective semantics more directly

than vertical repetition (i.e. cumulativity) because the linearity of speech is better

suited to reflect spatial and temporal increase than intensification of any sort.


4.1.2 The iconic nature of diminution

One of the most popular arguments put forth against iconicity as an essential driv-

ing force governing reduplication semantics is the relatively high frequency of differ-

ent diminutive notions expressed by reduplicated word forms (see Section 2.2). The

meaning category of diminution is understood here as comprising submeanings of

the following sort (cf. Kiyomi 1995: 1153, 1160; Štekauer et al. 2012: 124, 125–130,

Table 3.44; see also 3.3.3):

(7) Diminution

approximation, attenuation, diminutiveness, indeterminacy, indefiniteness, similarity,

imitation, pretense, tentativity, attemptive, intransitivity, pejorativeness, aimlessness,

randomness, etc.

Table 4.4 illustrates some of the ways in which the diminutive function may turn out

depending on the specific (sub-)class of reduplicated words involved.

Table 4.4. Some reduplicative functions of diminution depending on major word-(sub-)classof the base (based on Fischer 2011: 60–61, 62)

Function Example

Nouns similarity Tagalog: bahay„bahay-an ‘doll house/house (the game)’(Schachter & Otanes 1972: 100)

Verbs— atelic pretense Ilocano: agin-tu„túrog ‘pretend to sleep’

(Rubino 2000: xxxix)Adjectives— stative attenuation Malagasy: lò„ló ‘somewhat rotten’


Apparently, to sum up the main line of more or less all the critics’ argumentation, no

variety of the iconic principle “MORE OF X” (Stolz et al. 2011: 178) can be invoked

under these circumstances because neither a small variety of X nor a notion of NOT

QUITE X or LESS THAN X conform to it (cf. Stolz et al. 2011: 184). Nevertheless being

proponents of the generally iconic nature of reduplication themselves, Stolz and his

coauthors, in the wake of Stolz (2007), go on to re-define the principle in terms of a


coding strategy based on as well as mirroring the deviation from a norm which is

displayed by the respective categories (see also 2.2.2), stating for the plural-versus-

diminutive and intensification-versus-attenuation conflict that

[t]he norm is represented by the non-reduplicated item which has a singular or

generic reading and represents a largely unspecified concept. In contrast, both

the plural and the diminutive represent specified concepts as they highlight com-

ponents such as plurality or smallness which are additions to the concept repre-

sented by the non-reduplicated item. This view can be extended to intensifica-

tion and attenuation with adjectives: the non-reduplicated adjective represents

the norm or unspecified concept, whereas the reduplicated adjective represents

deviations thereof. (Stolz et al. 2011: 185)

Notwithstanding the basic appeal of this markedness-theoretic re-definition for the

quoted cases and its potential to also explain further problematic examples, it simul-

taneously gives up the generalization that still the majority of reduplication mean-

ings clearly stems from the relatively constricted realms of plurality, intensification

and diminution, as now almost anything can be interpreted as an instance of iconic-

ity, including word-class derivation because “[i]n a way, the word class membership

of the non-reduplicated item defines the norm from which the reduplicated item de-

viates” (Stolz et al. 2011: 191). Since it is not merely constructional iconicity which

is argued for here, but its special imagic characteristic connected to the repetition of

base material, all in all such an approach is deemed to be more of a step backwards

in explaining reduplicative semantics.

From the above point of view it consequently appears more promising to further

pursue the approach initiated by Kouwenberg & LaCharité (2005) and to demonstrate

how all sorts of diminutive meaning can be related to plurality via semantic extension

(see also 2.2.2). Although often criticized within the field of reduplication studies (e.g.

Abraham 2005), the idea is in fact not new and rather unchallenged in other areas of

grammatical research.

4.1.2.1 General links between plurality and diminution

Already Dressler (1968: 83) speaks of the Janus face of plurality and attributes diminu-

tive as well as attenuative nuances to the function of subdividing a unity as opposed


to the (discontinuous or continuous) multiplication of a unity (see also Dressler 1968:

55, 57). To give a verbal example, the author indicates how an iterative can serve

to derive a discontinuative (‘now and then’) pluractional (cf. Dressler 1968: 63) and

a so-called conative, the latter highlighting the attempt and not the iterativity, as in

the German verb flattern ‘to flutter’ which can also mean ‘to try and fly’ (cf. Dressler

1968: 65). A theoretical elaboration of this idea can be found in Cusic (1981: 80–84),

who ties the following notions of diminution to event-internal (repetitive) plurality:

diminutive, tentative, conative (i.e. attemptive) and incassative (i.e. aimlessness).

Several of these are bundled in one and the same Hungarian iterative suffix -gat/-get

which may also express diminished intensity, lack of precision, reluctance or hesi-

tancy (cf. Kiefer 1995/1996: 180–181). Importantly, Corbett (2000: 239) notes that one

also finds approximative uses of the nominal plural like Turkish bura-lar-da [here-PL-

LOC] ‘hereabouts’ (literally ‘in these places’) from bura-da [here-LOC] ‘here’ (literally

‘in this place’), concluding that “[a] comparable morphological indicator might be the

diminutive in certain languages” (Corbett 2000: 240). And indeed, from the angle of

pertinent research, at least two potential docking stations to plurality (partitive and

approximation) are encountered in the underlying semantic relationships described

for the diminutive category by Jurafsky (1996) in the radial style of Figure 4.2.5

Figure 4.2. Universal structure for diminutive semantics proposed by Jurafsky (1996: 542)

5Abbreviations designate the mechanisms of semantic change determining the different sense nodesof the diminutive radial category according to Jurafsky (1996: 542): inference (I), metaphor (M),generalization (G) and lambda-abstraction (L). A detailed discussion of these and the varioussenses would lead too far in the present context and is therefore left to Jurafsky (1996).


The foregoing allows only a small but sufficient glimpse of the ample evidence

(much too far-ranging and theoretically complex to be reviewed here in any com-

prehensiveness) for a general relationship between plurality and diminution in the

languages of the world. Furthermore, the direction of the connection seems to be a

derivative one from the latter to the former, so that diminutivizing nuances are sec-

ondary to pluralizing ones. With this in mind it is worth reassessing the relevant facts

of reduplication.

4.1.2.2 The links of plurality and diminution in reduplication

From the discussion in 4.1.2.1 it comes less as a surprise that reduplication exhibits the

semantic behavior it does regarding plurality and diminution (and that the process

figures so prominently in Dressler 1968 in spite of not being the focus of attention,

for that matter). For one, the two may intermingle, similar to the manner plurality

and intensity sometimes do (see 4.1.1.2). Again, a handful of cases from the sample

sources should be enough to illustrate: At times, reduplicated nouns in Paiwan are

ambiguous between diminutive and plural (cf. Egli 1990: 35; see 3.2.3.1 for exam-

ples). With some Lavukaleve iteratives like kini„kini ‘keep sniffing around’ from kini

‘smell’, randomness of the action can be implied (cf. Terrill 2003: 36). More intri-

cately, for Wangaaybuwan-Ngiyambaa roots with indeterminate reference it can be

shown that there is a context-dependent link leading from plurality via vagueness to

pejoration (see Donaldson 1980: 270–275). Also recall from 3.3.3 (footnote 56) that

Bybee et al. (1994: 171–172) correlate imperfectivity and intransitivity, consequently

being “led to the conclusion that the intransitive function derives from the imperfec-

tive meaning of reduplication.” In addition, echo-words have been remarked in 3.3.5

to tend towards expressing pluralizing and diminutivizing functions simultaneously.

On the other hand, the numbers for diminution in Table 4.1 are considerably lower

than the ones for plurality and slightly lower than the ones for intensity.

Taken all together, this looks like a specific instantiation of the overall dependency

of diminution on plurality found in various grammatical domains,6 an asymmetry

6Most likely also belonging here are patterns of reduplication deriving game names (see Table 4.4for an example from Tagalog), games essentially being repetitive and often imitative activities,typically played by more than one person and very frequently by children (see also Botha 1988:


which comes out much more pronounced than the one occasionally asserted for redu-

plicative plurality and intensity (see also 4.1.1.3). Accordingly, with a few qualifica-

tions (see below), Figure 4.3 from Fischer (2011) captures the broad facts of redupli-

cation semantics more accurately than Figure 4.1. Moreover, the present approach

has the convenient consequence that reduplicative diminution can be subsumed un-

der the principle of iconicity as well by virtue of its originating from a systematic

extension of prototypically iconic plurality. Next to the above-mentioned frequency

differences there are also typological implications which follow from such a view, to

be addressed in 4.1.6.

Figure 4.3. Iconic roots of reduplication proposed by Fischer (2011: 67)

Meanwhile, Figure 4.3 needs to be qualified in two respects. One concerns the use

of the terms diagrammatic and imagic: Fischer (2011: 65) construes imagic iconicity as

an independent iconic root alongside the diagrammatic one and restricts the former

to “the onomatopoeic imitation of the actual CV-CV syllabic babbling sounds made

122–128 on Afrikaans). Interestingly, names for children’s games in Dutch can be formed by usinga diminutive suffix (see Fischer 2011: 62), but further cross-linguistic evidence would be necessaryto decide whether this reflects a genuine conceptual link or is purely accidental (cf. Fischer 2011:71; see also Regier 1998: 891).


by children.” However, this interpretation seems too narrow, as it has repeatedly been

argued here that both types of iconicity are always present in reduplication (‘more of

the same’), making the process iconically salient to an extraordinary degree. The sec-

ond point is related to the first: While reduplication in child language is not entirely

ruled out as an influential factor in the present study, its impact on reduplicative sys-

tems of the world’s languages is nevertheless regarded as more limited, at best of

a reinforcing nature (cf. Fischer 2011: 67), particularly in nominal diminutives, but

generally rather marginal in its effects (see also 2.2.2, especially footnote 23).7

4.1.3 Other intra-category meanings expressed by reduplication

Having motivated plurality, intensity and (derived) diminution as the iconic core of

reduplication in 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, the next question is how to deal with the remaining

intra-category meaning changes collected in 3.3.4.1 and not classified as belonging

to any of the three broad categories. For the sake of keeping up the investigation’s

momentum, it is useful to look beyond the terminology and closer at the descrip-

tions offered for the cases under scrutiny to see whether they can be argued to fit the

principle of iconicity after all by way of reanalysis or certain semantic shifts.

To begin with, two resembling reduplicative functions are the perfective/proximi-

tive in Luvale and the Tagalog expression of (accidental) result. These can be linked

to an iconic source of iteration and/or intensity and share a sense of completion (cf.

Fischer 2011: 66; see also Figure 4.1 and 4.3). Additionally, they can be said to denote

past actions or events implying an ensuing continued state (cf. Key 1965: 92–93). Note

that this characterization is also able to capture (vestiges of) perfect(ive) reduplication

in members of the Indo-European language family like Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin

or Gothic (see also Fischer 2011: 57, 62), patterns oft cited as counterarguments by

critics of reduplicative iconicity.8

7Ultimately, Fischer (2011: 67) appears to suggest as much herself when writing that “[t]he imagic‘baby’ root is initially separate but has joined the diagrammatic one because it shares meaningextensions or associations [i.e. those put in small capitals in Figure 4.3; TS] with this root” andwhen concluding that “[t]he only form of reduplication that does not quite fit” her otherwise neatexplanatory framework “is the one found in baby-talk” (Fischer 2011: 79).

8A similar explanation of the Indo-European perfect in terms of iconicity avant la lettre can alreadybe found in Wilhelm Wundt’s first volume on Völkerpsychologie (see Schwaiger forthc. c for detailson this and other theories of reduplicative iconicity in 19th century linguistics):


Quite similarly, inchoative reduplication as found in Fijian and Woleaian can be

viewed as involving a component of ongoingness which is intrinsic to the beginning

transition of a state,9 while the Nama “causative” meaning, “more accurately ren-

dered ‘cause something to happen or to be’” (Hagman 1977: 73), seems to implicate a

result. Perhaps less obviously but still relatable to the foregoing notions of plurality

and intensity is attributive adjective formation as described for Hupdë noun-adjective

compounds, for “[a]ttributive adjectives, unlike predicative ones, express a more per-

manent state, a result, a more inherent feature of the noun it accompanies” (Fischer

2011: 74).

Concerning the reduplicative future meanings in Paiwan and Saisiyat there are two

options to tie them to iconicity: One relies on a general grammaticalization path de-

scribed in Bybee et al. (1994: 264–265) as leading from attempt (e.g. ‘try to dance’)

via intention (e.g. ‘going to read/will try reading’) to future (e.g. ‘going to rain’),

which would make the latter a further extension of ultimately iconic diminution (see

4.1.2). The other involves a direct connection to plurality through the possibility that

“future” in these languages really is what for Tagalog, an Austronesian language like

Paiwan and Saisiyat, has been called contemplated aspect (see Schachter & Otanes

1972: 361–363; see also Inkelas 2014: 174), a category sharing the notion of incom-

pleteness with the imperfective (cf. Schachter & Otanes 1972: 67). But verifying the

latter option would need a more in-depth study of the respective aspectual systems.

The last pattern discussed here (agentives, instrumentality and Kwaza remote past

are deferred to 4.1.4 and 4.1.5, respectively) is reduplication of several nouns in Chuk-

chi often claimed to mark case (other nouns use different sorts of coding strategies),

though the present analysis picks up on the one adopted by Stolz (2007: 338–340) for

a similar state of affairs in the related Chukotko-Kamchatkan language Itelmen:

Wie die Verbalformen überhaupt ursprünglich mehr die objectiven zeitlichen Eigenschaften der Vorgänge undZustände als das subjective Verhältniss des Redenden zu ihnen ausdrücken, so liegt insbesondere auch dieBedeutung des Perfectums darin, dass es den aus einer vorangegangenen Handlung folgenden dauerndenZustand bezeichnet. Dadurch erscheint es aber von der Vorstellung der stetigen Dauer nur noch durch eineschmale Linie geschieden. (Wundt 1900: 592)

[As verbal forms in general originally express the objective temporal characteristics of events and states ratherthan the subjective relationship the speaker bears to these events and states, so does the meaning of the perfectin particular also lie in the fact that it denotes the lasting state resulting from a preceding action. However, itthus seems only marginally different from the idea of constant duration. (translation TS)]

9For Woleaian this finds support in Sohn’s (1975: 110) statement that the change-of-a-state meaningis only secondary to a progressive one.


(8) Chukchi nominal reduplication10

a. “Absolutive singular” Absolutive plural

w@t„w@t w@t„w@t-te ‘leaf’

wit„wir wir„wir-ti (bark used for dyeing)

ĳec„ĳec ĳec„ĳec-@-t (fish species)

oc„oc oc„oc-te ‘boss, chief’

n@m„n@m n@m„n@m-@-t ‘settlement’

cot„cot cot„cot-te ‘cushion’

jit„jit jit-ti/jit„jit-ti ‘drop’

j@n„j@n j@n-@-t/j@n„j@n-te ‘fire’

b. “Absolutive singular” Absolutive plural

k@mĳ@„k@m k@mĳ-@-t ‘worm, caterpillar’

eme„em eme-t (type of tree)

irw-@„ir irw-@-t (something sharp, an edged

weapon)

weni„wen weni-t ‘bell’

jilĳe„jil jilĳe-t ‘arctic ground squirrel’

tanN-@„tan tanN-@-t ‘stranger’

jokwa„jow jokwa-t ‘eider duck’

wĳare„war wĳare-t ‘forked stick’

mĳ@cq-@„m@c mĳ@cq-@-t (part of reindeer leg)

ĳitu„ĳit ĳitu-t ‘goose’

ĳer(a)„ĳer ĳerĳa-t ‘iceberg’

(Dunn 1999: 107–108)

At first sight, the examples really appear to suggest that full (8a) and partial (8b)

reduplication of Chukchi nouns expresses absolutive singular case.11 However, an al-

10The absolutive plural suffix -t in these examples has the phonologically and lexically conditioned al-lomorph -ti/-te (cf. Dunn 1999: 111–112). Schwa vowels in Chukchi are epenthetic and introducedduring syllabification (see Dunn 1999: 39–41, 48).

11The obligatory full reduplication of also most of the absolutive plural nouns (marked by a suffixas well) in (8a) can be interpreted as a templatic stem-forming operation devoid of independentmeaning (see 3.1.2.2 and 3.2.4) since it only affects monosyllabic (C)VC bases (cf. Dunn 1999: 107;see also Inkelas 2014: 178).


ternative interpretation more in line with the iconic principle of reduplication is pos-

sible, namely one under which reduplicated nominal stems in Chukchi (and other

languages of the same family) actually express a singulative notion (cf. Fortescue

1998: 74) and historically maybe reflect an earlier noun class distinction (cf. Fortescue

1998: 71, 97). Indeed, many of the entities referred to in (8) naturally come in larger

numbers or amounts (e.g. leaves, fish, drops, worms, caterpillars, trees, ducks and

geese), while for at least some of the others culture-specific reasons for an expected

multiplicity might be invoked (e.g. a place to sleep is usually equipped with more

than one cushion; see Stolz 2007: 341, including footnote 16), making it less surpris-

ing in markedness terms that especially in (8b) the normally more basic conceptual

category of singularity is often formally more complex, i.e. longer (cf. Stolz 2007: 338;

see also Fortescue 1998: 74). Now it remains to explain how these reduplicated sin-

gulatives can be integrated into the iconic semantics of ‘more of the same’. The exten-

sion of the domain of iconicity in the deviation-based model opted for by Stolz (2007:

345), who views the singulative as a further category alongside diminution “whose

conceptual representation involves the prototype plus an element X with subtractive

content”, has already been refuted in 4.1.2 as being too unrestrictive (see also 2.2.2).

But by stating that “[t]he singulative highlights (‘singles out’) one segment of the ref-

erents” of its opposing plurality category, Stolz (2007: 341) opens up another mode

of explanation: to analyze the Chukchi singulative stems as an extension of iconic

intensification very much akin to the limiting specificity and uniqueness meanings of

reduplication (i.e. ‘only/exactly one X’) described in 3.3.2.

In this way, most of the problematic intra-category changes of 3.3.4.1 have been

motivated by generally valid semantic features and extensions that in some cases can

remove reduplicated forms from their more obvious iconic source to a certain extent

but nevertheless keep them within the confines of a systematic network of interre-

lated meanings with diagrammatic and imagic iconicity at their heart (cf. Fischer

2011: 65).


4.1.4 Word-class derivation via reduplication

Perhaps the reduplicative function defying an iconic motivation the most is the seem-

ingly abstract change of word-classes surveyed in 3.3.4.2. Yet, compared to other

morphological means fulfilling the same role, word-class derivation by reduplication

shows two functional characteristics which make it possible to regard this as an in-

stance of reduplicative iconicity as well.

For one, the reduplications in question often additionally exhibit an iconic compo-

nent of plurality (e.g. Luvale repetitive deideophonic nouns), intensity (e.g. Turkish

intensive deadjectival adverbs) or diminution (e.g. Meitei attenuative deverbal ad-

verbs and Swahili denominal verbs based on similarity) next to the inter-category

change itself (see also 2.3.1.1). While the additional semantic effect per se is not too

much of a surprise in this context since “[d]erivational operations typically create a

word of a different syntactic class from that of the base, but will also add further

elements of meaning” (Spencer 1991: 21), the restriction of these further meaning ele-

ments to the ones dominant in word-class preserving reduplication is rather peculiar

and suggestive of the same explanatory basis built on iconicity. This is also true for

reduplicative agent noun formation (‘one who does X’), which more rarely is found

as an intra-category meaning change too (see 3.3.4.1) and can be said to imply ha-

bituality, i.e. ‘one who customarily or habitually does X’ (cf. Key 1965: 93; see also

Dressler 1968: 75; Plank 1981: 52). From here it furthermore seems only a small step

to the formation of instrumentals (e.g. Saisiyat ha„hae:op ‘sieve’ from hae:op ‘sift’, a

pattern possibly linked to the formally identical future instrumental focus function

of verbs; Yeh 2009) as these are intimately connected to agentives, both together fre-

quently constituting a polysemous morphological category in which agentivity is pri-

mary to instrumentality and the latter derived from the former in conformity with the

animacy hierarchy (see Dressler 1986: 524–527).12 Likewise, Fischer (2011: 61) inter-

prets deverbal nouns and adjectives in Jamaican Creole English and Papiamentu as

12Note that Fischer (2011: 66) relates reduplicative instruments to intensity by way of a semanticshift from the result/product of an activity (see also 4.1.3 and Figure 4.3). However, the presentapproach from the plurality angle is to be preferred because it is more comprehensive in also takinginto account the agent meaning of reduplication, one which Fischer (2011) does not treat at all.


(intensity-derived) results or resulting states, an analysis similarly attractive at least

for some Yoruba deverbal gerunds and Éwé deverbal adjectives.

As a second conspicuousness, whether an additional iconic impact as described

above is discernible or not (i.e. in pure transpositions), another restriction obtains

to a large degree in word-class derivation by reduplication: In comparison, almost

exclusively nouns, adjectives and adverbs are derived from various word-classes but

practically no verbs, as can be seen for the present sample from the relevant counts

and the sums in the last row of Table 4.5.

Table 4.5. Occurrences of reduplicative word-class derivation in the 87 sample languages

Derived word-class

Noun Verb Adjective Adverb Total

Noun – 5 7 8 20Verb 16 – 8 2 26Adjective 4 1 – 8 13Preposition 0 0 0 2 2Ideophone 1 0 0 0 1Classifier 0 1 0 0 1

Total 21 7 15 20

What is more, even the seven instances of reduplicatively derived verbal formations

are not all that clear-cut: Three of them concern stative formation from nouns in Mo-

kilese and fellow Malayo-Polynesian languages Fijian and Woleaian, statives consti-

tuting a less prototypical kind of verb taking over many adjectival functions espe-

cially in languages which lack an adjective category in the narrow sense. Somewhat

conversely, some Nama “causative” verbs are derived from so-called simple adjec-

tives (e.g. !arí„!ari ‘harden’ from !arí ‘hard’; Hagman 1977: 73), the latter being a

rather limited but frequently used class of monomorphemic words in the language

(cf. Hagman 1977: 30). However, their restrictions and semantics (often non-physical

or temporary states like ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘clean’, ‘difficult’ or ‘easy’; see Hagman 1977:

30–31) allow the question of whether these are really prototypical adjectives (see be-

low) or perhaps also of a stative and thus at least partly verbal nature, meaning that

there might be no strict word-class change involved here at all. The fact that an adjec-


tive alone can realize the predicate of a stative verb phrase in Nama but in this case

is treated like an active verb (e.g. by being suffixed with the applicative -pa; see Hag-

man 1977: 87) appears to support this view. Of the three genuine verbalizations now

left, the Swahili example has already been mentioned to comprise ultimately iconic

similarity (i.e. diminution) as well, and something similar may also be said about the

two remaining patterns of possessive neutral verb formation in Woleaian: Sohn (1975:

136) points out that reduplicative possessive neutral verbs are derived from classifiers

or inalienable nouns and contrasts them with corresponding transitive verbs formed

with the suffix -li, stating that the latter indicate permanent and the former temporary

ownership (e.g. imwe-li ‘own it [a house]’ and imwe„imw ‘to use as house’, both from

imwe- [classifier for dwellings]). This again looks like a form of diminution in that a

permanent or inalienable state of affairs is attenuated to a temporary one by way of

reduplication.

In sum, the rareness of derived verbs neatly chimes in with a recent observation

made for the APiCS sample of pidgin and creole languages (see 2.3.1.3), namely that

reduplicative word-class derivation “never involves a change to a verb, creating only

nouns and adjectives in our data” (Haspelmath & the APiCS Consortium 2013: 101),

and consequently calls for an explanation. Kiyomi (1995: 1151) refuses to interpret the

changing of a word-class as iconic, on the contrary taking this function as “[a] piece of

strong evidence that reduplication can be used noniconically” (see also 2.2.2). How-

ever, iconicity obviously plays a role in the many cases where word-class derivation

and notions of plurality, intensity or diminution go hand in hand, while for the more

purely transpositional instances an iconic motivation is also conceivable when the un-

derlying conceptual differences between word-classes per se are examined. For the

latter, Givón (2001: 50) suggests the semantic feature of temporal stability as the most

important distinguishing criterion, by which he means the rate of change over time of

the concepts typically expressed by the different classes of words. Accordingly, “the

properties of prototypical nouns change only little over repeated perceptual scans”

(Givón 2001: 51), prototypical verbs “are coherent bundles of experience of relatively

short duration” (Givón 2001: 52) and adjectives have a status in-between, the more

prototypical ones showing the durability of nouns (e.g. durable physical properties

like size, shape or color), the less prototypical ones echoing the temporariness of verbs


(e.g. non-physical or temporary states; cf. Givón 2001: 53). This is summarized with

examples from English in the following continuous scale of temporal stability (cf.

Givón 2001: 54):

(9) The scale of temporal stability

most stable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . least stable

tree, green sad, know work shoot

N ADJ ADJ V V V

That, as discussed above, almost no verbs are derived by reduplication and that, on

the other hand, most derivations are deverbal in the present sample (see the sums in

the last column of Table 4.5) attests to a robust tendency for reduplicative word-class

derivation to proceed from the less time-stable to the more time-stable classes. Addi-

tional support comes from the fact that in general one mostly finds nominalizations

(see the relevant counts in Table 4.5),13 which yield the most time-stable class of all. So

if increasing temporal stability vis-à-vis instability is a typical trait of reduplicatively

derived words, this can again be linked to the ‘more of the same’ principle of iconic-

ity as there is a conceptual affinity to the more concrete quantitative increase found

in extendedness vis-à-vis punctualness, for example (see [6]). Thus one can explain

why prototypical, temporally unstable dynamic verbs (perhaps with the exception

of instances that include independent iconic additions of meaning as in Swahili or

Woleaian; see 4.1.6) are exempt from being derived by reduplication as well as why

less prototypical, temporally stabler stative verbs may be reduplicatively derived and

interpreted as iconically motivated (see also Cusic 1981: 64 for stativity as a part of

verbal plurality).

Almost half of the adjectivizations in Table 4.5 are denominal, demonstrating word-

class changing reduplication to not decrease temporal stability below a certain thresh-

old, because at least prototypical adjectives occupy the same space on the scale in

(9) as nouns (cf. Givón 2001: 53). Moreover, denominal adjectives that are used

attributively can be said to have acquired the additional iconic aspect of perma-

13Interestingly, Pfau & Steinbach (2006: 154) list nominalization as a typical modality-independentfunction of reduplication occurring in sign languages as well.


nence/result/inherentness (see 4.1.3; for the adjectival feature of inherentness see

also Givón 2001: 54).

Finally, although there is not a single deadverbial formation, adverbs are the word-

class second most often derived by reduplication (in fact nearly as often as nouns)

according to Table 4.5. They are also the structurally least homogeneous and cross-

linguistically least universal of the major word-classes (cf. Givón 2001: 87). Conse-

quently, their heterogeneity may help to explain their high derivative frequency (after

all, the label adverb readily serves as a miscellaneous category for want of a deeper

analysis of individual cases), while their relative scarcity across languages makes it

less surprising that they do not figure as bases for reduplicative word-class derivation

in the present sample.

4.1.5 Semantic restrictions of affix reduplication

Non-recursive reduplication of affixes is rare but occurs in several languages of the

sample. In terms of iconicity one can ask whether the resulting meaning of affix

reduplication is iconic and, if so, whether this is directly connected to the seman-

tics of the particular morphological subpart that is reduplicated (see Inkelas 2014:

184). The first question can be answered in the affirmative in almost all of the at-

tested cases, of which Fijian greater number, Amele iterativity and Luvale intensive

perfective/proximitive have already been illustrated in 3.1.2.5, 3.2.1.3 and 3.3.4.1, re-

spectively. The list is completed by Hungarian verbal prefix reduplication for itera-

tive actions (10) and by Kwaza reduplicated person markers expressing habituality

(11a) as well as the reduplication of other Kwaza bound morphemes like classifiers

for intensifying purposes (11b):

(10) Hungarian

el„el-jön [ITER„away-come] ‘He/she/it comes occasionally.’

oda„oda-néz [ITER„there-look] ‘He/she/it looks there occasionally.’

meg„meg-néz [ITER„PFV-look] ‘He/she/it looks at (it) frequently.’

(Tompa 1968: 51, 73; for the prefixes see Kiefer 1995/1996: 176)


(11) Kwaza

a. hyhyrwa-xa„xa-’ta=xa-ki

walk-2„2-COSUB=2-DECL

‘You are always walking.’ (van der Voort 2003: 87)

b. hu-nu„’nu-ki

smoke-CLF„CLF-DECL

‘It is full of smoke (e.g. when a field burns).’ (van der Voort 2003: 89)

The answer to the second question is less definite, since apart from the Fijian col-

lective/distributive prefix reduplicated for greater number an iconic relation between

the unreduplicated and reduplicated affixes is not immediately identifiable in the ex-

amples just referred to. However, note that verbal “prefixes” in Hungarian as in (10)

“often overlap with adverbials and postpositions”, making them “one of the most un-

stable grammatical categories” (Kiefer 1995/1996: 176) in the language. Specifically,

their fairly concrete semantics and transparent meaning contribution to the verb as

a whole let them appear akin to members of a compound-like construction and thus

intuitively more amenable to modification along the general lines of reduplicative

iconicity than an abstract affix.14 The latter argument may likewise be employed with

respect to the reduplication of classifiers in Kwaza as these also add a relatively con-

crete meaning component to a noun (e.g. -nu in [11b] is glossed as ‘powder, smoke,

dust, hair’ by van der Voort 2003: 89) and presumably are derived from genuine

nouns in the first place. On the other hand, reduplicating a seemingly abstract forma-

tive like the applied in Luvale (grammatically adding an object to a verb; see Horton

1949: 89) for a sense of completion and continuity (see 4.1.3) becomes less mysterious

when taking into account that the unreduplicated suffix semantically “adds definition

and emphasis to locatives used with the verb” (Horton 1949: 89) and that in general

the applied’s “primary force seems to be that of motion toward an object” (Horton

1949: 91). These notions can be argued to already belong to the iconic realms of inten-

14There is a precedent for this in Fijian compounds, which only reduplicate their first element follow-ing the pattern root1 + root2 Ñ root1 + root1 + root2 (cf. Schütz 1985: 238), whereby a prefix like lau-(expressing stativity) also behaves as if it were a compound member (cf. Schütz 1985: 239). Inke-las (2012: 359) discusses the similar case of noun-noun compounds in the Southern Uto-Aztecanlanguage Tohono O’odham, in which pluralization is achieved by reduplicating either compoundmember or both without difference in meaning.


sity and plurality, respectively, so they are merely reinforced when reduplicated for

perfectivity/proximity.

Two of the remaining affixes serve as reduplicative bases in an iconically unmoti-

vated fashion but evince certain additional properties that at least weaken their ap-

parent status as candidates for pure affix reduplication: Amele iteratives via redu-

plicated object markers are optionally formed by reduplicating the verb stem as well

along with the suffix,15 while the Kwaza habitual aspect formation in (11a) has a

structure reminiscent of the quotative construction exemplified in (12):

(12) Kwaza quotatives

a. kukui’hy-da-’ki=da-ki

ill-1SG-DECL=1SG-DECL

‘I am/was saying that I am/was ill.’ (van der Voort 2003: 87)

b. da’ny hyhyrwa-a-’ni=xa-re

still walk-1PL-EXH=2-INTER

‘Are we still going for a walk?’

(literally: ‘Do you still say: “Let’s walk!”?’; van der Voort 2003: 88)

In these constructions “the quoted utterance is morphologically embedded in an extra

layer of person and mood inflexions, the first layer representing the quoted event,

and the second layer representing the event of quoting” (van der Voort 2003: 87).

Although looking like reduplication on the surface, the person and mood morphemes

in (12a) are actually repeated here, and in (12b) diverging person and mood marking

is used (cf. van der Voort 2003: 88). Now, whatever the exact relationship between

habituals and quotatives (van der Voort 2003 does not elaborate on this issue), their

formal resemblance and the presence of the cosubordinative marker -ta in the former

(cf. van der Voort 2003: 88) suggest that something syntactic is going on in both

construction types and that a purely morphological interpretation of habituality in

Kwaza is dubious.

As the final case in need of discussion, Kwaza has also been shown in 3.3.4.1 to have

a further pattern of reduplicated person marking, which moreover explicitly has been15Again, there is a similar pattern in Fijian, where verbs derived by certain monosyllabic prefixes

reduplicate for frequentativity in the following way: prefix + root Ñ prefix + prefix + root + root(cf. Schütz 1985: 236; see also Schütz 1985: 240).


claimed to lack iconicity: remote past tense formation. But despite this characteriza-

tion, something intrinsically prolongated or intensive nevertheless appears to cling to

a category like remote past. Furthermore, it is striking that affix reduplication in such

instances obligatorily occurs with a nominalizer (cf. van der Voort 2003: 81), nominal-

ization having been identified in 4.1.4 as a relatively common reduplicative function

with the iconic motivation of increasing the temporal stability between word-classes.

Summing up, the facts point to affixes only being directly and exclusively acces-

sible for morphological reduplication when they are semantically compatible with

the principle of iconicity, pace Inkelas (2012: 359). Such compatibility exists for the

Fijian collective/distributive prefix, Hungarian verbal “prefixes”, Kwaza classifiers

and the Luvale applied suffix. By contrast, iconically incompatible object suffixes in

Amele and person suffixes in Kwaza are each accompanied by additional structural

peculiarities when reduplicated, disqualifying affix reduplication as the sole decisive

process in the respective constructions.

4.1.6 Typological implications for reduplication meanings

In keeping with a cornerstone of the Galilean style of inquiry (see [1]), this section

time and again has demonstrated how an unwillingness to reject the theory of redu-

plicative iconicity in light of superficially non-confirming data (e.g. diminution and

various other intra-category meanings as well as word-class derivation) after some

deeper analyses may lead to the discovery that most of these data have no factual

basis and as a consequence do not pose a real threat to the theory (cf. Botha 1988:

7). Accordingly, the semantic structure of reduplicants in the present sample can be

accommodated within an iconic network of meanings responsible for several cross-

linguistic generalizations.

At the outset, consider the typological implications for reduplication semantics pro-

posed by Kajitani (2005: 102) on the basis of a smaller data set (see also 2.3.1.3):

(13) Augmentation V Intensification Ñ [Attenuation V Diminution]

a. Aug V Int V [Att V Dim] (for 81.25% of Kajitani’s sample)

b. Aug V [Att V Dim] V Int (for 18.75% of Kajitani’s sample)


Overall, reduplicative decrease of quantity (diminution) and/or decrease of degree

(attenuation) implies increase of degree (intensification) and/or increase of quantity

(augmentation; cf. Kajitani 2005: 93, 100). As the author finds a few languages that

express attenuation without expressing intensification (see Kajitani 2005: 101), the im-

plicational relation between these functions is merely a statistical preference (marked

by the double arrow and broken down into hierarchies [13a] and [13b]), while all the

other dependencies (i.e. diminution implying attenuation and augmentation as well

as augmentation being implied by intensification) are of a universal nature (marked

by the triple arrows in [13]; cf. Kajitani 2005: 94). Results of this sort already cover

some of the same ground as the study at hand but are not the whole story by far.

For one, the larger collection of data summarized in Table A.2 of the Appendix

confirms that plurality (i.e. augmentation in Kajitani’s terminology) is implied by

diminution (which here includes Kajitani’s attenuation):16

(14) diminution Ą plurality

Following from the cross-categoriality of reduplication established in Section 3.3, this

implication expands to all word-classes an observation made exclusively for verbs

by Bybee (1985: 152), namely that “[i]n no case [. . . ] is this [i.e. a verbal diminutive

meaning ‘to do something a little’; TS] the only meaning signalled by reduplication.”

What is more, the distributional statement in (14) can be taken as a reflex of the fact

that diminution is indeed a semantic extension of plurality. Last but not least, the

special relationship between plurality and diminution offers a reason why intensity

is not implied by diminution in (13b) and many languages of the present sample (e.g.

Kayardild, Nyangumarta, Saisiyat, Tukang Besi and Zulu), for the latter two notions

are not semantically linked in any comparable manner.

On the other hand, despite the near-universality of reduplicative plurality in the

languages under scrutiny, reinterpreting Chukchi absolutive singular case as a sin-

gulative notion similar to specificity and uniqueness leaves at least this language

16The universal dependence of diminution on attenuation in the more fine-grained distinction of (13)probably reflects the stronger reinforcement of nominal diminutives by generally less influentialpatterns found in child language (see 4.1.2.2), which could also be responsible for the impressionthat reduplicative attenuation of verbs and adjectives is more frequent than the respective diminu-tion of nouns.


solely with an intensifying function of reduplication. This speaks against intensity

implying plurality as in (13) and consequently for the conceptual independence of

the former in terms of iconicity, albeit in a slightly less salient iconic fashion due to

the non-consecutivity (i.e. cumulativity) of the intensive process (see also Kajitani

2005: 102–103).

It remains to take a closer look at the rest of the other functions in the respective two

columns of Table A.2 of the Appendix, consisting of several intra-category changes as

well as the change of word-class. Though relatively rare and unusual from superficial

inspection, most of the former have been analyzed in the preceding as belonging to

iconic plurality (including diminution) and/or intensity after all. The latter function,

on the other hand, is more frequent and appears to be typologically more faceted.

To that effect, the APiCS generalization that reduplicative word-class change im-

plies independent plurality and/or intensity (cf. Haspelmath & the APiCS Consor-

tium 2013: 100; see also 2.3.1.3) cannot be confirmed here straightaway because two

languages seemingly display only the first of these functions. However, Burmese

deadjectival adverb-forming reduplication (e.g. myan„myan ‘quickly’ from myan ‘to

be fast’) itself can be said to contain iconicity because of an additional disjunctive-

distributive force (i.e. ‘more or less fast/fast to some degree or other’; cf. Lehman

2001: 107). Likewise, Éwé denominal adverbialization includes iconic distribution

(e.g. afí-siá-afí [place-DEM.PROX-place] ‘everywhere’; Claudi 2009), while the lan-

guage’s other reduplicative patterns (i.e. nominalization and adjectivization, both

deverbal) conform precisely to the kind of increased temporal stability that has been

argued to establish most word-class derivations as iconically pluralizing already in

themselves.

In fact, the properties just mentioned suggest a more nuanced type of generaliza-

tion than the one in the APiCS:

(15) Word-class changing reduplication not yielding more time-stable classes from

its respective bases is only possible if at least some semantic aspect of iconicity

(i.e. plurality, intensity and/or diminution) is added simultaneously by one and

the same reduplicative pattern in a language.


Adverb derivation provides the ideal testing ground for this hypothesis since adverbs

are second most frequently derived according to Table 4.5 but at the same time lie

outside the scale of temporal stability in (9): As it happens, next to Burmese and Éwé

above, (15) is supported by explicit statements about and/or translations of adverbial

formations in Abkhaz (additional conveyance that an “action occurs over a period,

possibly at intervals”; Hewitt 1979: 253), Amele (additional “similarity or likeness”;

Roberts 1991: 122), Chachi (additional spatial extension; see examples in 3.3.4.2), Chi-

nese (additional intensification of adjectives that can also be used adverbially; cf. Lin

2001: 72–73), Gayo (additional reciprocity; see example in 3.3.4.2), Hindi (additional

simultaneity; cf. McGregor 1972: 157), Meitei (additional diminution; see 3.3.4.2),

Papiamentu (additional distribution; cf. Kouwenberg 2003: 162–163), Quichua (ad-

ditional simultaneity; cf. Cole 1982: 62–63), Turkish (additional intensity; see 3.3.4.2)

and Yoruba (additional habituality; cf. Adewole 1997: 118). This leaves only a mi-

nority of three languages (Fijian, Indonesian and Japanese) for which relevant in-

formation on iconic semantic additions to adverb derivation by reduplication is not

immediately obvious in the data sources. Needless to say, to settle the issue entirely

would demand an in-depth (re-)investigation of these specific cases, but the overall

asymmetry presented here is impressive and quite telling already as it is. Moreover,

generalization (9) is able to capture the only dynamic verbs of the sample that are de-

rived contrarily to the direction of increasing temporal stability, for both the Swahili

and the Woleaian instances have been demonstrated to display additional iconic as-

pects of similarity and attenuation, respectively, which are subtypes of the diminution

domain.

In conclusion, the range taken up by reduplicative semantics is a fairly constrained

one in treading on conceptually motivated pathways laid out by the principle of

iconicity. This coding strategy serves as a cognitively grounded morphological ba-

sis which is flexible enough to be implemented in different grammars with all their

commonalities as well as idiosyncrasies and furthermore is responsible for a number

of cross-linguistic implicational relationships in a functional typology of reduplica-

tion.


4.2 The typology of reduplication forms: Preferred form

All the major formal approaches to reduplication reviewed in Section 2.1 are in one

way or the other concerned with BR identity and the ways in which it is achieved

or avoided in languages. Given that reduplicative identity avoidance has repeatedly

been shown to be driven by markedness factors pertaining to the (supra-)segmental

level and higher levels in a hierarchy of phonological units, it is worthwhile to look

for typological generalizations to that effect, the expectation being that partial redu-

plication only shows phonologically marked reduplicant structures in the presence

of less marked ones within the same language (see 2.1.4).

To start with, it is important to stake out exactly which constituents can be involved

in partial reduplication in order to evaluate their various markedness patterns and

the way in which the latter are related. In the interest of retaining the categories

involved as restricted as possible, based on the phonological scale (5b) in Section

3.2 the following excerpt of the phonological (or prosodic) hierarchy (see McCarthy

& Prince 1993a: 84, 1993b: 45, 1996: 6; Fitzpatrick-Cole 1994) is deemed enough to

grasp the crucial typological characteristics of reduplication phonology:

(16) Relevant spectrum of the phonological hierarchy in reduplication

...

Foot

Syllable

Segment

...

Since it is assumed here that morphology and phonology in reduplication basically

work on separate levels (which can interact in potentially complex ways, however;

see Section 1.2), by (16) this means that it is not necessary to rely on mixed categories

like the phonological (or prosodic) word, for example.17 This singling out of lower17The phonological word is normally found higher up in (16), along with domains like the phonolog-

ical phrase, intonational phrase and utterance (see Fitzpatrick-Cole 1994: 10). Directly beneath the


hierarchical levels and the concomitant separation of phonology and morphology at

large echoes Stewart’s (2008: 188) reservations that a theoretical frame like the one of

prosodic morphology

sees no obstacle to positing a hierarchy:

root > morpheme > syllable > C–V skeleton > segment > feature

The comparability of morphemes and syllables is limited, since meaning attends

the one but not the other. The question of where (or whether) to place ‘foot’ in

the above shows the grafting of one dimension into another. To base an analysis

on correspondences between the phonological and the morphological, especially

when one is presuming to propose universal constraints (as OT analyses explic-

itly presume [see 2.1.2; TS]), is to open oneself up to criticism of allowing too

liberal a formal representation.

The snippet in (16) includes the foot at its top, but as a clearly phonological entity

and not as an instance of the unclear blending of linguistic dimensions criticized by

Stewart. Higher entities like phonological words or intonational phrases are out be-

cause something morphological or syntactic (i.e. meaningful) clings to them as well.

Excluding further phonological entities like morae and distinctive features, on the

other hand, is rather an analytical simplification, they mainly being theoretical tools

with which respective properties of syllable weight and segment specification can be

described in more detail (see also McCarthy & Prince 1993a: 84). However, for the

general characterization of relative markedness relations aimed at here this kind of

descriptive specificity is not required; it suffices to characterize syllables as heavy or

light, vowels as long or short, segments as carrying one tone or another, and so on.

In what follows, foot (4.2.1), syllable (4.2.2), single-segment (4.2.3) and fixed-seg-

ment (4.2.4) reduplicants are evaluated individually before a total typological picture

of formal reduplicant structure is given in 4.2.5. In the discussion synchronic aspects

are in focus, though some diachronic considerations are undertaken as well, demon-

strating that in reduplication phonology no less preferred forms exist within a lan-

guage in the absence of more preferred ones and that linguistic change attacks worst

forms first, in line with the maxims of Vennemann’s (1988) structural preference laws.

syllable one may at times find the mora (see Fitzpatrick-Cole 1994: 25), while a further step downfrom the segment there is sometimes argued to be the level of (distinctive) features (see also below).


4.2.1 Feet

As summarized in 3.2.3.1, foot reduplication is found in all positions vis-à-vis the

base and exhibits various degrees of formal complexity. Taking into account factors

like the syllabification of vowel sequences and extrametricality, reduplicant feet are

restricted to binarity in their syllabic make-up (i.e. consisting of two syllables only),

while (supra-)segmentally they frequently show deviations (i.e. independence) from

the corresponding foot structures of their bases.

A very typical variation of phonological markedness in reduplicative systems per-

tains to the occurrence of diversely marked (e.g. excessively covered or naked and/or

heavy, i.e. closed and/or long) and maximally unmarked (i.e. minimally covered and

light, i.e. open and short) second syllables in reduplicant feet (the phonology of first

syllables generally varies much less in bisyllabic reduplicants of the data; see also Mc-

Carthy et al. 2012: 190). In this regard, some languages may solely show unmarked

final foot constituents, whereas others may additionally make use of more marked

ones too. An instructive case of the latter sort is provided by the Nyangumarta lan-

guage, which as a partial pattern only displays initial foot reduplication, although

of two formal varieties. The more common one can be captured by an (in the above

sense) unmarked CVCV template (17a), which by some speakers and under certain

structural circumstances (see Sharp 2004: 79, 108 for inter-speaker variability as well

as phonological and morphological details) can be rendered more marked by includ-

ing a consonant at the end (17b):

(17) Nyangumarta CVCV- and CVCVC- reduplication18

a. Ngani„nga-nikinyi.

REPV„eat-IPFV

‘S/he was/is grazing around.’ (Sharp 2004: 78)

b. wirlarn„wirla-rnikinyi [ATT„hit-IPFV] ‘S/he patted/tapped it.’

karliny„karli-nyi [ATT„dig-NFUT] ‘S/he scratched it.’

(Sharp 2004: 79; for other verbal morphology see Sharp 2004: Chapter 5)

18According to Sharp (2004: 38, Table 2.1), the following letter sequences in the examples each standfor one consonant phoneme only: rn (post-alveolar nasal), ny (palatal nasal), ng (velar nasal) and rl(post-alveolar lateral).


But there are as well languages exclusively forming reduplicant feet whose second

syllable has to be generalized as being of a potentially complex nature without im-

posing any simplifying restrictions. Yet, what is striking about these is that the re-

spective foot structures preferentially appear after the base and/or they are not the

sole partial patterns at work in a specific system of reduplication.

An important insight from phonotactics says that there are so-called “edge-of-con-

stituent effects, where expected phonotactic patterns are disrupted in peripheral po-

sition” (McCarthy & Prince 1993a: 128), and often this involves syllables to be strictly

or preferably open in a language except when word-final (see McCarthy & Prince

1993a: 127 for an example from the Tupian language Kamayurá). The latter situa-

tion, then, could explain the observed connection in languages between marked foot

reduplication only and final position, as the expectation of at least some unmarked

pattern to concurrently exist is overridden by a periphery effect holding at the right

edge of words (see also Alderete et al. 1999: 349). Karok with its postposed CVCVC

reduplicants in (18) illustrates:

(18) Karok final foot reduplication

iftakan- ‘to stick, adhere’ iftakan„tákan ‘to be sticky’

ĳakxárap ‘to scratch (once)’ ĳakxarap„xárap ‘to scratch (repeatedly)’

(Bright 1957: 91)

The same language simultaneously exemplifies reliance on further reduplicative pat-

terns situated lower in the phonological hierarchy than feet, namely syllable redupli-

cants (see Bright 1957: 90), manifesting a general type of partial reduplication looked

at more closely next.

4.2.2 Syllables

Syllable reduplication has been demonstrated in 3.2.3.2 to occur in all possible po-

sitions with respect to the base and with all sorts of complexities as well as simpli-

fications. Concerning the latter, the most important pattern on which reduplicative

syllables seem to pivot is the CV reduplicant, comprising the ideal or optimal (in

other words: most unmarked) structure of the syllable (cf. Vennemann 1988: 65):


(19) CV reduplication in several languages

a. Asmat

cikim ‘to wash something’ ci„cikim ‘to wash off, to clean’

(Voorhoeve 1965: 310)

b. Bukiyip

r1pok ‘cut’ r1„r1pok ‘hack up’

(Dobrin 2001: 36)

c. Maung

Niugi ‘I show’ Niugi„gi ‘I often show’

(Capell & Hinch 1970: 82)

While some languages possess only such partial reduplicants, in other systems more

marked syllabic ones are permitted in addition, like CVC and CCV in Lakota (ex-

pressing plurality or intensity mostly in verbs and adverbs, but sometimes also with

nouns and postpositions; cf. Ingham 2003: 8):

(20) Lakota syllable reduplications

a. c’epa ‘be fat’ c’ep„c’epa

t’oka ‘be different’ t’ok„t’oka

etaNhaN ‘from’ e„taN„taNhaN

b. bleza ‘be clear’ ble„bleza

gleska ‘be spotted’ gle„gleska

glega ‘be striped’ gle„glega

(Ingham 2003: 8, 9)

As with feet in 4.2.1, there appears to be an edge-of-constituent correlation in some

languages which exclusively employ non-ideal or suboptimal syllable reduplication

of a certain complexity, restricting the occurrence of such patterns to the base-final

position. On the other hand, one recurring phenomenon calls for the reanalysis of a

few initial CVC reduplicants that sometimes apparently constitute the sole syllabic

pattern in a language, as in Oromo:


(21) Oromo CVC- reduplication

a. inníi barc’úmáa bab„baas-e

he stool PL„take.out-PST

‘He took out a stool often./He took out a lot of stools.’ (Owens 1985: 84;

see also 3.3.1)

b. booll-án d’ed„d’éer-oo

hole-PL PL„deep-F

‘The holes are deep.’ (Owens 1985: 93; for gender see Owens 1985: 94–96)

Initially formalized as C1V1C2. . .ÑC1V1C1-C1V1C2. . . by Owens (1985: 84), the author

elsewhere insinuates that the second consonant in these reduplicants is actually the

first consonant of their base geminated (cf. Owens 1985: 93). Accordingly, it makes

sense to view reduplication and gemination here as two distinct processes, yielding

an unmarked CV reduplicant (note also the non-transfer of high tone in [21b]) and

an additional geminate consonant which conspire to give the impression of complex

reduplication.19

4.2.3 Segments

In 3.2.3.3 it has been noted that single-segment reduplication can take place in almost

every position relative to the base and that it can be inherently difficult to distinguish

reduplicated segments from long vowels or geminated consonants. Vowel redupli-

cation is most elusive in this regard, and besides being absent from the end of bases

it is seldom the result of a reduplicative process specifically targeting vowels. Much

more often it is one variety of syllable reduplication which as a whole depends on the

(supra-)segmental make-up of the relevant portion of the base. Nahuatl initial vowel

reduplication (22c) is an example of this (cf. [22a, b]):

19Confirmation that this is a feasible analysis comes from formal work on Yaqui: Next to severalother reduplicative patterns, Harley & Amarillas (2003: 115) describe one “in which the CV of thebase is copied into the reduplicant and in addition the initial C of the base is geminated”, shortlyafterwards explicitly stating that this pattern is “made up of primary reduplication plus a separateprocess of gemination” (Harley & Amarillas 2003: 117; emphasis TS).


(22) Nahuatl (C)V(:)- reduplication

a. xotla ‘burn’ xo„xotla ‘burn intensely’

b. witeki ‘thump, strike’ wi„witeki ‘beat, hit over and over again’

c. ihtowa ‘say’ i„ihtowa ‘say over and over’

(Tuggy 2003: 101, 111)

Consonants, by contrast, can attach to their bases initially, internally as well as finally

and in relation to vowels are far more clearly non-syllabic when reduplicated on their

own. In terms of markedness both kinds of segment reduplication are rather marked

as to their hierarchical phonological (and prosodic) status compared to unmarked CV.

Consequently, it is nothing out of the ordinary that there is no language that only

shows vowel reduplication in its partial reduplicative system. At the same time, how-

ever, there are languages which solely rely on consonantal reduplication for a partial

pattern. But again, a phonotactic right edge effect already described for complex

reduplicative feet and syllables in 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, respectively, is discernible for some

of these. A seemingly contradicting state of affairs is presented by Abkhaz initial con-

sonant reduplication (23), though note that in a different source at least one instance

of this has been suggested to ultimately hail from a fully reduplicated root (e.g. a-š„šá

‘fat’ from *ša„ša via *š@„ša; Chirikba 2003: 27):

(23) Abkhaz C- reduplication

à-r-x„xa-ra [ART-CAUS-INT„pull-MSD] ‘to pull tight’

a-x@-ž˝„ž˝a-rà [ART-PREV-PL.OBJ„rip.off-MSD] ‘to rip off (plural object)’

a-š„ša-rà [ART-PL„split-MSD] ‘to split into pieces’

(Hewitt 1979: 269; for other morphology see Hewitt 1979: Chapter 2)

Moreover, a morphological overriding factor is arguably decisive for internal conso-

nant reduplication in Arabic, illustrated by the following cases repeated from 3.2.3.3

for convenience:

(24) Arabic -C- reduplication

kasar ‘to break’ ka„s„sar ‘to break into many pieces’

kad¯

ib ‘lying’ ka„d¯„d

¯ab ‘lying (habitual)’

(El Zarka 2009: 51)


For a root-and-pattern language like Arabic, El Zarka (2005: 372) states that “[i]f the

consonantal root is considered as a genuine morphological entity, there is no prob-

lem in classifying the repetition of part of that root as reduplication.” Thus, by virtue

of the difference between lexical consonant radicals and grammatical vowel patterns

in such languages, reduplicative consonants should primarily be evaluated morpho-

logically instead of phonologically, thereby subordinating phonological unmarked-

ness to the specific demands of this kind of morphology. This could also be invoked

for (final) consonant reduplication in Hebrew (see Levkovych 2007: 154–155), since

“the doubling of bare segments is a legitimate form of morphological reduplication,

connected to the morphological type of Semitic” (El Zarka 2005: 388). But Hebrew

additionally has fixed-segment reduplicants, one remaining manifestation of partial

reduplication in need of closer examination.

4.2.4 Fixed segmentism

As determined in 3.2.3.4, partial reduplication with fixed segments cuts across all

the foregoing reduplicative types save the last.20 Often the respective contributions

of prespecified vowels and consonants serve to improve the markedness of a given

pattern, but not always.

Abstracting away from the invariant segmental material, many feet and syllables

with prespecification are captured by the unmarked CVCV and CV templates from

4.2.1 and 4.2.2, respectively. Indeed, in a language like Gayo an initial version of the

latter is the only form of partial reduplication:

(25) Gayo C@- reduplication (with -en)

a. kude ‘horse’ ke„kude ‘horses’

tir ‘early’ te„tir ‘very early’

b. këber ‘news’ ke„këber-en ‘folk-tale’

(Eades 2005: 55, 58; see also 3.3.3)

Generally, it turns out that fixed-segment reduplicative patterns fit seamlessly with

the systematics of pure reduplication laid open so far for the languages investigated20However, Ahenakew & Wolfart (1983: 371) describe an interesting variety of Cree initial (C)a(:)

reduplication where stems starting with a vowel appear only with the long or short fixed a. Unfor-tunately, the authors merely give an example in which the stem-initial vowel itself is a (see 5.2.8).


here: In most systems, complex structures are accompanied by simpler ones, albeit

the latter do not necessarily have to contain fixed segments themselves. Conversely,

fixed-segment configurations can be the most unmarked reduplicative instances in

a language alongside more marked ones that do not employ such segments. Where

there are no simple types whatsoever, fixed segmentism may once again exhibit edge

effects on the right side like other more complex partial reduplications, as in the fol-

lowing from Hebrew (see also 4.2.3):

(26) Hebrew -CaC reduplication

batsal ‘onion’ batsal„tsal ‘little onion’

’adom ‘red’ ’adam„dam21 ‘reddish’

tsahov ‘yellow’ tsahav„hav ‘yellowish’

(Levkovych 2007: 152)

Lastly, for the exceptional behavior of Turkish (and, presumably, genetically related

Mongolian too) an alternative morphological account can be offered. The sole partial

reduplicative pattern found there is initial and shows varied fixed segmentism of an

apparently complex nature (the complexity of Mongolian being much less diverse in

this respect, showing only initial [C]Vw reduplication; see Svantesson et al. 2005: 58):

(27) Turkish (C)Vp(A)/s/r(Il/Am)/m-22reduplication

a. eski ‘old’ ep„eski ‘very old’

sarı ‘yellow’ sap„sarı ‘bright yellow’

katı ‘hard’ kas„katı ‘hard as a rock’

temiz ‘clean’ ter„temiz ‘clean as a pin’

siyah ‘black’ sim„siyah ‘pitch black’

b. gündüz ‘daytime, by day’ güpe„gündüz ‘in broad daylight’

yalnız ‘alone’ yap(a)„yalnız ‘all alone’

çıplak ‘naked’ çır(ıl)„çıplak ‘stark naked’

parça ‘piece’ param„parça ‘smashed to pieces’

(Göksel & Kerslake 2005: 90, 91)

21Prespecified a here also appearing in the base portion of reduplicated word forms is reminiscent ofidentity phenomena called back-copying, “in which phonology that is derived in the reduplicantis replicated in the base” (McCarthy & Prince 1999: 243; see also McCarthy & Prince 1995: 41).

22In which quality prespecified A and I exactly surface depends on vowel harmony.


The normal situation is exemplified in (27a), while (27b) presents some less common,

partly optional variants that are longer and potentially even more complex. Göksel &

Kerslake (2005: 91) explain that the occurrence of fixed p, s, r and m is at least to a cer-

tain degree dependent on dissimilatory tendencies towards the consonantism of the

base. Building inter alia on this allomorphic aspect of Turkish partial reduplication,

Yu (n.d.: 12) proposes an analysis in which the fixed segments under scrutiny actually

instantiate a linker morpheme separate from the reduplicant. When this differentiat-

ing stance is adopted, the marked character of the reduplicative pattern dissolves, for

reduplication per se now only comprises a (C)V template and the fixed segmentism

is treated as an independent morphological entity, i.e. “essentially an infix between

the reduplicant and the base” (Yu n.d.: 26).

4.2.5 Typological implications for reduplication forms

Proceeding from the individual findings of this section to an overall typology of for-

mal reduplicant structure, at the outset an unwarranted truism from reduplication

research needs to be dispensed with once and for all: It is not true that partial redu-

plication implies full reduplication in a language (see 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.2; see also Stolz

et al. 2011: 119–120); although the latter is much more frequent (being the exclusive

pattern in Asháninka, Basque, Dagaare, Dani, Georgian, Krio, Martuyhunira, Persian,

Tok Pisin and Yanomámi, among others) than the former and the majority is held by

languages that use both kinds of reduplication (see Table 4.6), counterevidence for the

generalization just mentioned comes from Chamorro, Cree, Hupdë, Nahuatl, Oromo,

Pima Bajo and Yaqui in the present sample.

Table 4.6. Occurrences of broad reduplication forms in the 87 sample languages

Full only Partial only Full and partial

35 7 45

Within the full domain, reduplication of dependent affixes implies more independent

units like words, stems or roots to be reduplicated as well in a language (see also

Schwaiger 2011b: 134). But the bulk of formal generalizations pertains to synchronic

and some diachronic aspects of partial reduplication alone as discussed below.


4.2.5.1 Synchronic perspectives

While most formally oriented studies on reduplication work out the detailed mechan-

ics of the process intra-linguistically without too much emphasis on cross-linguistic

implications, Urbanczyk (2006: 180) is a rare example of how the particularistic for-

mal perspective (GTT in her case; see 2.1.2) is cast into a bigger picture in the sense

that she discovers a typological “correlation between the size or shape of reduplicants

and their segmental content.” The author starts out by contrasting Lushootseed (Cen-

tral Salish) CVC-distributive reduplicants (28a), marked because of having a coda and

(highly unusual) stressed schwa, with less marked CV-diminutive reduplicants (28b),

lacking both the coda and the schwa (cf. Urbanczyk 2006: 181):23

(28) Lushotseed marked and unmarked reduplicants

a. j@s@d ‘foot’ j@s„j@s@d ‘feet’

dz@x ‘move’ dz@x„dz@x ‘move household’

s-c@txw@d ‘bear’ s-c@t„c@txw@d ‘bears’

b. j@s@d ‘foot’ jí„j@s@d ‘little foot’

t@dzil ‘lie in bed’ tí„t@dzil ‘lie down for a little while’

s-kw@bš@d ‘animal hide’ s-kwí„kw@bš@d ‘small hide’

(Urbanczyk 2006: 180)

Urbanczyk (2006: 181–182) interprets this correlation by extending a more general

root-affix asymmetry (see McCarthy & Prince 1995: 116–117) to the operation of redu-

plication such that “the more marked reduplicative form is a root, and the less marked

reduplicative forms are affixes” (Urbanczyk 2006: 181), ultimately yielding typologi-

cal generalizations of reduplicant segmentism (29) as well as size and shape (30):

(29) SEGMENTISM IMPLICATIONS (Urbanczyk 2006: 225):

a. If a language has unmarked root reduplicants, it also has unmarked affix

reduplicants.

b. If a language has marked affix reduplicants, it also has marked root redu-

plicants.

23A third pattern of VC reduplication expressing ‘out-of-control’ (see Urbanczyk 2006: 180–181) canbe ignored for the present illustrative purposes.


(30) SIZE/SHAPE IMPLICATIONS (Urbanczyk 2006: 225):

a. If a language has monosyllabic root reduplicants, it also has monosyllabic

affix reduplicants.

b. If a language has polysyllabic affix reduplicants, it also has polysyllabic

root reduplicants.

Though it is already problematic to equate reduplication with concatenative affixa-

tion and/or compounding on very general grounds (see Section 4.3), a specific prob-

lem with the above proposal lies in the fact that it somewhat counterintuitively leads

to treating even certain partial reduplicants like the distributive CVC in Lushotseed as

roots.24 But while transferring the root-affix asymmetry to reduplication is question-

able, then, the foregoing implications are nevertheless interesting when translated

into terms more in line with the approach at hand.

As a point of departure, Urbanczyk (2006: 225; original emphasis) herself suggests

a condensed and purely phonological interpretation of (29) and (30) without recourse

to stipulating a morphological root-versus-affix character of partial reduplicative ex-

ponents when she plainly “predicts that the following type of language will not exist:

larger reduplicants have less marked segmentism than smaller reduplicants.” Re-

lying on the reduplicatively relevant spectrum of the phonological hierarchy (see

[16]), larger and smaller reduplicant size can here be taken to correspond to higher

and lower hierarchical levels, respectively, with binary foot reduplication constitut-

ing the largest and single-segment reduplication the smallest documented patterns.

In-between there is the level of syllable reduplication with its maximally unmarked

CV representative. Now, based on the data summary in Table A.2 of the Appendix, a

number of generalizations within and across the three levels can be described.

Starting with reduplicative feet, whereas these can be segmentally complex in a

language, usually the simpler type with an unmarked second syllable is utilized

24The issue does not really change in light of Urbanczyk’s (2006: 231) concluding clarification that shedoes not claim “that root reduplicants are typical roots. They are not. Reduplicative morphemesare bound morphemes, and could never be considered the core element of a word. However, theycan take on the form of roots in order to express a contrast.” This qualification notwithstanding,assigning root status to reduplicants beyond the exponents of full reduplication seems too much ofa stretch to be a particularly convincing analysis of the empirical facts.


too (e.g. Gooniyandi, Ilocano, Lavukaleve, Nyangumarta and Tagalog). Also, lan-

guages may only exhibit such unmarked reduplicants on the level of the foot (e.g.

Bikol, Daga, Fijian, Hiligaynon, Korean, Pakaásnovos and Rapa Nui). In the case

of Wangaaybuwan-Ngiyambaa, unmarked foot reduplication is even the sole partial

pattern in the language as a whole. On the other hand, for languages whose redu-

plicative feet are exclusively marked a restatement of Urbanczyk’s above-mentioned

prediction comes into play, as this more marked segmentism in larger reduplicants

seems to imply less marked segmentism in smaller reduplicants on the level of the

syllable (e.g. Hausa, Karok, Tukang Besi and Yoruba, which all use CV reduplica-

tion as well, although Yoruba does so by way of a fixed vowel and the Hausa CVC

reduplicant has to be reinterpreted as CV plus independent gemination).

Turning to reduplicative syllables, unmarked CV reduplication (with or without

fixed segmentism) is clearly dominant among all the possible patterns and usually

implied by more marked syllable reduplicants in a language (e.g. Amele, Asmat,

Chamorro, Cree, Kwaza, Lakota, Mangarayi, Mokilese, Mongolian, Nahuatl, Saisiyat,

Somali and Turkish, though the fixed segments of related Mongolian and Turkish

have to be analyzed as linker morphemes separate from reduplicative [C]V). More-

over, such CV sequences can be the only manifestation of reduplication on the level

of the syllable (e.g. Paiwan and Woleaian, the latter providing a further example for

a CV reduplicant and simultaneous gemination) or the sole partial pattern employed

in a language at large (e.g. Bagirmi, Bukiyip, Éwé, Gayo, Keres, Lango, Luvale and

Maung, which all show different kinds of full reduplication as well). Furthermore, in

three of the seven languages that only display partially reduplicated exponents (see

Table 4.6), CV reduplication is the exclusive type found throughout the entire lin-

guistic system (i.e. Hupdë, Oromo and Pima Bajo, with Oromo once again featuring

a CVC reduplicant that has to be split into CV and gemination).

Looking finally at reduplicative segments, it is important to note that by their very

nature they cannot constitute unmarked exemplars of partial reduplication and are

thus exempt from both Urbanczyk’s prediction and its restatement above. If any-

thing, they appear to represent the intrinsically most marked level, which would mo-

tivate their rareness. Next to the basic difficulty of distinguishing them from vowel

lengthening or consonant gemination due to their minimality, this has to do with


their particular statuses and roles in prosody: Single vowels are typically prosodic in

that they can build a syllable on their own, but only a relatively marked one with-

out an onset, while consonants by themselves are normally non-prosodic in that they

are dependent on additional syllabic constituents like vowels. Therefore, vowel and

consonant reduplication in a language usually implies segmentally unmarked larger

reduplicants at least on the level of the syllable (e.g. Maori and Yaqui, respectively).

Although Abkhaz seems to be an exception to this, the possibility exists that some of

the forms in question are rather reduced variants of a larger reduplicative pattern.

The largest class of exceptions to all of these generalizations can be explained by

an overriding phonotactic right edge effect, so that languages lacking any of the un-

marked reduplication types outlined above have their exclusively marked patterns

in final position vis-à-vis the base (e.g. Malagasy complex feet, complex syllables in

Chukchi, Hebrew and Malagasy as well as single segments in Hebrew, Jakalteko and

Lezgi). By contrast, for an exceptional language like Arabic, which solely employs

internally reduplicated consonants as a partial pattern, an overriding factor in terms

of the lexical status of consonantal radicals as against grammatical vowels in the root-

and-pattern morphology of Semitic can be adduced as a morphological explanation.25

So, when undisturbed by the not purely phonological demands of constituent edge

phonotactics or the specific morphology of a linguistic system, the typology of redu-

plication homes in on the CV syllable as a calibration point for partial reduplicative

patterns judging from the dependencies discovered. Almost every relevant sample

language targets this unmarked syllabic type, either as an independent reduplicant

or as the second component of foot reduplication. This near-universality may only be

overridden by higher-order non-phonological factors and is captured by the follow-

ing adaptation of an influential synchronic generalization for syllable structure:

(31) Synchronic maxim of reduplication (cf. Vennemann 1988: 3; see also 2.1.4):

A partial reduplicative system will in general not contain a marked structure

on the highest (i.e. foot) and/or lowest (i.e. segment) level without containing

those structures constructible with the means of the system that are unmarked

in terms of the same and/or the adjacent intermediate (i.e. syllable) level.

25Hebrew final consonant reduplication may be explained both phonotactically and morphologically.


Having hence established cross-linguistic regularities of multi-pattern reduplica-

tion leaves one more typological statement from the formal literature for evaluation,

namely Kennedy’s (2008: 611) prediction of “a theoretical upper bound on the num-

ber of reduplicative patterns at a language’s disposal: no more than two on either

side of the root.” The claim is deduced from an OT-based model of morphoprosodic

alignment (see also 2.1.4, footnote 11), which assumes “that morphemes can be stem-

internal or stem-external and that such levels of morphological structure are visi-

ble in phonological derivation”, meaning for empty reduplicants that their “prosodic

structure follows from how their morphological boundaries are aligned to prosodic

elements, and their segmental content is met through satisfaction of correspondence

constraints” (Kennedy 2008: 590). In-depth testing of the above generalization would

go far beyond what can be done here, but at least superficially some languages in

Table A.2 of the Appendix appear to falsify it, though many might be no real coun-

terexamples after all because they fulfill Kennedy’s (2008: 611) provision to “typi-

cally invoke fixed segmentism or multiple exponence to allow additional distinctions

among reduplicative patterns.” Also, the implication is interesting as its formal basis

echoes the present functional one in strictly separating morphology and phonology;

the two may interact, however, to yield all the distinct forms of partial reduplication.

4.2.5.2 Diachronic perspectives

The historical development of reduplicative patterns, if treated at all, is most com-

monly investigated in the framework of grammaticalization theory, building on the

hypothesis “to consider the fullest, most explicit form of reduplication, total redu-

plication, to be the originating point for all reduplications, with the various types

of partial reduplication as reductions and thus later developments from this fullest

form” (Bybee et al. 1994: 166; see also Niepokuj 1997: 60–64). Again, fundamental

problems with such an assertion of unidirectionality hail from the view of redupli-

cation as compounding and/or affixation (see Section 4.3), and a row of works have

challenged this conception, for instance by arguing that partial reduplicants may also

originate independently (see Hurch & Mattes 2005; Stolz et al. 2011: 166–167) or that

they can sometimes even be the diachronic source of full reduplication (see Hyman

2009; see also Inkelas 2014: 182).


Apart from the vexed issues of ultimate origin and developmental pathways, one

may ask in what way the synchronic maxim of reduplication in (31) has typological

repercussions on the diachrony of the process. Another structural maxim is proposed:

(32) Diachronic maxim of reduplication (cf. Vennemann 1988: 2; see also 2.1.4):

Linguistic change in a partial reduplicative system does not affect a structure as

long as there exist structures in the system that are more marked in terms of the

relevant phonological levels and their dependencies as formulated in (31).

Figure 4.4 shows how by this second maxim diachronic change is expected to reduce

the marked exponents of a range of partial reduplicants before the unmarked ones:

Figure 4.4. Structures arranged on a parameter in the order of increasing preference accord-ing to Vennemann (1988: 3)

With broad and solid historical evidence on reduplication still hard to come by, com-

prehensive verification or falsification of the diachronic maxim in (32) and its conse-

quence in Figure 4.4 must be mostly left for future research. Yet, when conjecturing

exclusively unproductive partial reduplicative patterns in a language to be the rem-

nants of a once productive and potentially larger system, three unrelated non-sample

languages attest to the overall plausibility of the proposal: Koasati (unproductive in-

ternal CV and Coh reduplication; see 3.1.3 for examples), Tiwi (unproductive initial

Ca reduplication with simultaneous suffixation of -Wi; see 3.1.3) and Latin (unpro-

ductive initial Ce reduplication as in me„mordi ‘I have bitten’; Hurch & Mattes 2005:

138), which all exhibit maximally unmarked CV reduplicants in their systems, some-

times even as the one and only trace of (partial) reduplication (Tiwi and Latin), and no

discontinuous markedness gaps in their ranges of reduplicative structures (Koasati).


A last conspicuousness concerns the occurrence of fixed segments (and, in one case,

of multiple exponence via additional affixation) in unproductive reduplications of all

three languages just mentioned. Although this of course would likewise need larger-

scale empirical testing, it seems that when the productivity of a system of partial

reduplication decreases over time, a strive to fossilization by acquiring more affix-

like characteristics can be discerned. The reduplicative process gradually losing its

independent systematic behavior may thus be said to go hand in hand with a “drive

toward morphological regularity, toward characterizing a constant semantic value

with a constant phonological form” (Niepokuj 1997: 42), since, as Fischer (2011: 77)

puts it, “[a]rbitrary grammaticalized affixes have an advantage in that there is only

one pattern and one uniform morpheme.” Note that this is not the same as saying that

reduplication actually is affixation. Rather, the former may take on affixal properties

like the use of invariant segmentism when it becomes less productive in a language.26

4.3 The typological status of reduplication as a

morphological process

Seen as a whole, the typological characteristics discussed in Section 4.1 and 4.2 can be

taken to support the status of reduplication as an independent, segmental-additive

operation in Mayerthaler’s (1981: 111) taxonomy of morphological processes:

(33) morphological processes

syntagmatic paradigmatic

[+additive] [-additive] analogical substitutive

[+segmental] [-segmental] modulatory ? processes subtractive contamination

affixation reduplication modul. add.

26That this is again not a developmental one-way street is demonstrated by Latin, where histori-cally earlier fixed-segment forms like me„mordi above have later on been restrengthened to vowel-copying reduplicants like the one in mo„mordi (cf. Hurch & Mattes 2005: 138). At the same time,this raises the possibility that reduplication as an independent morphological process has won backat least some productivity at this diachronically younger stage of Latin.


According to Mayerthaler (1981: 110) and bolstered by present findings, affixation as

well as reduplication are segmental-additive because both operations introduce one

or more segments; they cannot be said to be the same, however, because reduplica-

tion is a non-concatenative partial or full copy transformation, to which Mayerthaler

(1981: 115) ascribes a very specific iconic function potential with meanings like plural-

ity, abundance, iteratives, habituatives, frequentatives, continuatives, distributives,

augmentatives, intensives, emphasis and diminution (see also Mayerthaler 1980: 31).

On the one hand, then, reduplicants can be externally delimited from affixes by

virtue of introducing additive exponents whose phonological make-up is directly de-

pendent on the respective base material.27 This already sharp contrast to affixation

is additionally backed by a recurrent observation also confirmed in the data at hand:

the striking difference between a strong cross-linguistic tendency for partial redupli-

cation to be initial (e.g. Rubino 2005a: 114, 2013) and the opposite preference for tradi-

tional affixes to be of the suffixing type (see also Bauer 2014: 132 and 5.2.10). Turkish

is particularly remarkable for said polarity, since with the exception of preposed par-

tial reduplicants the bound morphology of the language appears exclusively after the

base. Moreover, this difference in positional preference adds to why most apparent

violations of the markedness implications for reduplication occur in base-final posi-

tion (see 4.2.5.1): In its less preferred contexts, the marked structures that a process

yields are often locally more tolerated than in its generally preferred environments.

On the other hand, full and partial reduplicants should not be internally delimited

as stemming from two different operations but should rather be viewed as consti-

tuting a single independent process with differing formal manifestations, the latter

chiefly being subject to the various degrees of interacting phonology. Hence, treat-

ing full reduplication as compounding and partial reduplication as affixation (e.g.

Saperstein 1997: 41) or both kinds of reduplication as compounding are just further

dubious analytical moves which ignore several principled structural and theoretical

reasons for keeping reduplication strictly apart from the other two types of morphol-

ogy (e.g. the lack of potential recursion as opposed to compounds and a gratuitously

unconstrained notion of affix; see Botha 1988: 78–85 for details based on Afrikaans).

27Clearly, phonologically conditioned affix allomorphy as in the English regular past never shows thekind of direct dependency on the base as is found in reduplicative constructions (see also 5.2.11).


From the principally functional-typological angle of the present study, the essen-

tial unity of fully and partially reduplicated word forms finds substantial additional

support through the morpho-semantic iconicity systematics of reduplicant structure

(see 4.1.6) as well as the fact that there are no striking correlations between certain

reduplicative meanings and their preferably being expressed by either full or partial

reduplication. That none of the two broad subtypes of reduplicants is in any way

semantically special when compared to the other is expected in an approach that re-

gards phonological factors as secondary with respect to a primarily morphological

basis of reduplication (see Section 1.2). Accordingly, the principle of iconic inclusion

— “i.e. more of the same content is expressed by making use of more of the same

expression” (Stolz 2007: 323; see also the iconic principle of reduplication in 2.2.2)

— can be said to hold equally well for fully and partially reduplicated structures (cf.

Stolz 2007: 324; see also Inkelas 2014: 184).

As one of the most blatant illustrations for this homogeneity of reduplication, a

claim repeatedly brought forward by Mayerthaler (1977: 36, 1981: 115), namely that

reduplicative diminution can only be of the partial type because full reduplication

with this function would be counter-iconic, has to be refuted forcefully in light of

ample cross-linguistic evidence to the contrary (see Table 4.1). Moreover, this further

undermines the universality of the grammaticalization stance on reduplication basi-

cally positing a unidirectional evolutionary path from reduplicative compounds to

reduplicative affixes (see 4.2.5.2), specifically the arguments for a scenario in which

“partial reduplications result from the phonological erosion and assimilation of to-

tally reduplicated forms”, predicting “that total reduplication expresses the earlier,

fuller [i.e. maximally iconic; TS] meaning of reduplication, while the partial redupli-

cations express more general [and less iconic; TS] meanings” (Bybee et al. 1994: 167;

see also Inkelas 2014: 182). Instead it rather looks as if anything goes in full as well

as in partial reduplication, as long as it stays within the systematic confines set up by

reduplicative iconicity.

Finally, it is revealing to consider the place of reduplication in the following hier-

archy of morphological processes according to their decreasing semiotic naturalness,

i.e. how easy they are used by the speaker and perceived by the hearer (cf. Mel’cuk

2006: 306):


(34) affixation > suprafixation > reduplication > modification > con-

version

In relation to holistic language types (see also Štekauer et al. 2012: 101–102, Table

3.32), the medial position of reduplication on this scale complies with the fact that the

process is used in agglutinative languages (e.g. Indonesian, Japanese, Swahili) as well

as in fusional languages (e.g. Hausa, Hebrew) without notable differences in formal

or semantic possibilities, while the typological expectation for the processes towards

the left (i.e. affixes, morphological accents and tones) and right (i.e. apophonies and

conversions) edge of the hierarchy is that they will be preferred in systems of agglu-

tination and fusion, respectively (cf. Mel’cuk 2006: 308).28

To conclude, a typology conceptualizing reduplication as a consistently non-con-

catenative morphological device of its own — based on the assumption that the for-

mal characteristics of the process allow cross-linguistic conclusions pertaining to its

functioning — thus fits perfectly into more generally formulated functional-typologi-

cal taxonomies of operations in morphology and evaluations of their semiotic signif-

icance like (33) and (34), respectively.

28This neutrality brings to mind Stolz et al.’s (2011: 117–118) characterization of (total) reduplicationas a “potential universal”, i.e. a phenomenon “compatible with all kinds of other linguistic phe-nomena”, “easily integrated into any kind of linguistic system” and “unrestricted by structuralconstraints” (see also Mattes & Schwaiger 2013: 586).

5 The derivational nature ofreduplication

Following the survey and analysis of reduplication forms and functions across the

languages of the present sample in the preceding chapters, the time is now ripe for

(re-)assessing the morphological nature of the phenomenon in question from yet a

slightly different perspective on its functioning. Several approaches which try to sub-

sume reduplication under some other (usually concatenative) type of morphology

have been repeatedly addressed and refuted throughout this study (see Section 4.3

for a consolidation) especially for their basically asemantic orientation, at least in the

sense that they normally do not single out the semantics of the process as an object

meriting an investigation in its own right. Such (for the most part) formal studies

by their very nature, i.e. as an almost inevitable side effect of their general neglect

of reduplicative semantics, also do not pursue in any systematic way the question to

what extent reduplication may serve inflectional or derivational purposes in a lan-

guage. Wiltshire & Marantz’s (2000: 557; emphasis TS) handbook definition of redu-

plication (already referred to in Section 1.1) as “a type of word formation (in the broad

sense, including both derivation and inflection) in which the phonological form of an af-

fix is determined in whole or in part by the phonological form of the base to which it

attaches” perfectly illustrates this state of affairs (see also Section 4.1).

Curiously enough, even many functional(-typological) works with a stronger se-

mantic leaning have fairly little to say about the place reduplicative functions occupy

among the traditional subdivisions of morphology. Moravcsik (1978: 324–325), for

example, merely speaks of derivational and non-derivational (i.e. presumably inflec-

tional) uses of reduplication without further elaboration.1 But to be fair, more dif-1A similarly sweeping statement is also found in what can be called the formal classic of redupli-

cation research (see 2.1.1) when Wilbur (1973: 6) writes at the outset of her dissertation that she is

133


ferentiated statements can be found as well here and there, as in Bybee (1985: 97),

who at one point concludes for her cross-linguistic sample of verbal morphology

(which does not exclusively deal with reduplicative patterns) that “[r]eduplication

is more common among derivational processes than among inflectional” (see also

Štekauer et al. 2012: 103). Similarly, Fabricius (1998: 19) states that “[r]eduplication

occurs more commonly as a derivational process in Australian languages than as an

inflectional process.” Furthermore, for the Pakaásnovos language it has been noted

that its solely compositional and reduplicative “verbal morphology might be consid-

ered almost exclusively derivational, since reduplication itself appears largely, if not

completely, derivational in its meaning” (Everett & Kern 1997: 6).2 However, Saper-

stein (1997: 160–163) seems rather exceptional by giving thought to this topic in more

detail, including its potential theoretical significance.3 Concerning his case studies

(which include Tagalog, one language also part of the present sample), the author

likewise notes the frequency of derivational functions (cf. Saperstein 1997: 160) and

moreover stresses the necessity of judging each instance of reduplication with respect

to the specific role it plays in the language under investigation (cf. Saperstein 1997:

161).4 Crucially, he deems worthy of future research the question of whether the rela-

tive rareness of inflection in reduplication is a mere accident of the languages chosen

for his own study or whether it is a genuine cross-linguistic tendency and, if the latter,

what the explanation for such a tendency might be (cf. Saperstein 1997: 163). This

is exactly the sort of inquiry that the rest of this chapter (and the study as a whole)

engages in.

After a short introduction to the familiar problem of distinguishing inflection and

derivation in morphology (see Section 5.1), Section 5.2 investigates the cross-linguistic

“investigating Reduplication only as it is used as a derivational or inflectional process” (as opposedto onomatopoeic and syntactic repetition, for which see also the discussion in 3.1.2).

2The authors are cautious in their wording because verbal reduplication in Pakaásnovos is oftenaspectual, although at the same time they point out the unclear status of aspect concerning theinflection-derivation distinction (cf. Everett & Kern 1997: 6; see also 5.2.2 and Table 5.1).

3Recently and independently of each other, the issue has also been touched upon in two handbookarticles treating the role of reduplication in derivational morphology/word formation (see Inkelas2014: 175–176; Schwaiger 2015: 477).

4If at all, with reference to Himmelmann’s (2000) continuum discussed in 2.3.2 this can of course bedone only superficially in a mono-constructional, non-holistic typological work like the presentone.


properties of reduplication regarding said distinction. As in the course of this investi-

gation the essentially derivational nature of the process is confirmed, an explanation

in terms of the iconic basis of reduplication is finally attempted in Section 5.3.

5.1 Inflection versus derivation

The (implicit or explicit) distinction between inflection and derivation, pertaining to

different functions performed by morphology in language, is an old one within lin-

guistics. At the same time, the proper basis for this differentiation (and even more so

its explanation) stands out as a matter of debate up to the present day. Broadly speak-

ing, different theoretical approaches either highlight the dichotomous (e.g. Anderson

1982; Scalise 1988) or the continuous (e.g. Plank 1981: Chapter 2, 1994; Bybee 1985:

Chapter 4; Dressler 1989; Booij 1993)5 nature of the boundaries between inflection and

derivation as these are drawn by the respectively proposed distinguishing criteria.

As a consequence of its functional-typological orientation, the present study in

the following adheres to the continuum view of the inflection-derivation distinc-

tion, since arriving at a cross-linguistically valid dichotomy seems highly unlikely

due to the different distinguishing criteria involved to different degrees in different

languages (see also Dressler 1989: 5–6; Plank 1994: 1672). Proceeding from this gen-

eral perspective, the more specific choice is made to mainly follow Dressler’s (1989)

natural morphological prototype approach to the issue at hand in Section 5.2, for that

article can still be regarded as one of the most comprehensive collections of relevant

criteria as well as an exceptionally minute depiction of the latter’s manifold, often

very intimate interrelationships.

5In actual fact, Booij (1993) argues for an intermediate tripartite as opposed to a split or an entirelynon-discrete morphology, further dividing inflection into so-called inherent and contextual inflec-tion. Still, as also becomes apparent in the next section, his approach is compatible with a contin-uum view because only contextual inflection is said to be clearly distinct from derivation, whileinherent inflection is claimed to show merely gradual differences from derivational morphology(cf. Booij 1993: 31).


5.2 Reduplication and the inflection-derivation

continuum

In this section, the criteria collected, organized and added to by Dressler (1989) for dif-

ferentiating between inflection and derivation are checked against the relevant char-

acteristics of reduplication which have been treated in the previous chapters from a

typological point of view.

5.2.1 Lexical versus syntactic function

An old criterion says that derivation forms new words and thus has the function of

lexical enrichment, while inflection does not have this function; a similar but comple-

mentary criterion says that inflection always serves syntax by forming appropriate

word forms for use in different syntactic constructions, something which derivation

can at best do in a very indirect way only (cf. Dressler 1989: 6). This establishes the

basic division determining the two extreme poles of the inflection-derivation contin-

uum. Below it is shown that the remaining criteria converge on one or the other end

of this scale to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the morphological category

and process under scrutiny. Of paramount interest is the cross-linguistic behavior of

reduplication as it emerges from the distinctions proposed and pertinent exemplifi-

cation from different languages in th sample.

5.2.2 Obligatority and grammatical agreement

Following from its syntactic function (see 5.2.1), inflection is normally obligatory

within a syntactic construction, unlike derivation (cf. Dressler 1989: 6). The many

examples of reduplication adduced and analyzed in the foregoing chapters on the

surface seem to suggest that the process is equally fit to express lexical as well as syn-

tactic functions. However, a closer look at the criterion of obligatority reveals a more

restricted picture. An important general finding of continuous approaches to inflec-

tion and derivation is that several grammatical categories that traditionally have been

called inflectional (most notably nominal number, verbal aspect and adjectival grada-

tion) are actually non-prototypically (see Dressler 1989: 6 and Table 5.1) or inherently


inflectional (cf. Booij 1993: 30; see also footnote 5) because they are not syntactically

relevant in the sense of being called for obligatorily by the grammar. This is also re-

flected in some of the most common functions of reduplication (i.e. nominal or verbal

plurality and adjectival intensification). A representative illustration comes from In-

donesian, where the reduplicatively expressed plurality of nouns (e.g. rumah„rumah

‘houses’, singkatan„singkatan ‘abbreviations’, perubahan„perubahan ‘changes’; Sned-

don 1996: 16–17) is usually only explicitly marked if it helps to disambiguate the con-

text and if such a disambiguation is deemed important by the speaker to the message

conveyed (cf. Sneddon 1996: 17).

Significantly, obligatority is the most successful criterion and perhaps the only one

which may provide a discrete division between the two functions of morphology

according to Bybee’s (1985: 81–82) overview of the traditional distinction between

inflection and derivation. In this regard, it is especially noteworthy that even what at

first glance looks like prototypical grammatical agreement (concord) — an example

par excellence of obligatority and, by extension, inflection6 (see Dressler 1989: 7 for

the corresponding criterion) — turns out to not be obligatory (and in this respect

very much derivational) when expressed by means of reduplication. Somali is one

case in point,7 for in this language the reduplicatively formed plural of adjectives (see

Berchem 1991: 159–161) is stylistically preferred (as in [1b] below) but grammatically

optional when the modified noun expresses a plural concept (cf. Berchem 1991: 156):8

(1) Somali

a. Buuggii cusuba baan soo iibsaday.

book.ART new 1SG VEN buy

‘I have bought the new book.’

b. Buugag cus„cusub noo keen!

book.PL PL„new 1PL bring

‘Bring us new books!’ (Berchem 1991: 159)

6As Plank (1981: 17) puts it, agreement categories are the prime example for the furthest possibledistance from the pole of basic lexical concepts (see also Section 5.3).

7Owens (1985: 93) describes a similar situation in Oromo, another Cushitic language (see alsoSchwaiger 2015: 477 and, for an example with the reduplication, 4.2.2).

8Unfortunately, Berchem gives no example illustrating this optionality, so (1a) merely serves to showthe non-reduplicated adjective in singular “agreement”.


5.2.3 Biuniqueness, uniformity and rule variation/competition

Due to their connection with obligatority (see 5.2.2), the basic semiotic criterion of bi-

uniqueness (see Dressler 1989: 6) and that of uniformity derivable from it (cf. Dressler

1989: 7) amount to the expectation that the tendency of one form corresponding ex-

actly to one function and vice versa (i.e. biuniqueness) as well as the formal constancy

of morphological exponents (i.e. uniformity) should both play a greater role in inflec-

tional morphology. As reduplication is here argued to not be affixation but an au-

tonomous morphological operation, the principle of biuniqueness in the present con-

text has to be interpreted as the invariant relation between reduplicative patterns and

their meanings. However, just like derivational affixes, the process of reduplication

frequently shows violations of biuniqueness in both directions, i.e. one pattern may

express more than one meaning (e.g. the range of meanings expressed by full word

reduplication in Réunion Creole French; see Daval-Markussen 2009) or one mean-

ing may be expressed by more than one pattern, the latter often depending on the

prosodic make-up of the base (e.g. Yaqui partial reduplications for habituality, pro-

gressivity or the imperative, the exact reduplicant shapes of which are determined

by factors like syllable number and weight of the reduplicated verb; see Harley &

Amarillas 2003).9 This is so “because the reduplicated form involves each time an in-

dividual, hence a different morpheme, even though it may express the same function

in each new formation” but “[t]here is no overall unitary relation between one form

and one meaning; instead, [. . . ] the relation depends on a diagram of two forms, and

its function may be different in each case” (Fischer 2011: 72; see also Section 4.1 and

Saperstein 1997: 140–141). Likewise, uniformity of morphological exponents (i.e. the

avoidance of allomorphy) runs counter to reduplication’s very essence of repeating

all or part of its base (though the process in and of itself may in a somewhat different

way be viewed as uniform in languages like Afrikaans or Hupdë, which only show

full word or initial CV reduplication, respectively; see Table A.2 of the Appendix).10

9For the latter state of affairs see also Spaelti’s (1997: 7–10) distinction between duplemes (i.e. mul-tiple reduplicative patterns distinct in their use and applicable to one and the same base) and al-loduples (i.e. multiple reduplicative patterns for the same function or functions in base-determinedcomplementary distribution).

10See also 4.2.5.2 for a tentative diachronic explanation for the development of fixed segments in redu-plication by way of a strive towards affix-like uniformity of morphological expression during theloss of reduplicative productivity.


After the above, it comes as no surprise that reduplicative patterns may also vary

and compete with other reduplications or completely different morphological de-

vices, such rule variation/competition again being a typical feature of derivation but

rare in inflection (cf. Dressler 1989: 6). Pertinent examples are the apparent near-

synonymy of Chamorro verb-to-noun infixation (2a) and reduplication (2b) as well as

Wangaaybuwan-Ngiyambaa compound verbs employing preposed bala- ‘using little

energy’ as in (3a), the latter constituting an alternative to reduplicative attenuation,

which according to Donaldson (1980: 198–199) only works with simple or derived

bases that are longer than one syllable as in (3b):

(2) Chamorro hatsa ‘lift’ (Topping 1973: 171)

a. Infix: h<um>atsa ‘one who lifted’

b. Reduplication: há„hatsa ‘one that was lifting’

(Topping 1973: 102)

(3) Wangaaybuwan-Ngiyambaa

a. bala-miyi=dju=na Na:-nhi

using.little.energy-do.PST=1.NOM=3.ABS see-PST

‘I looked at it unenergetically.’

b. Na:gi„Na:gi-djili-nja=na

ATT„look-REFL-PRS=3.ABS

‘She’s more-or-less looking at herself.’ (Donaldson 1980: 199)

5.2.4 Category variation

Compared to the multitude of lexical meanings (morphologically expressed by deriva-

tion), the marking of syntactic constructions (morphologically accomplished by in-

flection) is numerically much more limited (see 5.2.1 for the fundamental distinction

between lexical and syntactic functions in morphology), and so inflectional categories

are expected to form a relatively small and universal set in relation to the greater

range and language-specificity consequently predicted for derivational categories (cf.

Dressler 1989: 6–7). Although Section 4.1 has argued for the basic unity and thus for a

certain universally valid limitation of reduplication meanings from a general concep-

tual viewpoint built on the principle of iconicity, the specific descriptions of various


submeanings in Section 3.3 have nevertheless offered a glimpse of the cross-linguistic

diversity when it comes to the semantic details of the reduplicative categories in-

volved,11 speaking yet again for their derivational character according to the criterion

evaluated here.

5.2.5 Abstractness, transparency and degree of meaning change

As a consequence of the criteria in 5.2.1–5.2.4, inflectional meanings are said to be

more abstract (see also Section 5.3) and transparent than derivational ones (cf. Dressler

1989: 7), the former hence involving smaller meaning changes with respect to the

base than the latter (cf. Dressler 1989: 8). For reduplication this can be illustrated

with Dressler’s (1989: 7, 8) own recurrent example of collectives being more deriva-

tional than simple plurals,12 but an even more extreme manifestation is found in the

Indonesian reduplications from Chapter 1, repeated below for convenience:

(4) Indonesian

gula ‘sugar’ gula„gula ‘sweets’

laki ‘husband’ laki„laki ‘man’

mata ‘eye’ mata„mata ‘spy’

kuda ‘horse’ kuda„kuda ‘trestle’

langit ‘sky’ langit„langit ‘ceiling’

(Sneddon 1996: 16)

The loose semantic relations holding between the simple and reduplicated forms in

(4) have already been noted in Chapter 1 (especially footnote 19). However, it has also

been insinuated there that it is anyhow possible to identify a connection to the more

usual reduplicative meanings of diminution (by extension via the related notion of

similarity, e.g. a trestle may be said to resemble a horse in appearance; see also 3.3.3)

11This is especially noticeable in instances of nominal plurality as described in 3.3.1, an umbrellacategory which for reduplication appears to be extremely varied and at times even idiosyncraticwhen compared across languages (see also footnote 12).

12See also the many further nuances of reduplicative plurality in nouns discussed in 3.3.1 (e.g. dis-tributivity, multiplicity, reciprocity or numerousness), which seem to be very similar to collectivityconcerning the lesser predictability and greater meaning changes involved (see also footnote 11).Besides, recall that even the simple nominal plural represents a non-prototypically inflectional cat-egory along the inflection-derivation continuum, inter alia due to its lack of obligatority (see 5.2.2).


and/or plurality (e.g. a spy may be metaphorically perceived as someone who has

many eyes or who has his/her eyes everywhere). At the same time, when their lack

of transparency and degree of meaning change increase, reduplicated forms like the

ones in (4) become more and more prone to lexicalization (see also 5.2.6).

5.2.6 Productivity and lexical storage

Mainly because of its stronger obligatority (see 5.2.2), biuniqueness and uniformity

(see 5.2.3) as well as abstractness and transparency (see 5.2.5), inflection is typically

more productive than derivation (cf. Dressler 1989: 7). While productivity (like di-

achrony; see 2.1.4) in general is still a relatively understudied area in reduplication

research (cf. Hurch 2009: 1),13 occasionally one can nevertheless find comments on

reduplicative patterns which are restricted by certain formal and/or functional spec-

ifications pertaining to the base, again speaking for the derivational inclination of

the process under scrutiny. An interesting combination of such restricting factors is

found in Mangarayi, for which Merlan (1982: 213) states that

[p]roductive reduplication of verbs and verb particles is more restricted than in

nominals. Though reduplication is not an extremely important means of indicat-

ing aspectual notions, it is sometimes used to indicate iterative or durative action,

depending on the meaning of the verb. [. . . ] An inflecting verb form must min-

imally consist of two syllables after the pronominal prefix(es) (i.e., must have at

least bisyllabic stem-plus-suffix) in order for reduplication to operate.14

As morphological productivity itself is also an intrinsically gradual linguistic phe-

nomenon, much more arbitrary constraints than the above exist too. To exemplify

from Thai, noun reduplication to indicate plurality in this language is limited to a

number of seemingly heterogeneous nouns (cf. Iwasaki & Ingkaphirom 2005: 34) of

which the following illustrate a few:

13But see the articles that follow Hurch’s (2009) introduction to the mono-thematic issue of the journalGrazer Linguistische Studien, edited by the same author.

14Needless to say, considering these semantic and phonological restrictions as well as the fact that theyinvolve the non-prototypically inflectional domain of verbal aspect (see 5.2.2), Merlan’s choice tospeak of inflecting verbs here is debatable from the continuous angle on the inflection-derivationdistinction.


(5) Thai

dèk ‘child’ dèk„dèk ‘children’

wan ‘day’ wan„wan ‘days’

kOON ‘pile, heap’ kOON„kOON ‘in lumps’

saaw ‘young female’ saaw„saaw ‘young women’

nùm ‘young male’ nùm„nùm ‘young men’

(Iwasaki & Ingkaphirom 2005: 35)

Moreover, despite the overall conceptual motivation of reduplicative processes by

iconicity (see also 5.2.4), individual reduplications are often semantically opaque and/

or lexicalized (see also 5.2.5), both typical traits of many derived words (and com-

pounds) in word formation (cf. Botha 1988: 118; Niepokuj 1997: 68; see also Schwaiger

2015: 475–476).

Taken together, lack of transparency and restricted productivity thus make the lexi-

cal storage of at least some reduplicated forms as wholes very likely, a property which

once again sets them off from most inflected word forms (cf. Dressler 1989: 8). Al-

though corroborating experimental evidence for this is largely missing,15 note that the

interpretation of reduplication as a partly lexicalized, partly motivated morphologi-

cal pattern finds indirect support in remarks like Sneddon’s (1996: 16) on the Indone-

sian examples in (4) that “[d]ictionaries inconsistently list such reduplicated forms

under the single base or as separate entries” and that “[i]n a few cases such words

can also indicate plurality” (the latter being the major function of noun reduplication

in Indonesian; see also 5.2.2).

5.2.7 Word-class change

Due to their complementary basic functions (see 5.2.1), inflectional morphology nor-

mally does not change the word-class of a base, while derivational morphology fre-

15Waksler (1999) is a rare (if not unique; see Waksler 1999: 71) example of a psycholinguistic study alsoconcerned with the mental representation of reduplication as a productive process, drawing infer-ences from code-switching phenomena in Tagalog-English bilingual speakers (see Waksler 1999:71–72).


quently does so (cf. Dressler 1989: 7).16 That reduplicative patterns often readily alter

the word-classes of their bases (including the non-prototypically inflectional forma-

tions of noun-like gerunds or adjective-like participles from verbs; see Dressler 1989:

6, 7) has been shown in 3.3.4.2, while the fact that this often involves additional iconic

meaning changes (see also 2.3.1.1) and/or an increase in temporal stability (which on

a slightly more abstract level can itself be argued to constitute a reflection of iconicity)

has been analyzed in 4.1.4.

5.2.8 Reapplication and multiple application

Because of their lexical function (see 5.2.1) and word-class changing potential (see

5.2.7), derivational morphological rules are more eligible to be reapplied than inflec-

tional ones (cf. Dressler 1989: 7). At least some of the relatively rare cases of so-called

triplication found in the sample (see 3.1.2.4) may more precisely be interpreted as the

recursive reapplication of one and the same morphological operation of derivation

(see also Štekauer et al. 2012: 118–119).17 Consider the following from Fijian, where

one and the same initial CV pattern (6a) — contextually exemplified in (6b) — is used

more than once with concomitant accumulation of the same collective meaning (6c):

(6) Fijian reapplied stative verb reduplication to indicate collections or groups

a. levu ‘large’ le„levu

balavu ‘long’ ba„balavu

vinaka ‘good’ vi„vinaka

b. na vale le„levu [DEF house COLL„large] ‘lots of big buildings’

(Schütz 1985: 229)

c. le„le„levu ‘a very great number’

ba„ba„balavu ‘extremely long’

vi„vi„vinaka ‘extremely good’

(Schütz 1985: 230)

16As pointed out without elaboration by Dressler (1989: 7) himself, the potential for word-class changeunderlies a structuralist criterion not further pursued here either, namely that of substitutabilitywithin the same slot (but see Plank 1981: 12–13, 1994: 1673 for details).

17The recursivity of derivational affixes is treated in Scalise (1988: 570–571).


In somewhat weakened form, the present criterion furthermore demonstrates the

derivational disposition of reduplication in the guise of so-called serial reduplications

(i.e. different reduplicative patterns applied in combination; see Blust 2001: 333) as an

analogue to the concatenation of several affixes within the same word. As the func-

tion of inflection is to close words for the subsequent processing by syntax (see 5.2.1),

multiple application is common for derivation but less so for inflectional morpholog-

ical means (though it is certainly not impossible for the latter in the languages of the

world). An illustration from Cree follows:

(7) Cree light, heavy and combined reduplication

acimo- ‘tell a story’

a. light: ay„acimowak18 ‘they are telling stories right now’

b. heavy: ah„acimowak ‘they tell one story after another’

c. combined: ay„ah„acimowak ‘they kept telling stories’

(Ahenakew & Wolfart 1983: 371)

The two basic types of verbal reduplication in Cree are light (i.e. short-voweled)

reduplication for continuous or progressive aspect (7a) and heavy (i.e. long-voweled)

reduplication for an intensive, repetitive (7b) or distributive sense (cf. Ahenakew &

Wolfart 1983: 370, 374–375).19 Crucially, (7c) shows two successive cycles of light and

heavy reduplication, yielding not only a formal but also a semantic combination of

the two patterns (cf. Ahenakew & Wolfart 1983: 371).

5.2.9 Paradigmatic organization and analogical leveling

Dressler (1989: 8) mentions the tendency of morphological patterns to be organized

in paradigms, which is supposed to be much stronger in inflection than in derivation.

His formulation already suggests that the author assumes both inflectional as well as

derivational paradigms to exist (an opinion by far not shared by all morphologists

concerning the latter), but that the differences between the two paradigm types are

18The suffix -wak adds person, number, animacy and transitivity specifications.19See 3.2.3.4 (especially footnote 40) for the fixed-segment nature of these patterns. With vowel-initial

stems as in (7), the light and heavy type are additionally differentiated by the transitional soundsy and h, respectively, between reduplicant and base (cf. Ahenakew & Wolfart 1983: 371; see also4.2.4, footnote 20).


equally gradual as the boundaries between inflection and derivation are in general

(cf. Štekauer 2014: 357). This is hardly surprising given the fact that according to

Dressler (1989: 8) and Štekauer (2014: 357–361) the different paradigmatic properties

of morphological patterns are directly deducible from many of the criteria already

addressed in 5.2.1–5.2.8. Since reduplication has been demonstrated to be very much

on the derivational side of the continuum with respect to virtually every criterion

up to now, its likewise weak paradigmatic organization therefore follows quite nat-

urally. Repetitive structural contributions to paradigmaticity appear to occur mostly

as semantically empty stem formations, which, however, cannot always be unam-

biguously argued for in the face of a possible alternative analysis in terms of multiple

exponence via reduplication and simultaneous affixation (see 3.2.4).

Moreover, as a result of paradigm pressure from other word-form members be-

longing to one and the same lexeme, analogical leveling of individual irregular forms

is expected to happen much easier in inflection than in derivation (cf. Dressler 1989:

8; see also Blevins 2006: 539–540). In reduplication, large-scale analogical changes

would obviously contradict the characteristic lack of uniformity in reduplicative ex-

ponents (see 5.2.3). Indeed, the phenomena of over- and underapplication indicate

the repetitive non-uniformity of reduplicants to be so important that it often even

overrides the otherwise normal application of phonological rules (see especially 2.1.1).

Consequently, the elimination of alternations stands in fundamental conflict with

the defining properties of reduplication phonology. A phenomenon comparable to

paradigmatic analogy may at best be identifiable in the contribution made by fixed

segmentism as it often develops during the diachronic loss of reduplicative produc-

tivity (see 4.2.5.2).20

5.2.10 Position preference

In connection with the criterion that inflectional morphology is typically more pe-

ripheral in a word form than derivational morphology (cf. Dressler 1989: 8), the root

privilege of reduplication recently formulated by Inkelas (2012: 358) — who mainly

draws on results in Hyman (2009) and Hyman et al. (2009) — is very instructive:

20See also Fischer (2011: 73) on a similar association between phonetic reduction and increasedparadigmaticity during grammaticalization.


“[N]o matter what the specific morphological and phonological conditions on redu-

plication may be, reduplication ends up copying at least a portion of the morpho-

logical root” (see also Inkelas 2014: 185–189). Apparently, no other morphological

process except stem modification (see Plank 1994: 1673) strives to be so close to, and

is so dependent on, the lexical core of a word form21 without disrupting the former,

as infixes would do (see also Bybee 1985: 96–98 on the higher degree of fusion with

the root in morphological derivation). Furthermore, following Bybee (1985: 4, 82–83)

and Dressler (1989: 8), it is expected from this proximity to the root that reduplica-

tion should be highly relevant in the sense of affecting the meaning of the base more

directly (i.e. concretely) than more peripherally located operations of morphology

like affixation, which often have fairly abstract semantics (see also 5.2.5 and Section

5.3). Thus, if the root privilege is as generally valid as is suggested by the formulation

above, then reduplication per se is a prototypical process of derivation according to

the criterion of position preference.22

In addition, the cross-linguistic tendency towards a positional preference asymme-

try between initial partial reduplication and the employment of suffixation in the lan-

guages of the world (see Section 4.3) can be related to the reduplicative root privilege

as well: It ensures that by preferentially preposing reduplicants they will in any case

affect the most central part of a word form also in linguistic systems which otherwise

exhibit cross-linguistically preferred suffixing morphology only. This is especially

useful in an agglutinating language like Turkish, where the excessive concatenation

of various suffixes could potentially increase the distance between hypothetical final

reduplication and the lexical root to a degree that would make it hard for the former

to apply to the latter.

5.2.11 Shape variation

Assuming a diagrammatic reflection of the concreteness and abstractness of meaning

(see also 5.2.5 and 5.2.10), Dressler’s (1989: 9) final criterion says that roots are phono-

21Accordingly, Bybee (1985: 34) treats both reduplication and vowel change as morphological modifi-cations and sees each as being closer to the stem than affixation.

22The potential problem for the validity of the root privilege posed by affix reduplication is mitigatedby the fact that the latter seems only possible with affixes that are relatively concrete and lexical intheir semantic content and behavior (see 4.1.5).


logically most varied within any given language, derivational exponents less so and

inflectional exponents least. It is easy to see that the shapes of (especially partial)

reduplication fit perfectly onto the derivational middle of this cline, the respective

reduplicants partaking in the greater phonological variation of roots by copying (part

of) their individual segmental melodies but at the same time being formally restricted

to a smaller size and/or unmarked structures in accordance with the lesser phono-

logical variation allowed for inflectional formatives in the world’s languages. This is

illustrated on the following scale of shape variation by contrasting forms from Éwé

deverbal adjective derivation (Claudi 2009; see also 3.3.4.2) with the English regular

past tense inflection of verbs:

(8) The scale of shape variation

most varied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . least varied

Éwé:

gblé, tri, . . .

gbe„gblé, ti„tri´, . . .

English:

want, stalk, charge, . . .

-(e)d ([@d], [t], [d])

roots derivation inflection

Éwé derivational reduplication in (8) copies segments from the roots (gblé, tri) but

confines its reduplicant shapes to an unnasalized CV syllable without a complex on-

set (gbe, ti).23 On the other hand, the inflectional suffix of the regular English past con-

sists merely of a dental consonant which is minimally adapted to the featural make-

up of the final root segment by way of phonological voicing assimilation (stal[k]-e[t],

char[>dZ]-[d]) or dissimilatory insertion of unstressed schwa (wan[t]-[@d]).

5.2.12 Summary and consequences

The typological evidence reviewed for the criteria in 5.2.1–5.2.11 strongly speaks for

the primarily derivational nature of reduplication. This conclusion is underpinned23The digraph gb in the examples stands for a single consonant, namely a doubly articulated voiced

labio-velar stop />gb/.


by a comparison of reduplicative meanings with the common prototypical and non-

prototypical morphological categories of inflection and derivation collected in Table

5.1 as well as with Stolz et al.’s (2011: 194) non-exhaustive list of functions that are

seemingly absent from total reduplication in (9) below.

Table 5.1. Prototypicality of common inflectional and derivational categories (based onDressler 1989: 6)

Prototypical Non-prototypical

Inflection case, gender in nouns and verbs, nominal number, gradation,definiteness, possessive, person, aspect, infinitive, participle,number in verbs, tense, voice, mood gerund

Derivation deverbal result nouns, denominal agent noun formation, actionadjectives, deadjectival nouns noun formation, adjective

formation, diminutives

(9) Some categories not expressed by total reduplication:

• grammatical gender and class

• minor numbers such as dual, trial, paucal, etc. (exception: singulative)

• case

• definiteness (as in [+definite]), directional and deixis

• possession

• equative

• negation

• politeness/honorifics

• imperative/prohibitive

• ventive/itive

• person (as e.g. pronominals on verbs), etc.

For one, many of the derivational and non-prototypically (or inherently) inflectional

meanings in Table 5.1 can to one extent or another be reduplicatively expressed across


languages (e.g. nominalization, adjectivization, diminution, nominal and verbal plu-

rality as well as adjectival intensity; see Section 4.1). However, the data of the present

study also confirm that neither full nor partial reduplication expresses most of the

prototypically (or contextually) inflectional categories of Table 5.1 and list (9) in any

language of the sample, specifically case, gender, definiteness,24 possession,25 per-

son, grammatical agreement, tense,26 voice, directional, deixis,27 equative, negation

and politeness/honorifics. Moreover, mood reduplication is only displayed by the

structurally, semantically as well as pragmatically special imperative (see Aikhenvald

2010: Chapter 3) in languages like Yaqui (see 4.1.1.2, including footnote 4),28 while

the reduplicative singulative (granted as an exception in [9]) proposed for Chukchi in

4.1.3 is rather a derivational category standing in opposition to the likewise deriva-

tional collective (see also Stolz et al. 2011: 194, footnote 229).

An interesting consequence of reduplication essentially being a process of deriva-

tion is that this trait can be operationalized as a further distinguishing criterion in

addition to the diagnostics already proposed by Gil (2005) for setting reduplicative

structures off against repetition (see also 3.1.2.4). Thus, taking into account the mor-

phological scopes involved, the derivational inclination of reduplication should make

it possible in certain cases to decide whether repetitive patterns constitute syntactic

word repetitions or full word reduplications (see also Schwaiger forthc. a): If a re-

peated word is clearly inflected by affixation, this would point to a repetitive struc-

24As stated in (9), this holds for the specification [+definite], because indefiniteness is a submeaningof reduplicative diminution (see 4.1.2).

25Despite their name, the possessive neutral verbs of Woleaian involve a difference between perma-nence and temporariness of ownership (the latter being reminiscent of instrumentality in its use;see 3.3.4.2) which seems rather unlike the inflection of nouns for inalienable and alienable posses-sion (see 4.1.4). Similarly, the brief information provided by Inkelas & Zoll (2005: 14) for Tarok(Atlantic-Congo) third person singular possessive reduplication and Arosi (Malayo-Polynesian)reduplicative first and second person possessive constructions at least suggests there to be struc-tural and semantic restrictions in need of further investigation before treating these languages asdisplaying reduplication for purely inflectional possession.

26The remote past of Kwaza is not an instance of pure (affix) reduplication but structurally bolsteredby a nominalizer (see 4.1.5). But note also the disagreement that exists in the literature concerningtense as prototypical (Dressler 1989: 6) or inherent (Booij 1993: 30, 35) inflection.

27This here includes the ventive/itive from (9) as a kind of verbal deixis.28Additionally, this meaning is only possible with partial reduplication (see 4.1.1.2), making the

imperative the only convincing example for Stolz et al.’s (2011: 194, footnote 228) claim that“[s]everal of the categories for which T[otal]R[eduplication] is ruled out as expression are encodedby P[artial]R[eduplication] in at least some languages.”


ture at the level of syntax, because as a reduplicative pattern it would violate the nor-

mal order of prototypical inflection following all derivation in morphology. Consider

(10c) from Sardinian, which superficially looks like containing full reduplication. But

the repeated word is an adjective mannos agreeing with a noun libros in gender and

number. As agreement morphology represents prototypical inflection, by the crite-

rion of morphological scope mannos mannos ‘really/very huge’ has to be counted as

syntactic repetition. If, on the other hand, repeated words only show one or more

derivational affixes, the repetitive structure may qualify as genuine reduplication, es-

pecially if other criteria converge on this analysis as well (e.g. only one repetition pos-

sible and no pause between the two constituents). In this sense, the criterion of mor-

phological scope supplements the reduplicative analysis of Afrikaans considerable

number in (10a) and Quichua simultaneity in (10b), the relevant words reduplicating

along their derivational (i.e. non-prototypically or inherently inflectional) marking

for nominal number (bottels) and infinitive (riku-y), respectively, thereby causing no

ordering paradox between inflection and derivation (see also Booij 1993: 36–40).

(10) a. Afrikaans

Die kinders drink bottels„bottels limonade.

the children drink bottles„bottles lemonade

‘The children drink bottles and bottles of lemonade.’ (Botha 1988: 92; see

also 3.3.1)

b. Quichua

kwitsa-kuna-ta ali riku-y„riku-y trabaja-rka-ni

girl-PL-ACC well look-INF„look-INF work-PST-1

‘While I watched the girls I worked.’ (Cole 1982: 62; see also 3.2.1.1)

c. Sardinian

Biviat unu Sennore, bezzu, chi iscribat

see.PST.3SG INDF.M gentleman old.M REL write.PST.3SG

libros mannos mannos.

book.M.PL big.M.PL big.M.PL

‘He saw an old man who was writing really/very huge books.’ (Stolz et

al. 2011: 28)


5.3 Explaining the derivational nature of reduplication

The way reduplication makes itself out to be in this and preceding chapters offers

strong confirmation for Bybee’s (1985: 87) conclusion “that there is not necessarily

a discrete distinction between inflection and derivation, but that the properties of

the meanings expressed by categories correlate highly with the form in which the

category is expressed.” What remains to be explored is a possible explanation of

the overwhelming cross-linguistic preference for reduplication to fall on the deriva-

tional side of the inflection-derivation continuum as discerned in Section 5.2. Saper-

stein (1997: 40) suggests that in general certain limits to the morphological operations

available for specific morphological functions are to be expected.29 However, in order

to explain the unique tendencies discovered in reduplication, one has to shift from a

mainly symptomatic approach (interested in the ways in which a particular morpho-

logical pattern reflects the criteria in 5.2.1–5.2.11) towards a perspective also devoted

to the potential causes for any restrictions (see Plank 1981: 15–29). For the study at

hand this means that the ultimate goal is to uncover the reasons why reduplication

patterns should be exclusively confined to the use for derivational or derivation-like

categories of morphology in the languages of the world.

To arrive at the explanatory characterization aimed for here it seems vital to take the

iconically restricted semantics of reduplicative exponents into consideration as well.

Accordingly, getting away from the criterial symptoms and proceeding to the causes

of the derivational nature of reduplication, the essence and workings of reduplicative

iconicity as discussed in Section 4.1 can be adduced as the prime candidates for a

functional explanation in this context.30 That is to say, the diagrammatic and imagic

principle of ‘more of the same’ lays a fairly concrete semantic foundation that most

naturally overlaps with intrinsically scalar concepts of relative concreteness within

29One of the most obvious instances of such a limitation is the formal difference between compound-ing and inflection, for compounds universally appear to be exempt from realizing inflectional cat-egories (cf. Saperstein 1997: 40, footnote 20).

30Explaining, in turn, the existence of iconicity in language in terms of its psychological reality via theneurobiological rooting of iconic processing in the general perceptual system of human beings (cf.Mayerthaler 1980: 35) is an interesting attempt which, however, still appears in need of corrobo-rating interdisciplinary research and thus too rudimentary to be seriously incorporated into a firstand foremost linguistic work like the present one.


the Sapirean universal organization of single linguistic categories and relations into

grammatically significant conceptual types across languages (cf. Plank 1981: 16–17):31

(11) I. Basic (concrete) concepts

II. Derivational concepts

III. Concrete relational concepts

IV. Pure relational concepts

This division is based on the criteria of semantic concreteness versus abstractness

and the power to express inherent material content versus syntactic relations, which

together yield a cognitively plausible general scale ranging from maximally con-

crete/material concepts (I, natural domain of the lexicon) to maximally abstract/rela-

tional concepts (IV, natural domain of syntax/inflectional morphology) and provid-

ing a continuous space for individual languages to embed their grammatical cate-

gories in (cf. Plank 1981: 17, 19). Significantly, derivation as it is in this chapter

argued to be the preferred morphological function of reduplication is not only con-

gruent with II (natural domain of word formation, e.g. nominalization and diminu-

tion) in scheme (11), but by way of reduplicative iconicity also comprises certain of

the more and less concrete concepts of type I (e.g. near-lexicalizations) and III (e.g.

nominal and verbal plurality), respectively. The pure relational concepts of IV are not

expected to lie in the domain of reduplication, however, and this is borne out by the

sample data (e.g. the lack of reduplicative case and agreement). Additionally, the

latter lacuna helps to explain the semantic restriction of affix reduplication to expo-

nents whose meanings are compatible with the principle of iconicity (see 4.1.5), be-

cause “[f]unctional categories [i.e. grammatical morphemes; TS] form closed classes

by definition, therefore cannot be semantically scalar and should not be available for

iconic reduplication triggering ‘more-of-the-same’ effects” (Aboh et al. 2012: 12).32

31As Plank (1981: 18) notes himself, the basics of this conception are already well-known from the sev-enteenth and eighteenth century philosophical grammar tradition as well as from the early com-parative philological school of the nineteenth century, but its potential for language-independentlymotivating the gradual distinction between inflection and derivation seems to have been laid outgenuinely by Edward Sapir in the first quarter of the twentieth century.

32While this certainly is not the case for all grammatical morphemes (recall the reduplicated pronounsand adpositions throughout Section 3.3), the absence of semantic scalarity is definitely plausiblefor the absolute distinctions made by maximally abstract, purely relational affixes of inflection.


Finally, the foregoing portrayal of the derivational inclination of reduplication de-

monstrably resonates with how Bybee (1985: 98–99) predicts the relation of morpho-

logical meanings to their derivational or inflectional expression via the principles of

relevance and generality: The notion of relevance predicts that “[a] meaning element

is relevant to another meaning element if the semantic content of the first directly

affects or modifies the semantic content of the second” (Bybee 1985: 13). In this con-

nection the direct modification of scalar concreteness through the mediation of redu-

plicative iconicity leads to the limitation of reduplication to merely certain functions

of morphological derivation. By the same token the factor of lexical generality, nec-

essarily being highest in obligatory inflectional morphology (see Bybee 1985: 16–17),

is incompatible with the iconic ‘more of the same’ principle, for the latter’s semantic

content is inherently too specific to make it possible for reduplication to be included

within the domain of maximally general inflection.

This discussion can be wrapped up by a last comment on two slightly errant gen-

eralizations concerning reduplication’s place in a morphological grammar as formu-

lated for future research by Inkelas (2014: 189):

One is that reduplication that has clearly derivational functions [. . . ] will fairly

unambiguously operate on constituents that contain roots and, potentially, other

derivational affixes; it will occur inside of inflection. The other is that redupli-

cation whose function falls partially or squarely in the category of inflection is

much less constrained in its ordering properties. This is clearly related to the fact

that (inflectional) reduplication has wide scope over the whole word, regardless

of what part of the word it copies.

In actual fact, drawing on all the findings of the present investigation, once the es-

sentially derivational nature of the process and its consequences as well as interac-

tions with other morphological categories, functions and devices are properly appre-

ciated, reduplication protrudes rather not so much as “a ‘wild card’ in morphology,

exhibiting combinatoric (affix ordering) behaviors which are uncharacteristic of other

morphological constructions”, but as solely special in that its “characteristic iconic

semantics [. . . ] straddle the boundary between derivation and inflection” (Inkelas

2014: 189). This particular reduplicative property, though, beyond doubt stands in

stark contrast to every other operation found in morphology.

6 Conclusion

Recapitulating the main typological assumptions, hypotheses and results of this study

appears most profitable in juxtaposition to the manner how peculiarities of reduplica-

tive behavior are normally sought to be explained in the pertinent formal literature.

An especially suitable passage for such a comparison is quoted at some length be-

low, taken from Spaelti’s (1997) OT-framed work on multi-pattern reduplication and

subsequently discussed in brief to concludingly summarize the principal differences

between formalistic and functional approaches to reduplicating patterns as well as to

their status in language:

For one, reduplication always seems to home in on the root/stem even though

many uses of reduplication are inflectional and should thus be external to other

affixes. Despite this position as innermost affix, reduplication most often consti-

tutes the ‘last level’ of affixation, in the sense that it needs to ‘happen’ after other

processes. This is because other processes often affect the base, and their effects

must be copied by the reduplicant. [. . . ] However this schizophrenic behavior

has a common purpose. [. . . ] In order for reduplication to be effective it requires

two parts which are noticeably identical. Both of reduplication’s seemingly con-

flicting properties serve to achieve this goal. First, in order to be recognizable as

repetition, the two strings should be maximally similar. This explains the ten-

dency for reduplication to ‘apply last’. [. . . ] Second, for the repetition to be rec-

ognizable it should seek the part of the word that is maximally distinct, since

only the distinctness of the reduplicant from one form to the other will guaran-

tee that the identity relation is perceived as the relevant property of the affixation,

rather than the segmental content. This explains why the reduplication seeks the

root/stem, since only the root/stem is guaranteed to be distinct from one form to

the other. (Spaelti 1997: 111; original emphasis)

154

6 Conclusion 155

In spite of several superficial similarities, ultimately the premises and explanations

for why reduplication looks and works the way it does in the world’s languages con-

trast fundamentally for a form-driven formalist angle like the above and a meaning-

driven functionalist perspective like the present one:

• While it is true that reduplication always seems to home in on the root/stem (with

the well-founded exception of reduplicated affixes), this is not the case for the

purely formal reason that only the root/stem is guaranteed to be distinct from one

form to the other. Rather, the root privilege of reduplication (and also that the

greatest distinctness/shape variation exists within roots, for that matter) is func-

tionally determined by the linguistic principle of iconicity, the salient ‘more of

the same’ manifestation of which is responsible for the highly relevant and spe-

cific function potential of reduplicative exponents as well as their consequent

proximity to the morphological root whose semantics they can primarily target.

• In line with the iconically motivated high relevance and low generality of the

process, it is false that many uses of reduplication are inflectional, and apart from

identity-establishing over- and underapplying phonology most of the so-called

ordering paradoxes with affixation cease to be paradox when the essentially

derivational nature of reduplication and the general continuum from proto-

typical inflection via non-prototypical inflection and derivation to prototypical

derivation in morphology are accordingly acknowledged.

• Due to its tightly knit functional and formal peculiarities reduplication is more

adequately conceived as an independent non-concatenative morphological de-

vice than as a special kind of concatenative affixation (and/or compounding).

• Lastly, as important as the identity relation may appear to be, it is not the driving

force of reduplication but, on the contrary, the most perceptible consequence of

the underlying iconic principle. Cross-linguistically, reduplication is therefore

first and foremost a functionally grounded morphological operation the phono-

logical aspects of which are often only secondarily involved in a potentially

complex and interleaved fashion to yield the varied yet systematic typological

picture of reduplicant structure in the languages of the world as presented here.

6 Conclusion 156

In sum, formalistic analyses of reduplication are only capable of telling half of the

explanatory story unless they choose to incorporate reduplicative semantics and the

character of morphological functions across languages much more into the overall

view. In this regard, the present functional-typological stance is superior because it

takes morpho-semantic factors of iconicity into account that in turn have a determin-

ing cross-linguistic influence on the derivational essence of reduplication as well as

on the basis for the many theoretically challenging phonological identity effects op-

erative in the structure of reduplicants.

There is one respect, however, in which linguistic functionalism still lags behind

formalism in reduplication research: Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the

worse, formalists are typically guided by the strict confines of a grammatical theory

as opposed to the relatively loose collection of explanatory concepts and principles

drawn upon by a wide variety of functionalists. What thus becomes more and more

evident when indulging oneself in a typology of reduplication is the urgent need of

an appropriate model able to comprehensively capture the interrelatedness of redu-

plicative function and form as uncovered in the previous chapters. Future investi-

gations should consequently rely on integrative frameworks that allow reduplication

to find its proper place in grammar not only concerning phonology and morphology

but also in relation to semantics, pragmatics and language on the whole. Obviously,

such an ambitious treatment would have led too far beyond the scope of the study at

hand, but its possibilities are programmatically explored in some detail by Schwaiger

(forthc. b) for the promising theoretical framework offered via the model of functional

discourse grammar.

Appendix

The two tables on the following pages specify the languages and summarize the redu-

plication data, respectively, on which the present study is based. Table A.1 lists each

sample language alphabetically according to its primary name and genetic affiliation

(restricted to the highest two levels of classification) as provided by the web version

of the Ethnologue.1 The data sources are given in the last column. Table A.2 gives

a very condensed overview of reduplicative forms and functions in the languages of

the sample according to the parameters discussed in the previous chapters, using ab-

breviations, glosses and symbols as they are listed at the beginning of this work (see

also Schwaiger 2013: 223–224, Table 4, including footnote 15).

1This refers to the seventeenth edition retrieved online on several occasions during 2014. Thisversion of the by now updated and subscription-based Ethnologue can be accessed via http://www.ethnologue.com/17/.

157

http://www.ethnologue.com/17/

http://www.ethnologue.com/17/

Appendix

158

Table A.1. Sample languages

Classification References

Abkhaz North Caucasian, West Caucasian Hewitt (1979)

Afrikaans Indo-European, Germanic Botha (1988)

Ainu Language isolate Refsing (1986)

Alamblak Sepik, Sepik Hill Bruce (1984)

Amele Trans-New Guinea, Madang Roberts (1991)

Arabic, Egyptian Spoken Afro-Asiatic, Semitic El Zarka (2009)

Asháninka Maipurean, Southern Payne (1981)

Asmat, Central Trans-New Guinea, Asmat-Kamoro Voorhoeve (1965)

Bagirmi Nilo-Saharan, Central Sudanic Stevenson (1969)

Basque Language isolate Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina (2003)

Bikol, Central Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Mattes (2014)

Bukiyip Torricelli, Kombio-Arapesh Dobrin (2001)

Burmese Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman Lehman (2001)

Chachi Barbacoan, Southern Floyd (2009)

Chamorro Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Topping (1973)

Chinese, Mandarin Sino-Tibetan, Chinese Lin (2001)

Chukchi Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Northern Dunn (1999)

Cree, Plains Algic, Algonquian Ahenakew & Wolfart (1983)

Daga Trans-New Guinea, Southeast Papuan Murane (1974)

Appendix

159


Dagaare, Southern Niger-Congo, Atlantic-Congo Bodomo (2000)

Dani, Lower Grand Valley Trans-New Guinea, West van der Stap (1966)

Éwé Niger-Congo, Atlantic Congo Claudi (2009)

Fijian Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Schütz (1985)

Gayo Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Eades (2005)

Georgian Kartvelian, Georgian Hewitt (1995)

Gooniyandi Australian, Bunaban McGregor (1990)

Hausa Afro-Asiatic, Chadic Newman (2000)

Hebrew Afro-Asiatic, Semitic Levkovych (2007)

Hiligaynon Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Wolfenden (1971)

Hindi Indo-European, Indo-Iranian McGregor (1972)

Hmong Njua Hmong-Mien, Hmongic Harriehausen (1990)

Hungarian Uralic Tompa (1968)

Hupdë Puinavean, Hupda Epps (2008)

Ilocano Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Rubino (2000)

Indonesian Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Sneddon (1996)

Jakalteko Mayan, Yucatecan-Core Mayan Day (1973)

Jamaican Creole English Creole, English based Kouwenberg et al. (2003)

Japanese Japonic Iwasaki (2013)

Kannada Dravidian, Southern Sridhar (1990)

Karok Language isolate Bright (1957)

Appendix

160


Kayardild Australian, Tangic Evans (1995)

Keres, Western Keresan Miller (1965)

Korean Language isolate Sohn (1999)

Krio Creole, English based Nylander (2003)

Kwaza Language isolate van der Voort (2003)

Lakota Siouan-Catawban, Siouan Ingham (2003)

Lango Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic Noonan (1992)

Lavukaleve Central Solomons Terrill (2003)

Lezgi North Caucasian, East Caucasian Haspelmath (1993)

Luvale Niger-Congo, Atlantic-Congo Horton (1949)

Mai Brat Maybrat Dol (2007)

Malagasy, Plateau Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Keenan & Polinsky (2001)

Mangarayi Australian, Gunwingguan Merlan (1982)

Maori Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Biggs (1973)

Martuyhunira Australian, Pama-Nyungan Dench (1995)

Maung Australian, Yiwaidjan Capell & Hinch (1970)

Meitei Sino-Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman Chelliah (1997)

Mokilese Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Harrison (1976)

Mongolian, Halh Altaic, Mongolic Svantesson et al. (2005)

Nahuatl, Orizaba/Tetelcingo Uto-Aztecan, Southern Uto-Aztecan Tuggy (2003)

Nama Khoisan, Southern Africa Hagman (1977)

Appendix

161


Nyangumarta Australian, Pama-Nyungan Sharp (2004)

Oromo, Eastern Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic Owens (1985)

Paiwan Austronesian, Paiwan Egli (1990)

Pakaásnovos Chapacuran, Wari Everett & Kern (1997)

Papiamentu Creole, Iberian based Kouwenberg (2003)

Persian, Iranian Indo-European, Indo-Iranian Mahootian (1997)

Pima Bajo Uto-Aztecan, Southern Uto-Aztecan Escalante H. & Estrada Fernández (1993)

Quichua, Imbabura Highland Quechuan, Peripheral Quechua Cole (1982)

Rapa Nui Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Du Feu (1996)

Réunion Creole French Creole, French based Daval-Markussen (2009)

Saisiyat Austronesian, Northwest Formosan Yeh (2009)

Sénoufo, Supyire Niger-Congo, Atlantic-Congo Carlson (1994)

Somali Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic Berchem (1991)

Swahili Niger-Congo, Atlantic-Congo Novotna (2000)

Tagalog Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Schachter & Otanes (1972)

Thai Tai-Kadai, Kam-Tai Iwasaki & Ingkaphirom (2005)

Tok Pisin Creole, English based Mühlhäusler (1975)

Tukang Besi, North/South Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Donohue (1999)

Turkish Altaic, Turkic Göksel & Kerslake (2005)

Vietnamese Austro-Asiatic, Mon-Khmer Nguyên (1997)

Wangaaybuwan-Ngiyambaa Australian, Pama-Nyungan Donaldson (1980)

Appendix

162


Woleaian Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian Sohn (1975)

Yanomámi Yanomaman Goodwin Gómez (2009)

Yaqui Uto-Aztecan, Southern Uto-Aztecan Harley & Amarillas (2003)

Yoruba Niger-Congo, Atlantic-Congo Adewole (1997)

Zulu Niger-Congo, Atlantic-Congo Canonici (1996)

Appendix

163

Table A.2. Overview of reduplication forms and functions in the sample languages

Full reduplication Partial reduplication

Plurality Intensity Diminution Others Plurality Intensity Diminution Others

Abkhaz (E)W, RT RT – W, RT: N, ADJ, C- C- – –

ADV Ñ ADV

Afrikaans W W W – – – – –

Ainu W W W – – – – –

Alamblak W, ST, RT W, ST, RT – – – – – –

(+ LIG)

Amele (E)W, ST, Af W (E)W W: NÑ ADJ, ADV (-)CV-, (-)V(C)- CV-, -VC – –

Arabic W W EW – -C- – – –

Asháninka ST ST – – – – – –

Asmat RT – – – CV-, VC- – – –

Bagirmi ST ST – – – CV- – –

Basque (E)W (E)W, ST W – – – – –

Bikol RT RT RT – F- (Curu), CV-, -Vr- CV- F- (Curu) –

Bukiyip RT RT – – CV- CV- – –

Burmese – – – RT: ADJ Ñ ADV – – – –

Chachi RT – – RT: NÑ ADV – – – –

Chamorro – – – – (-)(C)V- -CV(-) – (C)V-: VÑ N

Chinese W W W W: ADJ Ñ ADV – – – –

Chukchi – – – ST: ABS.SG – – – -(C)VC: ABS.SG

Cree – – – – (C)a(:)- (C)a:- – –

Daga (E)W – – W (+ CONJ): -CV- F- (CVCV) – –

VÑ PTCP

Dagaare W W – – – – – –

Dani (E)W, RT (E)W – – – – – –

Éwé – – – W: N (+ DEM)Ñ ADV; – – – CV-: VÑ ADJ

VÑ N, ADJ

Fijian RT, Af RT RT (+ Af) RT: VÑ ATTR, ADV F- (CVCV), F- (CVCV), CV:-, CV(:)-, CV- (+ Af) CV(:)-: VÑ

RT (+ Af): N, VÑ C(C)V(:)- CV„CV- ATTR

STAT CV-: INCH

Gayo W (E)W W (+ Af) W: PREP Ñ ADV C@- C@- C@- (+ Af) –

Appendix

164



Georgian RT RT – – – – – –

Gooniyandi RT RT RT – F- (��), F- (�CV), F- (�CV) –

-F (�CV), -F (�CV)

CV(C)-, (-)CV-

Hausa ST ST ST – (-)CVC- (+Af) CVC- – -F (aCCe):

VÑ ADJ

Hebrew W W – – -C – -CaC, -C –

Hiligaynon RT – RT – -Vl(„Vl)- -Vl- F- (Culu) CV- (+ Af):

VÑ N

Hindi (E)W, ST W, ST EW W: PTCP Ñ ADJ, – – – –

ADV

Hmong Njua W W – – – – – –

Hungarian W, Af (E)W EW – – – – –

Hupdë – – – – CV- – – CV-: ATTR

Ilocano RT (+ N) RT RT – F- (CVC[C][V]V, F- (CVC[C][V]V), F- (CVC[C][V]V), –

CVCVN-), CVC-, CVC- CVC-, CV- (+ Af)

CV- (+Af), -C-

Indonesian W, RT W, RT W, RT W: ADJ Ñ ADV – – – –

Jakalteko RT – – – -C – – –

Jamaican Creole W W, ST W W: N, VÑ ADJ – – – –

English

Japanese W – – W: NÑ ADJ, ADV – – – –

Kannada (E)W, RT W EW – – – – –

Karok ST – – – -F (��), -CV(C) – – –

Kayardild ST – ST – – – – –

Keres ST – – ST: ADJ Ñ N -CV – – –

Korean (E)W, RT W – – CVC, -CV(-) -CVC(V)(-) – –

Krio RT RT – RT: VÑ N, ADJ; – – – –

ADJ Ñ N

Kwaza RT, Af RT, Af RT Af: RPST (C)V-, -CV (C)V-, -CV CV- –

Lakota ST ST – – (-)(C)(C)V(C)- (-)(C)(C)V(C)- – –

Lango W – – – – – CV- –

Appendix

165



Lavukaleve ST W ST – F- (CVCV, – F- (CVCV, –

CVV), CV- CVV), CV-

Lezgi (E)W – EW – – -C – –

Luvale ST ST, Af – ST: V, IDEO Ñ N CV- – CV- –

Af: PFV, PROX

Mai Brat EW, ST EW, ST EW, ST – – – – –

Malagasy RT – RT – -F (kV/��[�]), -� – -F (��[�]), -� –

Mangarayi W, ST, RT W – – CVC, (-)CV- – – –

Maori W – W – CV-, -V- CV- -CV:, CV- –

Martuyhunira RT RT – – – – – –

Maung RT – – – -CV – – –

Meitei (E)W W, ST (E)W W: VÑ ADV – – – –

Mokilese RT, RT„RT RT RT RT (+ Af): N, VÑ CVC-, VCC-, (C)V:-, CV(:)C(V:)- -CVC, VCC-, -CVC (+ Af):

STAT; VÑ N CV(:)(C)„CV(:)(C)- CV(C)- N, VÑ STAT

Mongolian EW – EW – – (C)Vw- – –

Nahuatl – – – – (C)V(:)-, (C)Vh/P-, (C)V(:)-, (C)Vh/P-, (C)V(:)-, (C)Vh/P- –

CV:h- (-)Vh-

Nama RT (+ Af) – – RT: V, ADJ Ñ – – – –

CAUS

Nyangumarta W, RT – RT – F- (CVCV[C]) – F- (CVCV[C]) –

Oromo – – – – CVC- – – –

Paiwan W, RT W, RT W, RT RT (+ Af): FUT; (-)(�)CV-, Ca- (-)(�)CV- (-)(�)CV- (-)(�)CV-

NÑ ADJ (+ Af): FUT;

NÑ ADJ

Ca- (+ Af):

VÑ N

Pakaásnovos W W, ST, RT – – F- (CVCV), F- (CVCV), – –

(-)F- (CVrV), CV- (-)F- (CVrV), CV-

Papiamentu W W W W: NÑ ADJ, ADV; – – – –

V, ADJ Ñ N

Persian EW (E)W – – – – – –

Pima Bajo – – – – CV- (+ Af) CV- – –

Appendix

166



Quichua W – – W: ADJ Ñ ADV – – – –

Rapa Nui W – – – -F (CVCV), CV- -F (CVCV) CV- –

Réunion Creole W W W W: VÑ N, ADJ – – – –

French

Saisiyat RT (+ Af) – – – CV(C)- (+ Af), Ca- – CVC- Ca-: FUT.IF;

VÑ N

Sénoufo W – – W: VÑ N – – – –

Somali W – – – (C)V(C)-, -aC – – –

Swahili W, ST, RT W, ST, RT W, ST, RT W, ST, RT: NÑ V; N, – – – –

VÑ ADJ; V, ADJ Ñ N

Tagalog RT (+ Af) RT (+ Af) RT (+ Af) – F- (�CV[:]) (+ Af), F- (�CV[:]) (+ Af) F- (�CV[:]) CV- (+ Af):

CV- (+ Af) (+ Af) RES; VÑ N

Thai EW, RT EW, RT – – – – – –

Tok Pisin W W, ST – – – – – –

Tukang Besi ST – – – F- (��) – F- (��), CV- –

Turkish (E)W W (+ PART) EW W: NÑ ADJ; N, – (C)Vp(A)/s/r(Il/Am)/m- – –

ADJ (+ PART)Ñ ADV

Vietnamese (E)W (E)W, W„W (E)W – – – – –

Wangaaybuwan- ST, RT – ST, RT – – – F- (�CV) –

Ngiyambaa

Woleaian ST – ST ST: INCH; N, VÑ CVC- – CVC (+ Af), CVC: N,

STAT; N, CLF Ñ V (-)C- (+ Af) VÑ STAT

Yanomámi ST, RT – – ST, RT: VÑ N – – – –

Yaqui – – – – F- ([C]VCV), CVV-, F- ([C]VCV), CVV-, – –

(C)VC-, (C)V-, -C- (C)VC-, (C)V-, -C-

Yoruba ST (+ LK) – ST (+ LK) W: N, ADJ, PREP Ñ F- (VCV) – – F- (VCV):

ADV; VÑ N NÑ ADV

Cí-: VÑ GER

Zulu ST – ST – – – – –

References

Abbi, Anvita. 1992. Reduplication in South Asian languages: An areal, typological and historical

study. New Delhi et al.: Allied Publishers Limited.

Aboh, Enoch Oladé, Norval Smith & Anne Zribi-Hertz. 2012. Reduplication beyond the

word level. In Aboh et al. (eds.) 2012, 1–26.

Aboh, Enoch Oladé, Norval Smith & Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.). 2012. The morphosyntax of

reiteration in creole and non-creole languages (Creole Language Library 43). Amsterdam &

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Abraham, Werner. 2005. Intensity and diminution triggered by reduplicating morphol-

ogy: Janus-faced iconicity. In Hurch (ed.) 2005, 547–568.

Adewole, Stephen M. 1997. Reduplication in Yoruba. Linguistique Africaine 18. 105–129.

Ahenakew, Freda & H. Christoph Wolfart. 1983. Productive reduplication in Plains Cree.

In William Cowan (ed.), Actes du quatorzième congrès des algonquinistes, 369–377. Ottawa:

Carleton University.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and commands (Oxford Studies in Typology

and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alderete, John, Jill Beckman, Laura Benua, Amalia Gnanadesikan, John McCarthy & Su-

zanne Urbanczyk. 1999. Reduplication with fixed segmentism. Linguistic Inquiry 30(3).

327–364.

Ammann, Andreas & Aina Urdze (eds.). 2007. Wiederholung, Parallelismus, Reduplikation:

Strategien der multiplen Strukturanwendung (Diversitas Linguarum 16). Bochum: Uni-

versitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.

Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13(4). 571–612.

Anttila, Raimo. 2003. Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. In Brian D. Joseph &

Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (Blackwell Handbooks in

Linguistics), 425–440. Malden et al.: Blackwell Publishers.

167

References 168

Aronoff, Mark. 1988. Head operations and strata in reduplication: A linear treatment.

In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1988, 1–15. Dordrecht &

Providence: Foris Publications.

Bauer, Laurie. 2014. Concatenative derivation. In Lieber & Štekauer (eds.) 2014, 118–135.

Berchem, Jörg. 1991. Referenzgrammatik des Somali. Köln: OMIMEE.

Biggs, Bruce. 1973. Let’s learn Maori: A guide to the study of the Maori language, 2nd edn.

Wellington et al.: Reed Education.

Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42(3). 531–573.

Blust, Robert. 2001. Thao triplication. Oceanic Linguistics 40(2). 324–335.

Bodomo, Adams B. 2000. Dàgáárè (Languages of the World/Materials 165). München:

LINCOM Europa.

Booij, Geert. 1993. Against split morphology. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.),

Yearbook of morphology 1993, 27–49. Dordrecht et al.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Botha, Rudolf P. 1988. Form and meaning in word formation: A study of Afrikaans reduplication

(Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Supplementary Volume). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Brandstetter, Renward. 1917. Die Reduplikation in den indianischen, indonesischen und in-

dogermanischen Sprachen. Beilage zum Jahresbericht der Luzerner Kantonsschule.

Bright, William. 1957. The Karok language (University of California Publications in Lin-

guistics 13). Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Broselow, Ellen & John McCarthy. 1984. A theory of internal reduplication. The Linguistic

Review 3(1). 25–88.

Bruce, Les. 1984. The Alamblak language of Papua New Guinea (East Sepik) (Pacific Linguistics

Series C-81). Canberra: The Australian National University.

Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form (Typo-

logical Studies in Language 9). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.

Bybee, Joan L., Revere Dale Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar:

Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago & London: The Univer-

sity of Chicago Press.

Canonici, Noverino N. 1996. Zulu grammatical structure, 3rd edn. Durban: Zulu Language

and Literature, University of Natal.

References 169

Capell, Arthur & Heather E. Hinch. 1970. Maung grammar: Texts and vocabulary (Janua

Linguarum, Series Practica 98). The Hague & Paris: Mouton.

Carlson, Robert. 1994. A grammar of Supyire (Mouton Grammar Library 14). Berlin & New

York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chelliah, Shobhana L. 1997. A grammar of Meithei (Mouton Grammar Library 17). Berlin

& New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chirikba, Viacheslav A. 2003. Abkhaz (Languages of the World/Materials 119). München:

LINCOM Europa.

Claudi, Ulrike. 2009. Questionnaire on reduplication (Ewe) (Graz Database on Reduplication

Questionnaire). Graz: University of Graz.

Clements, George N. 1985. The problem of transfer in nonlinear morphology. Cornell

Working Papers in Linguistics 7. 38–73.

Cole, Peter. 1982. Imbabura Quechua (Lingua Descriptive Studies 5). Amsterdam: North-

Holland Publishing Company.

Comrie, Bernard, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Martin Haspelmath. 2005. Introduction.

In Haspelmath et al. (eds.) 2005, 1–8.

Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Cusic, David Dowell. 1981. Verbal plurality and aspect. Stanford: Stanford University

doctoral dissertation.

Daval-Markussen, Aymeric. 2009. Alala konmsaminm! Reduplication in Réunion Créole.

Unpublished, Aarhus University.

Day, Christopher. 1973. The Jacaltec language (Indiana University Publications, Language

Science Monographs 12). Bloomington: Indiana University.

Dench, Alan. 1995. Martuthunira: A language of the Pilbara region of Western Australia (Pa-

cific Linguistics Series C-125). Canberra: The Australian National University.

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause

(Functional Grammar Series 20), 2nd edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dobrin, Lise M. 2001. Arapesh. In Garry & Rubino (eds.) 2001, 33–38.

Dol, Philomena. 2007. A grammar of Maybrat: A language of the Bird’s Head Peninsula,

Papua Province, Indonesia (Pacific Linguistics 586). Canberra: The Australian National

University.

References 170

Donaldson, Tamsin. 1980. Ngiyambaa: The language of the Wangaaybuwan (Cambridge Stud-

ies in Linguistics 29). Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press.

Donohue, Mark. 1999. A grammar of Tukang Besi (Mouton Grammar Library 20). Berlin &

New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Downing, Laura J. & Barbara Stiebels. 2012. Iconicity. In Trommer (ed.) 2012, 379–426.

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1968. Studien zur verbalen Pluralität: Iterativum, Distributivum, Dura-

tivum, Intensivum in der allgemeinen Grammatik, im Lateinischen und Hethitischen (Öster-

reichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Sitzungs-

berichte 259, Abhandlung 1). Wien: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. Kommissionsverlag der

Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1986. Explanation in natural morphology, illustrated with compar-

ative and agent-noun formation. Linguistics 24(3). 519–548.

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation.

Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42(1). 3–10.

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1995. Interactions between iconicity and other semiotic parameters

in language. In Raffaele Simone (ed.), Iconicity in language (Current Issues in Linguistic

Theory 110), 21–37. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Dressler, Wolfgang U., Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Natalia Gagarina & Marianne

Kilani-Schoch. 2005. Reduplication in child language. In Hurch (ed.) 2005, 455–474.

Du Feu, Veronica. 1996. Rapanui (Descriptive Grammars). London & New York: Rout-

ledge.

Dunn, Michael John. 1999. A grammar of Chukchi. Canberra: Australian National Univer-

sity doctoral dissertation.

Eades, Domenyk. 2005. A grammar of Gayo: A language of Aceh, Sumatra (Pacific Linguistics

567). Canberra: The Australian National University.

Egli, Hans. 1990. Paiwangrammatik. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

El Zarka, Dina. 2005. On the borderline of reduplication: Gemination and other consonant

doubling in Arabic morphology. In Hurch (ed.) 2005, 369–394.

El Zarka, Dina. 2009. Reduplication. In Kees Versteegh (ed.), Encyclopedia of Arabic lan-

guage and linguistics, vol. 4, 50–53. Leiden & Boston: Brill.

Epps, Patience. 2008. A grammar of Hup (Mouton Grammar Library 43). Berlin & New


References 171

Escalante H., Roberto & Zarina Estrada Fernández. 1993. Textos y gramatica del Pima Bajo.

Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.

Evans, Nicholas D. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild: With historical-comparative notes on Tangkic

(Mouton Grammar Library 15). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Everett, Daniel Leonard & Barbara Kern. 1997. Wari: The Pacaas Novos language of Western

Brazil (Descriptive Grammars). London & New York: Routledge.

Fabricius, Anne H. 1998. A comparative survey of reduplication in Australian languages (LIN-

COM Studies in Australian Languages 3). München: LINCOM Europa.

Fischer, Olga. 2011. Cognitive iconic grounding of reduplication in language. In Pas-

cal Michelucci, Olga Fischer & Christina Ljungberg (eds.), Semblance and signification

(Iconicity in Language and Literature 10), 55–81. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John

Benjamins Publishing Company.

Fitzpatrick-Cole, Jennifer. 1994. The prosodic domain hierarchy in reduplication. Stanford:

Stanford University doctoral dissertation.

Floyd, Simeon. 2009. Questionnaire on reduplication (Cha’palaa) (Graz Database on Redupli-

cation Questionnaire). Graz: University of Graz.

Fortescue, Michael D. 1998. Language relations across Bering Strait: Reappraising the archaeo-

logical and linguistic evidence (Open Linguistics). London & New York: Cassell.

Frampton, John. 2009. Distributed reduplication (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 52). Cam-

bridge, MA & London, UK: The MIT Press.

Garry, Jane & Carl Rubino (eds.). 2001. Facts about the world’s languages: An encyclopedia of

the world’s major languages, past and present. New York & Dublin: H. W. Wilson Press.

Gervain, Judit, Francesco Macagno, Silvia Cogoi, Marcela Peña & Jacques Mehler. 2008.

The neonate brain detects speech structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-

ences of the United States of America 105(37). 14222–14227.

Ghomeshi, Jila, Ray Jackendoff, Nicole Rosen & Kevin Russell. 2004. Contrastive focus

reduplication in English (The salad-salad paper). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

22(2). 307–357.

Gil, David. 2005. From repetition to reduplication in Riau Indonesian. In Hurch (ed.)

2005, 31–64.

Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Ben-

jamins Publishing Company.

References 172

Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar (Routledge Com-

prehensive Grammars). London & New York: Routledge. https://izabelaszmit.files.

wordpress.com/2011/03/turkish-grammar.pdf (2017-08-01.)

Goodwin Gómez, Gale. 2009. Reduplication, ideophones, and onomatopoeic repetition

in the Yanomami languages. Grazer Linguistische Studien 71. 21–38.

Goodwin Gómez, Gale & Hein van der Voort (eds.). 2014. Reduplication in indigenous

languages of South America (Brill’s Studies in the Indigenous Languages of the Americas

7). Leiden & Boston: Brill.

Gordon, Matthew & Pamela Munro. 2007. A phonetic study of final vowel lengthening in

Chickasaw. International Journal of American Linguistics 73(3). 293–330.

Hagman, Roy S. 1977. Nama Hottentot grammar (Indiana University Publications, Lan-

guage Science Monographs 15). Bloomington: Indiana University.

Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language

56(3). 515–540.

Hanson, Kristin & Sharon Inkelas (eds.). 2009. The nature of the word: Studies in honor of

Paul Kiparsky (Current Studies in Linguistics 47). Cambridge, MA & London, UK: The

MIT Press.

Harley, Heidi & Maria Amarillas. 2003. Reduplication multiplication in Yaqui: Meaning

x form. In Luis M. Barragan & Jason D. Haugen (eds.), Studies in Uto-Aztecan (MIT

Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 5), 105–139. Cambridge,

MA: MITWPL.

Harriehausen, Bettina. 1990. Hmong Njua: Syntaktische Analyse einer gesprochenen Sprache

mithilfe datenverarbeitungstechnischer Mittel und sprachvergleichende Beschreibung des süd-

ostasiatischen Sprachraumes (Linguistische Arbeiten 245). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Ver-

lag.

Harrison, Sheldon P. 1976. Mokilese reference grammar (PALI Language Texts: Micronesia).

Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian (Mouton Grammar Library 9). Berlin &


Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding morphology (Understanding Language Series).

London: Arnold.

https://izabelaszmit.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/turkish-grammar.pdf

https://izabelaszmit.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/turkish-grammar.pdf

References 173

Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2005. The

world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haspelmath, Martin & the APiCS Consortium. 2013. Functions of reduplication. In Su-

sanne Maria Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.),

The atlas of pidgin and creole language structures, 100–103. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Haugen, Jason D. 2009. What is the base for reduplication? Linguistic Inquiry 40(3). 505–

514.

Hewitt, Brian George. 1979. Abkhaz (Lingua Descriptive Studies 2). Amsterdam: North-


Hewitt, Brian George. 1995. Georgian: A structural reference grammar (London Oriental and

African Language Library 2). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2000. Towards a typology of typologies. Sprachtypologie und

Universalienforschung 53(1). 5–12.

Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language

56(2). 251–299.

Horton, Alonzo E. 1949. A grammar of Luvale (Bantu Grammatical Archives 2). Johannes-

burg: Witwatersrand University Press.

Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. A grammar of Basque (Mouton Grammar

Library 26). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hurch, Bernhard. 2000. Zur Kategorie Intensiv im Tarahumara. In Andreas Bittner, Dag-

mar Bittner & Klaus-Michael Köpcke (eds.), Angemessene Strukturen: Systemorganisation

in Phonologie, Morphologie und Syntax, 63–77. Hildesheim et al.: Georg Olms Verlag.

Hurch, Bernhard. 2002. Die sogenannte expletive Reduplikation im Tarahumara. Plä-

doyer für einen verpönten Begriff: Euphonie. In Michael Bommes, Christine Noack

& Doris Tophinke (eds.), Sprache als Form: Festschrift für Utz Maas zum 60. Geburtstag,

51–62. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Hurch, Bernhard (ed.). 2005. Studies on reduplication (Empirical Approaches to Language

Typology 28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hurch, Bernhard. 2009. The diachrony and productivity of reduplication: A reprise.

Grazer Linguistische Studien 71. 1–2.

References 174

Hurch, Bernhard, Motomi Kajitani, Veronika Mattes, Ursula Stangel & Ralf Vollmann.

2008. Other reduplication phenomena. http://reduplication.uni-graz.at/texte/Other_

Red_Phen.pdf (2017-08-01.)

Hurch, Bernhard & Veronika Mattes. 2005. Über die Entstehung von partieller Reduplika-

tion. In Gertraud Fenk-Oczlon & Christian Winkler (eds.), Sprache und Natürlichkeit:

Gedenkband für Willi Mayerthaler, 137–156. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Hurch, Bernhard & Veronika Mattes. 2007. The Graz database on reduplication. In Alexis

Michaud & Aliyah Morgenstern (eds.), La réduplication (Faits de Langues 29), 191–202.

Paris: Ophrys.

Hurch, Bernhard & Veronika Mattes. 2009a. Introduction: Diachrony and productivity of

reduplication. Morphology 19(2). 107–112.

Hurch, Bernhard & Veronika Mattes. 2009b. Typology of reduplication: The Graz data-

base. In Martin Everaert, Simon Musgrave & Alexis Dimitriadis (eds.), The use of data-

bases in cross-linguistic studies (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 41), 301–

327. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hyman, Larry M. 2009. The natural history of verb-stem reduplication in Bantu. Morphol-

ogy 19(2). 177–206.

Hyman, Larry M., Sharon Inkelas & Galen Sibanda. 2009. Morphosyntactic correspon-

dence in Bantu reduplication. In Hanson & Inkelas (eds.) 2009, 273–309.

Ingham, Bruce. 2003. Lakota (Languages of the World/Materials 426). München: LIN-

COM Europa.

Inkelas, Sharon. 2012. Reduplication. In Trommer (ed.) 2012, 355–378.

Inkelas, Sharon. 2014. Non-concatenative derivation: Reduplication. In Lieber & Štekauer

(eds.) 2014, 169–189.

Inkelas, Sharon & Cheryl Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in morphology (Cambridge

Studies in Linguistics 106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2013. Japanese: Revised edition (London Oriental and African Language

Library 17). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Iwasaki, Shoichi & Preeya Ingkaphirom. 2005. A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge:


Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language

72(3). 533–578.

http://reduplication.uni-graz.at/texte/Other_Red_Phen.pdf

http://reduplication.uni-graz.at/texte/Other_Red_Phen.pdf

References 175

Kajitani, Motomi. 2005. Semantic properties of reduplication among the world’s lan-

guages. In Rebecca Shields (ed.), Proceedings of WIGL 2005 (LSO Working Papers in Lin-

guistics 5), 93–106. Madison: University of Wisconsin. http://vanhise.lss.wisc.edu/

ling/files/ling_old_web/lso/wpl/5.1/LSOWP5.1-08-Kajitani.pdf (2017-08-01.)

Keane, Elinor. 2001. Echo words in Tamil. Oxford: Merton College doctoral dissertation.

Keane, Elinor. 2006. Fixed segmentism and dual description. Linguistics 44(4). 645–687.

Keenan, Edward L. & Maria Polinsky. 2001. Malagasy (Austronesian). In Andrew Spencer

& Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology (Blackwell Handbooks in Lin-

guistics), 563–623. Oxford & Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

Kennedy, Robert. 2008. Evidence for morphoprosodic alignment in reduplication. Lin-

guistic Inquiry 39(4). 589–614.

Key, Harold. 1965. Some semantic functions of reduplication in various languages. An-

thropological Linguistics 7(3). 88–102.

Kiefer, Ferenc. 1995/1996. Prefix reduplication in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica

43(1–2). 175–194.

Kimball, Geoffrey D. 1988. Koasati reduplication. In William Shipley (ed.), In honor of

Mary Haas: From the Haas festival conference on native American linguistics, 431–442. Berlin

et al.: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kimball, Geoffrey D. 1991. Koasati grammar (Studies in the Anthropology of North Amer-

ican Indians). Lincoln & London: University of Nebraska Press.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1986. The phonology of reduplication. Unpublished, Stanford University.

Kiyomi, Setsuko. 1995. A new approach to reduplication: A semantic study of noun and

verb reduplication in Malayo-Polynesian languages. Linguistics 33(6). 1145–1167.

Kouwenberg, Silvia. 2003. Papiamentu reduplication. In Silvia Kouwenberg (ed.) 2003,

161–164.

Kouwenberg, Silvia (ed.). 2003. Twice as meaningful: Reduplication in pidgins, creoles, and

other contact languages (Westminster Creolistics Series 8). London: Battlebridge Publica-

tions.

Kouwenberg, Silvia & Darlene LaCharité. 2005. Less is more: Evidence from diminutive

reduplication in Caribbean creole languages. In Hurch (ed.) 2005, 533–545.

Kouwenberg, Silvia & Darlene LaCharité. 2013. Review of Ammann & Urdze (2007) and

Aboh et al. (2012). Linguistic Typology 17(3). 476–485.

http://vanhise.lss.wisc.edu/ling/files/ling_old_web/lso/wpl/5.1/LSOWP5.1-08-Kajitani.pdf

http://vanhise.lss.wisc.edu/ling/files/ling_old_web/lso/wpl/5.1/LSOWP5.1-08-Kajitani.pdf

References 176

Kouwenberg, Silvia, Darlene LaCharité & Shelome Gooden. 2003. An overview of Ja-

maican Creole reduplication. In Silvia Kouwenberg (ed.) 2003, 105–110.

Lehman, Frederic K. 2001. Burmese. In Garry & Rubino (eds.) 2001, 105–110.

Levkovych, Nataliya. 2007. Totale Reduplikation im modernen Hebräischen. In Ammann

& Urdze (eds.) 2007, 109–163.

Lieber, Rochelle & Pavol Štekauer (eds.). 2014. The Oxford handbook of derivational morphol-

ogy (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lin, Hua. 2001. A grammar of Mandarin Chinese (Languages of the World/Materials 344).

München: LINCOM Europa.

Maas, Utz. 2005. Syntactic reduplication in Arabic. In Hurch (ed.) 2005, 395–429.

Mahootian, Shahrzad. 1997. Persian (Descriptive Grammars). London & New York: Rout-

ledge.

Marantz, Alec. 1982. Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3). 435–482.

Mattes, Veronika. 2014. Types of reduplication: A case study of Bikol (Studia Typologica 16).

Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

Mattes, Veronika & Thomas Schwaiger. 2013. Review of Stolz et al. (2011). Folia Linguistica

47(2). 584–593.

Mayerthaler, Willi. 1977. Studien zur theoretischen und zur französischen Morphologie: Redu-

plikation, Echowörter, morphologische Natürlichkeit, Haplologie, Produktivität, Regeltelescop-

ing, paradigmatischer Ausgleich (Linguistische Arbeiten 40). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer

Verlag.

Mayerthaler, Willi. 1980. Ikonismus in der Morphologie. Semiotik 2(1–2). 19–37.

Mayerthaler, Willi. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit (Linguistische Forschungen 28).

Wiesbaden: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion.

McCarthy, John J. 1981. A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic

Inquiry 12(3). 373–418.

McCarthy, John J. & Alan S. Prince. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Unpublished, University

of Massachusetts & Brandeis University.

McCarthy, John J. & Alan S. Prince. 1993a. Generalized alignment. In Geert Booij &

Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1993, 79–153. Dordrecht et al.: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

References 177

McCarthy, John J. & Alan S. Prince. 1993b. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction

and satisfaction. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&contex

t=john_j_mccarthy (2017-08-01.)

McCarthy, John J. & Alan S. Prince. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimal-

ity in prosodic morphology. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=

1042&context=john_j_mccarthy (2017-08-01.)

McCarthy, John J. & Alan S. Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. http://

works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=john_j_mccarthy (2017-

08-01.)

McCarthy, John J. & Alan S. Prince. 1996. Prosodic morphology 1986. http://works.

bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=john_j_mccarthy (2017-08-01.)

McCarthy, John J. & Alan S. Prince. 1999. Faithfulness and identity in prosodic mor-

phology. In René Kager, Harry van der Hulst & Wim Zonneveld (eds.), The prosody-

morphology interface, 218–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, John J., Wendell Kimper & Kevin Mullin. 2012. Reduplication in harmonic

serialism. Morphology 22(2). 173–232.

McGregor, R. S. 1972. Outline of Hindi grammar: With exercises. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

McGregor, William. 1990. A functional grammar of Gooniyandi (Studies in Language Com-

panion Series 22). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Mel’cuk, Igor. 2006. Aspects of the theory of morphology (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and

Monographs 146). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Merlan, Francesca. 1982. Mangarayi (Lingua Descriptive Studies 4). Amsterdam: North-


Miller, Wick R. 1965. Acoma grammar and texts (University of California Publications in

Linguistics 40). Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Reduplicative constructions. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.),

Universals of human language, vol. 3, 297–334. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Moravcsik, Edith A. 2013. Introducing language typology (Cambridge Introductions to Lan-

guage and Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mühlhäusler, Peter. 1975. Reduplication and repetition in New Guinea Pidgin. In K. A.

McElhanon (ed.), Tok Pisin i go we? Proceedings of a conference held at the University of

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=john_j_mccarthy








References 178

Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby, P. N. G., 18–21 September, 1973 (Kivung Special Publi-

cation 1), 198–214. Port Moresby: Linguistic Society of Papua New Guinea.

Murane, Elizabeth. 1974. Daga grammar: From morpheme to discourse (Summer Institute

of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics and Related Fields 43). Norman: Summer

Institute of Linguistics. http://www.sil.org/acpub/repository/11786.pdf (2017-08-01.)

Naylor, Paz Buenaventura. 1986. On the semantics of reduplication. In Paul Geraghty,

Lois Carrington & Stephen Adolphe Wurm (eds.), FOCAL I: Papers from the Fourth Inter-

national Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (Pacific Linguistics Series C-93), 175–185.

Canberra: The Australian National University.

Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa language: An encyclopedic reference grammar (Yale Lan-

guage Series). New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1992. Iconicity and generative grammar. Language 68(4). 756–796.

Nguyên, Ðình-Hoà. 1997. Vietnamese: Tiêng viê. t không son phân (London Oriental and

African Language Library 9). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.

Niepokuj, Mary. 1997. The development of verbal reduplication in Indo-European (Journal of

Indo-European Studies Monograph 24). Washington: Institute for the Study of Man.

Noonan, Michael. 1992. A grammar of Lango (Mouton Grammar Library 7). Berlin & New


Novotna, Jana. 2000. Reduplication in Swahili. Afrikanische Arbeitspapiere 64. 57–73.

Nylander, Dudley K. 2003. Reduplication and compounding in Krio. In Silvia Kouwen-

berg (ed.) 2003, 133–137.

Osborne, C. R. 1974. The Tiwi language (Australian Aboriginal Studies 55, Linguistic Series

21). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Owens, Jonathan. 1985. A grammar of Harar Oromo (Northeastern Ethiopia) (Cushitic Lan-

guage Studies 4). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.

Payne, David L. 1981. The phonology and morphology of Axininca Campa (Summer Institute

of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 66). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

http://www.sil.org/acpub/repository/16298.pdf (2017-08-01.)

Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2006. Pluralization in sign and in speech: A cross-

modal typological study. Linguistic Typology 10(2). 135–182.

http://www.sil.org/acpub/repository/11786.pdf

http://www.sil.org/acpub/repository/16298.pdf

References 179

Plank, Frans. 1981. Morphologische (Ir-)Regularitäten: Aspekte der Wortstrukturtheorie (Stu-

dien zur deutschen Grammatik 13). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Plank, Frans. 1994. Inflection and derivation. In Ron E. Asher (ed.), The encyclopedia of

language and linguistics, vol. 3, 1671–1678. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Pott, August Friedrich. 1862. Doppelung (Reduplikation, Gemination) als eines der wichtigsten

Bildungsmittel der Sprache, beleuchtet aus Sprachen aller Welttheile. Lemgo & Detmold: Ver-

lag der Meyer’schen Hofbuchhandlung. http://reduplication.uni-graz.at/pott/index.

html (2017-08-01.)

Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2009. Patterns of reduplication in Yoruba. In Hanson & Inkelas

(eds.) 2009, 311–357.

Raimy, Eric Stephen. 1999. Representing reduplication. Newark: University of Delaware

doctoral dissertation.

Raimy, Eric Stephen. 2000. The phonology and morphology of reduplication (Studies in Gener-

ative Grammar 52). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Refsing, Kirsten. 1986. The Ainu language: The morphology and syntax of the Shizunai dialect.

Århus: Aarhus University Press.

Regier, Terry. 1998. Reduplication and the arbitrariness of the sign. In Morton Ann Gerns-

bacher & Sharon J. Derry (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cog-

nitive Science Society, 887–892. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Rijkhoff, Jan, Dik Bakker, Kees Hengeveld & Peter Kahrel. 1993. A method of language

sampling. Studies in Language 17(1). 169–203.

Roberts, John R. 1991. Reduplication in Amele. In Tom Dutton (ed.), Papers in Papuan

Linguistics No. 1 (Pacific Linguistics Series A-73), 115–146. Canberra: The Australian

National University.

Rose, Sharon & Rachel Walker. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspon-

dence. Language 80(3). 475–531.

Rubino, Carl Ralph Galvez. 2000. Ilocano dictionary and grammar: Ilocano-English, English-

Ilocano (PALI Language Texts: Philippines). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Rubino, Carl Ralph Galvez. 2005a. Reduplication. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.) 2005,

114–117.

Rubino, Carl Ralph Galvez. 2005b. Reduplication: Form, function and distribution. In

Hurch (ed.) 2005, 11–29.

http://reduplication.uni-graz.at/pott/index.html

http://reduplication.uni-graz.at/pott/index.html

References 180

Rubino, Carl Ralph Galvez. 2013. Reduplication. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspel-

math (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online, chapter 27. Munich: Max Planck

Digital Library. http://wals.info/chapter/27 (2017-08-01.)

Saperstein, Andrew David. 1997. A word-and-paradigm approach to reduplication. Colum-

bus: The Ohio State University doctoral dissertation.

Scalise, Sergio. 1988. Inflection and derivation. Linguistics 26(4). 561–581.

Schachter, Paul & Fe T. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley et al.: University

of California Press.

Schütz, Albert J. 1985. The Fijian language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Schwaiger, Thomas. 2011a. The relation between prototypical and marginal morphology:

The case of reduplicative constructions. Linguistica 51. 121–134.

Schwaiger, Thomas. 2011b. Zur Struktur von Reduplikanten: Vereinfachung in der Redu-

plikation. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 75. 126–140. http://www.univie.ac.at/linguistics

/publications/wlg/752011/Schwaiger,%20Thomas.%20Zur%20Struktur%20von%20R

eduplikanten.%20Vereinfachung%20in%20der%20Reduplikation..pdf (2017-08-01.)

Schwaiger, Thomas. 2013. On the structure of reduplicants: Iconicity and preferred form

in reduplication. In Nabil Hathout, Fabio Montermini & Jesse Tseng (eds.), Morphology

in Toulouse: Selected proceedings of Décembrettes 7 (Toulouse, 2–3 December 2010) (LINCOM

Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 51), 211–229. München: LINCOM Europa.

Schwaiger, Thomas. 2015. Reduplication. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan

Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages

of Europe (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 40.1), vol. 1, 467–484.

Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

Schwaiger, Thomas (forthcoming a). The derivational nature of reduplication and its rela-

tion to boundary phenomena. In Rita Finkbeiner & Ulrike Freywald (eds.), Exact repeti-

tion in grammar and discourse (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs). Berlin &

Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

Schwaiger, Thomas (forthcoming b). The derivational nature of reduplication: Towards a

functional discourse grammar account of a non-concatenative morphological process.

Word Structure.

Schwaiger, Thomas (forthcoming c). Theories of reduplicative iconicity in 19th century

linguistics: Humboldt, Steinthal and Wundt. In Luca Nobile (ed.), Towards a history of

http://wals.info/chapter/27

http://www.univie.ac.at/linguistics/publications/wlg/752011/Schwaiger, Thomas. Zur Struktur von Reduplikanten. Vereinfachung in der Reduplikation..pdf



References 181

sound-symbolic theories (Iconicity in Language and Literature). Amsterdam & Philadel-

phia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Sharp, Janet Catherine. 2004. Nyangumarta: A language of the Pilbara region of Western

Australia (Pacific Linguistics 556). Canberra: The Australian National University.

Shaw, Patricia A. 2005. Non-adjacency in reduplication. In Hurch (ed.) 2005, 161–210.

Singh, Rajendra. 2005. Reduplication in Modern Hindi and the theory of reduplication.

In Hurch (ed.) 2005, 263–281.

Sneddon, James Neil. 1996. Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar (Routledge Grammars).

London & New York: Routledge.

Sohn, Ho-Min. 1975. Woleaian reference grammar (PALI Language Texts: Micronesia). Hon-

olulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge:


Spaelti, Philip. 1997. Dimensions of variation in multi-pattern reduplication. Santa Cruz:

University of California doctoral dissertation.

Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative

grammar. Oxford, UK & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Spring, Cari Louise. 1990. Implications of Axininca Campa for prosodic morphology and redu-

plication. Tucson: The University of Arizona doctoral dissertation. http://arizona.

openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/185227/1/azu_td_9108427_sip1_m.pd

f (2017-08-01.)

Sridhar, S. N. 1990. Kannada (Descriptive Grammars). London & New York: Routledge.

Štekauer, Pavol. 2014. Derivational paradigms. In Lieber & Štekauer (eds.) 2014, 354–369.

Štekauer, Pavol, Salvador Valera & Lívia Körtvélyessy. 2012. Word-formation in the world’s

languages: A typological survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Steriade, Donca. 1988. Reduplication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere.

Phonology 5(1). 73–155.

Stevenson, Roland C. 1969. Bagirmi grammar (Linguistic Monograph Series 3). Khartoum:

University of Khartoum.

Stewart, Tom. 2008. A consumer’s guide to contemporary morphological theories. Ohio

State University Working Papers in Linguistics 58. 138–230. http://linguistics.osu.edu/

sites/linguistics.osu.edu/files/wpl_58_6.pdf (2017-08-01.)

http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/185227/1/azu_td_9108427_sip1_m.pdf



http://linguistics.osu.edu/sites/linguistics.osu.edu/files/wpl_58_6.pdf

http://linguistics.osu.edu/sites/linguistics.osu.edu/files/wpl_58_6.pdf

References 182

Stolz, Thomas. 2007. Re: duplication: Iconic vs counter-iconic principles (and their areal

correlates). In Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Europe and the Mediterranean as linguis-

tic areas: Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective (Studies in Language

Companion Series 88), 317–350. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish-

ing Company.

Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze. 2011. Total reduplication: The areal linguistics

of a potential universal (Studia Typologica 8). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Svantesson, Jan-Olof, Anna Tsendina, Anastasia Mukhanova Karlsson & Vivan Franzén.

2005. The phonology of Mongolian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Terrill, Angela. 2003. A grammar of Lavukaleve (Mouton Grammar Library 30). Berlin &


Tompa, József. 1968. Ungarische Grammatik (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 96). The

Hague & Paris: Mouton.

Topping, Donald M. 1973. Chamorro reference grammar (PALI Language Texts: Micronesia).

Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Trommer, Jochen (ed.). 2012. The morphology and phonology of exponence (Oxford Studies in

Theoretical Linguistics 41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tuggy, David. 2003. Reduplication in Nahuatl: Iconicities and paradoxes. In Eugene

H. Casad & Gary B. Palmer (eds.), Cognitive linguistics and non-Indo-European languages

(Cognitive Linguistics Research 18), 91–133. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 2006. Reduplicative form and the root-affix asymmetry. Natural

Language and Linguistic Theory 24(1). 179–240.

van der Stap, P. A. M. 1966. Outline of Dani morphology (Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk

Instituut vor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 48). s’Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.

Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound

change: With special reference to German, Germanic, Italian, and Latin. Berlin et al.: Mouton

de Gruyter.

Voorhoeve, Clemens Lambertus. 1965. The Flamingo Bay dialect of the Asmat language

(Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut vor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 46).

s’Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.

Voort, Hein van der. 2003. Reduplication of person markers in Kwaza. Acta Linguistica

Hafniensia 35. 65–94.

References 183

Waksler, Rachelle. 1999. Cross-linguistic evidence for morphological representation in the

mental lexicon. Brain and Language 68(1–2). 68–74.

Wilbur, Ronnie Bring. 1973. The phonology of reduplication. Bloomington: Indiana Univer-

sity Linguistics Club Publications.

Wiltshire, Caroline & Alec Marantz. 2000. Reduplication. In Geert Booij, Christian Leh-

mann & Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and

word-formation (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 17.1), vol. 1,

557–567. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Wolfenden, Elmer P. 1971. Hiligaynon reference grammar (PALI Language Texts: Philip-

pines). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Wundt, Wilhelm. 1900. Völkerpsychologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von

Sprache, Mythus und Sitte. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann.

Yeh, Marie Meili. 2009. Questionnaire on reduplication (Saisiyat) (Graz Database on Redu-

plication Questionnaire). Graz: University of Graz.

Yip, Moira. 1982. Reduplication and C-V skeleta in Chinese secret languages. Linguistic

Inquiry 13(4). 637–661.

Yip, Moira. 1992. Reduplication with fixed melodic material. North East Linguistic Society

22. 459–474.

Yip, Moira. 1998. Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. In Steven G. La-

pointe, Diane K. Brentari & Patrick M. Farrell (eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonol-

ogy and syntax, 216–246. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Yu, Alan C. L. (no date). Dissimilation in reduplication: The case of emphatic reduplica-

tion in Turkish. Unpublished, University of California. http://washo.uchicago.edu/

pub/TurkishRED.PDF (2017-08-01.)

Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Chen-huei Wu. 2006. An overview of reduplication in Formosan

languages. In Henry Yungli Chang, Lillian M. Huang & Dah-an Ho (eds.), Streams con-

verging into an ocean: Festschrift in honor of Professor Paul Jen-kuei Li on his 70th birthday

(Language and Linguistics Monograph Series W-5), 97–142. Taipei: Institute of Lin-

guistics, Academia Sinica. http://intranet.ling.sinica.edu.tw/eip/FILES/ling3/2007.

12.6.13958376.5064581.pdf (2017-08-01.)

http://washo.uchicago.edu/pub/TurkishRED.PDF

http://washo.uchicago.edu/pub/TurkishRED.PDF

http://intranet.ling.sinica.edu.tw/eip/FILES/ling3/2007.12.6.13958376.5064581.pdf

http://intranet.ling.sinica.edu.tw/eip/FILES/ling3/2007.12.6.13958376.5064581.pdf

Date post:	07-Feb-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

The structure of reduplicants - unipub

Documents