[Author Login]
[Home]
ROA:311
Title:Dimensions of Variation in Multi-Pattern Reduplication
Authors:Philip Spaelti
Comment:PDF file has bookmarks and links.
Length:205
Abstract:Dimensions of Variation in Multi-Pattern Reduplication



Philip Spaelti

Kobe Shoin Women's University





This dissertation investigates the special phonology of reduplication. The

main thesis is that all special aspects of reduplication phonology that

disrupt identity between base and reduplicant, are the result of Emergence

of the Unmarked (McCarthy & Prince 1994). Phenomena that are investigated

include: partial reduplication, infixing reduplication, affix-polarity

reversal, and fixed segmentism, among others. Some particular claims are

as follows.



Partial reduplication can be explained as the emergence of rhythmic (i.e.,

stress) constraints, which impose a size restriction on the reduplicant.

This analysis takes the basic approach of Generalized Template Theory

(McCarthy & Prince 1994, Urbancyzk 1995), but takes it further, dispensing

not only with prosodic templates, but also with other morphological

stipulations such as the need for 'empty' morphemes and the attendant

templatic constraints. Instead partial reduplication is explained directly

through the action of structure minimizing, and alignment constraints. For

example syllable reduplication can be accounted for through the constraint

All-Syllable-Edge, while heavy syllable (CVC) reduplication is the result

of simultaneous foot and syllable size requirements.



Infixing reduplication, which places the reduplicant before the main

stress, can be understood as reduplication maximizing distinctness across

forms by seeking the least marked base. Infixing reduplication is analyzed

as an interaction between Max-BR and size restrictions, which results in a

'back-copying' effect. The analysis explains why this type of infixation

is common with reduplication, but virtually non-existant with standard

affixes.



Reduplication which switches affix-polarity shows that the account of

'Marantz's generalization' (i.e., the fact that reduplication copies

'outside-in') must be separated from the account of the directionality of

affixation.



The main evidence for these positions comes from languages where more than

one pattern of reduplication is found. It is argued that in such cases the

patterns must be analyzed as a single system. Two types of systems are

distinguished. In one type, the patterns are DUPLEMES, meaning they are

contrastive, and a single word can show more than one reduplication

pattern. In another type of system, the patterns are ALLODUPLES, meaning

they are in complementary distribution, and the conditioning of their

distribution is often phonological. Three systems of the second type are

analyzed in detail.



Nakanai has a large number of reduplication patterns, which fill up

exactly the available pattern space. The choice of pattern is shown to be

the result of sonority maximization, and the avoidance of marked

structures.



The Aru languages, West Tarangan and Kola, infix the reduplicant

immediately before the main stress. The analysis shows this to result from

the interaction of Max-BR, size restrictions, and affix alignment.

Variation in the ranking of the constraints gives a typology of systems,

all attested in various Aru dialects. One peculiar pattern that is

explained by this analysis is syllable recycling, a type of reduplication,

where a single consonant is copied as a coda to a preceding syllable.



Mangap-Mbula has a form of reduplication that switches between prefixing

and suffixing reduplication. This variation can be shown to be the result

of the interaction between reduplication and the stress system of the

language.





TABLE OF CONTENTS



1. Introduction......................................................1

1.1. On the importance of reduplication for phonological theory.....1

1.1.1. Overview of the dissertation................................2

1.2. Multi-pattern reduplication....................................2

1.2.1. The anatomy of reduplication................................3

1.2.2. The dupleme/alloduple distinction...........................6

1.3. Overview of Optimality Theory..................................9

1.3.0.1. Constraints as tendencies................................9

1.3.0.2. Tendencies as constraints...............................11

1.3.1. Constraint violability.....................................12

1.3.2. Constraint ranking.........................................13

1.3.3. Factorial typology.........................................14

1.3.4. Stampean Occultation.......................................15

1.3.5. Lexicon Optimization.......................................16

1.3.6. An excursus: determining the winning candidate.............17

1.3.6.1. Negative vs. Positive calculation of marks..............17

1.3.6.2. Absolute vs. Relative calculation of marks..............20

1.4. The Correspondence based theory of reduplication..............21

1.4.1. Faithfulness as a correspondence relation..................21

1.4.2. Correspondence and reduplication...........................24

1.4.3. Extensions to the basic model..............................26



2. Emergence of the Un/Marked.......................................29

2.1. Emergence of the Unmarked....................................29

2.1.0.1. Example I: NoEcho in Boumaa Fijian reduplication........30

2.1.1. Templates as Emergence of the Unmarked.....................33

2.1.1.1. Example II: Foot size in Boumaa Fijian reduplication....34

2.1.1.2. On the inadequacy of templatic constraints..............36

2.1.1.3. Size restrictors and a-templatic reduplication..........39

2.1.2. Default Segmentism as EoU..................................41

2.1.2.1. Example III: Default segments in Sawai..................41

2.1.3. Other phonological properties as EoU.......................44

2.1.3.1. Example IV: Ponapean coronal clusters...................44

2.1.4. Summary....................................................49

2.2. Emergence of the Marked......................................50

2.2.1. Why there is no 'Emergence of the Marked'..................50

2.2.2. Correspondence theory revisited............................52

2.2.2.1. Max and Dep.............................................53

2.2.2.2. Klamath and the Full Model..............................56

2.2.3. Is there Emergence of the Marked after all?................58

2.2.3.1. Identity Induced Failure of Alternation (IIFA)..........59

2.2.3.2. Chumash l-deletion......................................60

2.2.3.3. Doka Timur and Rebi WT devoicing........................62

2.2.3.4. Mangap-Mbula syllable reduplication.....................66

2.2.4. Summary....................................................69



3. Variation in reduplicant shape: Nakanai.........................71

3.1. A-templatic reduplication.....................................71

3.2. Determining the reduplicant shape in Nakanai..................75

3.2.1. Johnston's description of the Nakanai reduplicative system.77

3.2.1.1. Prosodic Structure......................................77

3.2.1.2. The reduplication patterns..............................79

3.2.2. An OT analysis of the Nakanai reduplication patterns.......81

3.3. Summary of the Analysis.......................................96

Appendix: the reduplication patterns of Nakanai.....................99



4. Infixing Reduplication: the Aru languages.....................111

4.1. Affixation to the Optimal Word..............................111

4.1.1. Generalized Alignment and infixation......................112

4.1.2. An OT implementation of 'affix to the Minimal Word'.......116

4.1.2.1. Affix to Prosodic Word.................................116

4.1.2.2. Size Restriction.......................................117

4.1.2.3. Edgemost versus Minimality.............................120

4.1.2.4. Connecting the parts: minimization of the Base.........122

4.1.3. Example I: Oykangand......................................123

4.1.3.1. Analysis of Oykangand syllable structure...............126

4.1.3.2. Analysis of Oykangand Infixation.......................127

4.1.4. Example II: Nakanai.......................................129

4.2. Analysis of the Aru languages................................134

4.2.1. Affix to PCat versus 'true infixation'....................134

4.2.2. Reduplication in the Aru languages........................136

4.2.2.1. Kalar-Kalar WT.........................................138

4.2.2.2. Popjetur WT............................................145

4.2.2.3. Rebi WT................................................146

4.2.2.4. Doka Timur WT..........................................149

4.2.2.5. Kola...................................................153

4.2.3. Affixation to the Optimal Word in the Aru languages.......155

4.2.4. Where do the codas come from?.............................161

4.2.4.1. Broselow & McCarthy (1983).............................162

4.2.4.2. Gafos (1995)...........................................163

4.2.4.3. Moore (1996)...........................................164

4.2.4.4. Summary................................................166

4.3. Summary of this chapter......................................167



5. Variation in polarity of affixation: Mangap-Mbula...............169

5.1. Anchoring versus the Anchoring Property......................169

5.2. Analysis of Mangap-Mbula reduplication.......................171

5.2.1. Syllable structure........................................173

5.2.2. Morpheme structure........................................174

5.2.3. Stress ...................................................176

5.2.4. Reduplication.............................................181

5.2.5. Conclusion................................................187

5.3. Summary of this chapter......................................188

References.........................................................189
Type:Dissertation
Area/Keywords:
Article:Version 1