[Dissertation] Representing Reduplication

Citation preview

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type o f computer printer. The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zed> Road, Ann Aibor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

REPRESENTING REDUPLICATION

by Eric Stephen Raimy

A dissertation subm itted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillm ent of the requirem ents for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics.

Spring 1999

C opyright 1999 Eric Stephen Raim y All Rights Reserved

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

DMX Number: 9927684

UMI Microform 9927684 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI

300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

REPRESENTING REDUPLICATION

by Eric Stephen Raim y

A pproved: W illiam J. Frawley, Ph.D. Chair, D epartm ent of Linguistics A pproved:

OjLc

_________

JohAJl . Cavanaugh, Ph.D. Vice Provost for Academic Program s and Planning

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

I certify I have read this dissertation and that in m y opinion it m eets the academ ic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Signed:

__________________________

W illiam J. Idsardi//Pn.D. Professor in charge of dissertation I certify I have read this dissertation and that in m y opinion it m eets the academ ic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Signed: Irene Vogel,l,Ph.ZX M em ber of dissertation committee I certify I have read this dissertation and that in m y opinion it m eets the academ ic and professional standard required by the U niversity as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Signed: W illiam J. Frawley, Ph.I M em ber of dissertation committee I certify I have read this dissertation and th at in m y opinion it m eets the academ ic and professional standard required by the U niversity as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Signed:

— _______________

Rolf Noyer, P h D . M em ber of dissertation committee

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It's strange finishing som ething that you have lived an d breathed for years. This dissertation is not really an end though, more of a beginning. This is w hat I'm m ost thankful for, th a t all of this w ork is just the beginning of m y education. I cannot imagine this dissertation w ithout Bill Idsardi. Bill has educated me and p ushed me to educate m yself in so m any ways. I cannot fully express m y gratitude on paper, so I'm n o t going to embarrass myself trying. I am eternally grateful that I have the chance to w ork with Bill. Irene Vogel has played a sem inal role in m y education as a phonologist. She has expanded m y horizons of w h at I find interesting in phonology and has played the perfect counterpoint to Bill. Bill Fraw iey as a chair a n d committee m em ber has alw ays looked out for m e as a student in his departm ent and I thank him for that. It has been truly appreciated. Rolf N oyer com pleted m y dissertation committee an d it has been a joy working w ith him . His keen eye has sharpened m uch of this dissertation a n d m ade it all the better. I am disappointed th at I had n o t w orked w ith him earlier in time. I am also indebted to m an y other people here at UD. Peter Cole an d G aby Herm on have taught me m any things about syntax and linguistics in general. I

iv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

am very thankful for the tim e I have spent w ith them. O ther m em bers of the faculty at Delaw are that I am indebted to are C indy Brown, Bob Frank, Roberta Golinkoff, Barbara Landau, C olin Phillips, and A ndrea Zukowsky. Each of them have made m y stay here a t D elaw are w orthw hile. Special thanks go to John Mathews, Sharon Rose, Charles Reiss, and Suzanne W ash for discussing specific and general points of the d ata a n d analyses contained w ithin this dissertation. I would also like to thank audiences at the LSA 1999 A nnual M eeting, MOT 1998 and MIT for listening to m e speak on the topics in this thesis an d for the feedback that I have received. I have been blessed w ith m any w onderful contem poraries here at Delaware, all of who have left a m ark on me. In particular, Tom Purnell has contributed m ore to my education as a phonologist than I think he knows. Everyone else here (past an d present) at UD (Abdellatif Al Ghadi, N ader Al Jallad, N orhaida Aman, Preston Becker, Tonia Bleam, Chris Colburn, Eric Drewry, Ted Eastwick, Evniki Edgar, C handra Flint, Luis Gil, Tim Gould, Sue Hoskins, Steve Hoskins, A nn H ughs, Ken H yde, Jirapom Intrasai, Libby Jonczyk, Soon Ja Kang, Meesook Kim, Sun Hoi Kim, Ki Suk Lee, Jeff Lidz, Jason Lilley, Douglas De Lorenzo, Ed M unnich, Barney Pagani, Dave Schneider, Sirintip Seubsunk, Suzanne Stadnidri, Dissaya Supharatyothin, and Siew Im Yeoh) have all taught m e m any different things. I thank them all. Finally an d most of all I w a n t to thank m y family. All of m y parents a n d extended fam ily have supported m e through this journey and m ade it m uch easier. My d o g s Chloe an d Izzy have m ade this project easier and harder at

v

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

times and th eir role m ust n o t be underestim ated. Finally, I w ould like to express m y complete a n d unending thankfulness for having m y w ife Bonnie w ith me throughout this entire degree and dissertation. She has p u t up w ith a lot during this time a n d provided m e w ith endless h ours of joy in return. Thank you Bonnie.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

For Bonnie.

vii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...................................................................................................

x

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................

1

2

A SHORT HISTORY OF REDUPLICATION................................

4

2.1 2.2

2.3

Introduction.......................................................................... Rule based m odels of reduplication..................................

4 5

2.2.1 Early m odels of reduplication................................ 2.2.2 The affix and copy approach.................................. 2.2.3 Single m elody models............................................. 2.2.4 Full copy m odel....................................................... 2.2.5 Sum m ary...................................................................

5 20 25 29 32

Optim ality Theory................................................................. 2.3.1 2.3.2 23.3

3

33

Prosodic Morphology.............................................. Transderivational identity...................................... Reduplicative templates..........................................

34 38 39

2.4 Sum m ary................................................................................. Notes to Chapter 2...........................................................................

45 46

THE PHONOLOGY OF REDUPLICATION...............................

47

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Introduction............................................................................ Precedence in phonology..................................................... Reduplicative m orphology................................................. The interaction betw een morphology and phonology...

47 48 54 63

3.4.1 Chuckchee................................................................. 3.4.2 Malay nasal spread.................................................. 3.4.3 Akan palatalization.................................................. 3.4.4 Chum ash / l / deletion............................................. 3.4.5 C h a h a /x /d issim ila tio n .........................................

64 66 76 82 94

viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

4

3.4.6 Southern Paiute........................................................ 3.4.7 Norm al application..................................................

119 130

3.5 Sum m ary................................................................................. N otes to Chapter 3...........................................................................

132 141

THE MORPHOLOGY OF REDUPUCATION.............................

144

4.1 4.2 4.3

Introduction............................................................................. Background: Distributive M orphology.............................. Concatenation of m orphem es..............................................

144 144 151

4.3.1 Reduplication as a readjustm ent rule................... 4.3.2 Melodic O verw riting/fixed segm entism 4.3.3 Sum m ary...................................................................

166 172 182

Linearization............................................................................

183

4.4.1 Indonesian................................................................. 4.4.2 Chum ash coalescence effects..................................

203 220

4.4.2.1 / l / coalescence........................................... 4.4J2.2 Consonant + Glottal coalescence............... 4.4.2.3 Further m orphem e blurring effects

220 226 229

Sum m ary...................................................................

240

Deriving reduplicative tem plates......................................

240

4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.5.5 4.5.6

O n set effects: Axininca Cam pa............................. N o C o d a effects: Balangao..................................... CV reduplication: Bella Coola................................ CVC reduplication: Agta and M an g array i Atem platic reduplication: Temiar and Sem ai Sum m ary...................................................................

241 244 247 251 259 266

4.6 Analytic sim plicity............................................................... 4.7 Sum m ary................................................................................ N otes to Chapter 4............................................................................

268 276 277

CONCLUSION..................................................................................

280

N otes to Chapter 5............................................................................

286

REFERENCES................................................................................................

287

4.4

4.4.3 4.5

5

ix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ABSTRACT This dissertation argues for a new representational approach to reduplication. It argues that reduplication is best understood as resulting from complicated underlying representations that have a looping structure. The looping n ature of these structures result in w hat is recognized as reduplication. After a brief introduction, Chapter 2 outlines the issues that previous approaches to reduplication have addressed. These issues include the interaction betw een reduplication and phonological rules, w hat the form al nature of reduplication is, and w hat the nature of reduplicative tem plates is. The success and failure of previous m odels in providing adequate solutions to these issues is used as a guideline for the development of the proposals in this dissertation. C hapter 3 investigates the interaction betw een phonological rules and reduplication. Explicit precedence relations are introduced to phonological representation and their benefits are dem onstrated. The m ain conclusion from this chapter is that a representational approach to reduplication based on explicit precedence relationships can account for the interaction b etw een phonology and reduplication w ithin a serial and m odular m odel of phonology and morphology. C hapter 4 discusses the implications for m orphology th a t the representations proposed in Chapter 3 present. The n atu re of reduplication as a readjustm ent rule is discussed along w ith prespecification in reduplication and

x

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the general process of m orphem e concatenation. A linearization algorithm is presented th a t transforms the looping underlying structures into a linear string which show s overt repetition of segmental m aterial that is recognized as reduplication. Finally, the production of reduplicative tem plate patterns from the underlying prosodic structure of forms is dem onstrated. C hapter 5 sum m arizes the findings of the previous chapters and discusses the ramifications of this approach. The im portant findings in this thesis are that data from reduplication are orthogonal to issues of com putation in phonology. Thus, argum ents in favor of Optim ality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993, McCarthy a n d Prince 1995) based on reduplication are no longer valid. Furtherm ore, the issues of opacity, predictive pow er and the goals of Prosodic M orphology (McCarthy an d Prince 1986,1993b) all argue in favor of the m odel of phonology proposed in this thesis over OT models.

XI

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

Reduplication has becom e the focus o f m uch research in generative phonology. T he outcome of this intense interest in reduplication has been argum ents of a general nature a b o u t how w e should view phonology (Prince and Smolensky 1993, McCarthy an d Prince 1986,1993ab, 1994ab, 1995). These argum ents claim reduplication a n d associated phenom ena cannot be accounted for within a strictly derivational m odel of phonology (C hom sky and H alle 1968). Thus, it is argued, reduplication presents evidence in favor of models of phonology that are crucially non-derivational in nature. This dissertation will argue for an enrichm ent in phonological representation th at will allow a strictly derivational model o f phonology to account for reduplication. As w ith m ost representational issues, this representational enrichment is theoretically neutral to the extent that it can be im plem ented in either a derivational or parallel model of phonology. In o rd er to present an explicit model that can be thoroughly tested a n d evaluated, this new approach will be presented w ithin a derivational model of phonology. The assum ption of a fully derivational model of phonology w ill p resent the strongest

1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

argum ent against the view that reduplication requires parallel com putation in phonology. Once the final analysis of reduplication is presented it will becom e apparent that reduplication does not provide any direct evidence on the n atu re of com putation in phonology. The argum ents used to support this n ew approach to reduplication w ill be prim arily em pirical, b ut other argum ents based on metatheoretical ideals will also be presented. In particular I will argue that the proposed approach to reduplication is m ore constrained than all previous approaches (Carrier 1979, M arantz 1982, M cCarthy and Prince 1995, an d others) and th at reduplicative an d concatenative m orphology can n ow be accounted for w ith the same basic m achinery. In addition to these argum ents, extensions of the basic proposal w ill be presented to show that the representational enrichm ent is advantageous for all of phonology an d not just for reduplication. This thesis will consist of outlining a new approach to reduplication based o n m aking explicit the precedence relationships inherent in phonological representations. C hapter 2 recounts a history of the approaches to reduplication w ithin generative gram m ar. This sum m ary provides perspective on the relevance of the present proposals. C hapter 3 presents a discussion of how precedence in phonology should be form ally encoded. The basic proposal in this chapter is that precedence should be explicitly encoded in phonological representations through precedence relations (—»). This m ove replaces the present situation of deriving precedence in phonological form s from typographic left-to-right ordering. The introduction of

2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

explicit precedence relationships allows novel complex phonological representations to be b u ilt These new representations directly address the issues of the form al nature of reduplication a n d the interaction betw een morphology and phonology. The results of this chapter will show that a derivational, rule based approach to reduplication is able to account for all aspects of the interaction betw een phonological rules an d m orphology. This result indicates that accounting for reduplication phenom enon in phonology is mostly orthogonal to com putational issues. M ore subtle em pirical evidence will be required if reduplication is to bear on the nature of com putation in phonology. C hapter 4 will discuss the formal aspects of the m orphology involved in reduplication. O ne key aspect that will be discussed is the n a tu re of a linearization algorithm that is required b y the complex phonological representations proposed in Chapter 3. The formal characteristics of these representations and the linearization algorithm will be sh o w n to not only account for w h y reduplication occurs b u t to also produce the attested reduplicative templates. This approach to reduplicative tem plates is more constrained th an all previous proposals have been. These results are due to the representations that are posited in Chapter 3 and provide su p p o rt for their adoption. Finally, Chapter 5 provides a sum m ary of the basic argum ents in favor for the proposed representational changes to phonological theory. Additionally, there is a discussion of the implications of the proposals in this thesis beyond reduplication.

3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Chapter 2 A SHORT HISTORY OF REDUPLICATION

2.1

Introduction

This chapter presents a sum m ary and overview of research on reduplication in generative gram m ar over the last 30 years. This research has continually bettered our understanding of the specifics of reduplication and phonology in general. In order to fully understand the m erit of the proposals in this dissertation, we m ust com prehend how reduplication has been understood in previous w ork. The commonness of reduplication in the w o rld 's languages presents a vast am ount of d ata that can be consulted. Early studies of reduplication consisted of a vast am ount of descriptive w ork cataloging the relevant phenom ena. W ith the advent of generative phonology, the theoretical importance of reduplication began to be investigated. I begin discussion of theoretical accounts of reduplication from this point.

4

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

2.2

Rule based models of reduplication

The investigation of reduplication as a m orphological a n d phonological process can be divided into three broad categories: the form al representation of reduplication, the interaction of reduplication an d phonological rules, and reduplicative templates. These three facets of reduplication have not developed a t the sam e pace nor have all theories of reduplication addressed them w ith the sam e care. The assets and liabilities of each previous approach to reduplication provide a guide to the developm ent of the proposal of this dissertation.

2.2.1

Early m odels of reduplication

Chom sky and Halle 1968 (SPE) will be the beginning p o in t of the discussion of the development of a generative account of reduplication. SPE does not discuss reduplication b u t it lays the groundw ork for a generative approach to reduplication. Interestingly, it took quite a b it of tim e before reduplication w as formally treated as a generative process. Early descriptive accounts of reduplication im ply th a t reduplication is som e so rt of gram m atical process that repeats phonological m aterial (Haeberlin 1918) b u t the idea of a generative gram m ar was not form ulated at this time. Voegelin an d Voegelin 1967 come v ery close to form alizing reduplication as a generative process through their discussion of H opi a n d the relationship betw een Chom sky's transform ations and descriptive adequacy. The passage w here Voegelin a n d

5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Voegelin state (1967:280), "The noun for sore (?iya) m arks p lu ral by reduplication (?i?iya). The reduplicated n o u n is the base for the passive verb..." implies that Voegelin a n d Voegelin w ere thinking of reduplication in a generative fram ework b u t they do n o t formally spell this thought out. Reduplication is thought of as a generative process here because Voeglin an d Voeglin claim th a t the unreduplicated form (noun) is the base for a transform ation th at produces the reduplicated form (passive verb). The next close pass to a fully specified generative account of reduplication is Luelsdorff 1968 where a rule of the form 'cp —»