Word-Formation HSK 40.1 Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:27 Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science Manuels de linguistique et des sciences de communication Mitbegründet von Gerold Ungeheuer Mitherausgegeben (1985−2001) von Hugo Steger Herausgegeben von / Edited by / Edités par Herbert Ernst Wiegand Band 40.1 De Gruyter Mouton Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:27 Word-Formation An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe Volume 1 Edited by Peter O. Müller Ingeborg Ohnheiser Susan Olsen Franz Rainer De Gruyter Mouton Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:27 ISBN 978-3-11-024624-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-024625-4 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-039320-0 ISSN 1861-5090 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Meta Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, Wustermark Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen Cover design: Martin Zech, Bremen 앝 Printed on acid-free paper 앪 Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:27 25. Reduplication 467 Svensson, Maria Helena 2008 A very complex criterion of fixedness: Non-compositionality. In: Sylviane Granger and Fanny Meunier (eds.), Phraseology. An Interdisciplinary Perspective, 81−93. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Villavicencio, Aline, Francis Bond, Anna Korhonen and Diana McCarthy 2005 Introduction to the special issue on multiword expressions: Having a crack at a hard nut. Computer Speech and Language 19: 365−377. Weinreich, Uriel 1969 Problems in the analysis of idioms. In: Jaan Puhvel (ed.), Substance and Structure of Language. Lectures delivered before the Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, 23−81. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wikberg, Kay 2008 Phrasal similes in the BNC. In: Sylviane Granger and Fanny Meunier (eds.), Phraseology. An Interdisciplinary Perspective, 127−142. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Wray, Alison 2002 Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wray, Alison 2008 Formulaic Language. Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matthias Hüning and Barbara Schlücker, Berlin (Germany) 25. Reduplication 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Introduction Forms Meanings and functions Reduplication and word-formation Reduplication, word-formation and the languages of Europe References Abstract This article gives an overview of general formal and functional properties of reduplication as well as their interpretation in different theoretical approaches. Special emphasis is put on reduplication as a productive and lexical means of word-formation. As it is a relatively marginal phenomenon in European languages and because reduplication theory has thus advanced primarily due to the examination of non-European languages, relevant data from many language families all around the world are adduced throughout the discussion. This broader scope notwithstanding, the article is rounded off by providing an outline of reduplication and word-formation specifically in the languages of Europe. Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 468 II. Units and processes in word-formation I: General aspects 1. Introduction “Reduplication” is the systematically and productively employed repetition of words or parts of words for the expression of a variety of lexical and grammatical functions. As a morphological device exhibiting a range of theoretically challenging phonological characteristics, it has been the subject of an ever-growing field of intense linguistic research since the 1970s. Terminologically, besides occasionally also being referred to by the less redundant form “duplication” (e.g., Inkelas 2008; see also Naylor 1986: 175), other labels sometimes attached to the phenomenon in question as well as to related or similar (but nonetheless distinct) phenomena include “(morphological) doubling” (e.g., Inkelas and Zoll 2005), “(re-)iteration” (e.g., Aboh, Smith and Zribi-Hertz 2012), “repetition” (e.g., Gil 2005) and “replication” (e.g., Mel’čuk 2006: 301−302). Notwithstanding this terminological diversity and its potential for causing confusion, over the years the term “reduplication” has proven to be the most stable and most widely-used one among linguists engaged in the topic. In addition to giving an overview of formal and functional properties (see also article 15 on units of word-formation) displayed by reduplication in spoken languages from all over the world (including creoles; see Kouwenberg 2003) as well as sketching an outline of the phenomenon’s interpretation within different theoretical frameworks, this article specifically concentrates on reduplication as a means of word-formation and its status in the languages of Europe (for reduplication in sign language see Pfau and Steinbach 2005; Wilbur 2005; see also article 126 on word-formation and sign languages). 2. Forms In modern twentieth-century linguistics, at the latest since the seminal dissertation by Wilbur (1973), reduplication is commonly recognized as a morphological process characterized by the phonological peculiarity of providing the exponents for various linguistic categories (i.e. the “reduplicants”) by full or partial repetition of the respective base forms. During the past four decades the at times surprising formal properties exhibited by different types of the process have been the main theoretical focus of reduplication research. 2.1. General formal properties “Full (or complete or total) reduplication” is the repetition of any morphological unit, preferably from the root up to the whole word (see below). For example, Basque forms intensive adjectives like argi~argia ‘very clear’ (following the Leipzig glossing rules, from here on a tilde will be used to indicate the boundary between base and reduplicant) by reduplicating the adjectival base form without inflectional suffixes, in the case at hand the singular determiner -a (Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina 2003: 360; see also article 182 on Basque). In Afrikaans, a noun including a plural suffix can be reduplicated to express considerable number, e.g., bottel-s ‘bottles’ → bottels~bottels ‘bottles and bottles Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 25. Reduplication 469 (i.e. many bottles)’ (Botha 1988: 92). Falling in line with an apparent privilege of morphological roots to be at least partly repeated in all kinds of reduplication (cf. Inkelas 2012: 358), full reduplication of affixes alone is rather rare; one language exemplifying the phenomenon is Fijian, where a collective or distributive prefix vēī- can be reduplicated to express greater number of a noun, e.g., vanua ‘country’ → vēī-vanua ‘various countries’ → vēī~vēī-vanua ‘larger number of countries’ (Schütz 1985: 367; a somewhat more complicated example of prefix reduplication in the European language Hungarian is discussed at length in Kiefer 1995−96; see also articles 37 on particle verbs in Hungarian and 181 on Hungarian). “Partial reduplication” involves phonological and prosodic categories smaller than the morphological base undergoing the process, offering a number of subtypes and classificatory parameters. Leaving possible but often controversial cases of single-segment reduplication like gemination aside (but see El Zarka 2005), partial reduplication can manifest itself in any way from simply reduplicating a consonant and vowel to the almost complete repetition of a base, while the respective reduplicants can attach initially, internally or finally to the latter. Illustrative examples come from Ngiyambaa attenuation by an initial disyllabic foot reduplicant (cf. Donaldson 1980: 69−70) as in baraːy ‘fast’ → bara~baraːy ‘more or less fast, fastish’ (Donaldson 1980: 72), Mangarayi final consonant-vowel-consonant reduplication as in the plural dyadic kin term galŋbam~bam-yi ‘spouses’ (additionally requiring the proprietive suffix -yi) from galŋbam ‘spouse’ (Merlan 1982: 215) and Chamorro medial consonant-vowel continuative reduplication as in hugándo ‘play’ → hu~gá~gando ‘playing’ (Topping 1973: 259; the accent marks primary stress). As can be seen from the first and last example, the prosodic make-up of the base is not necessarily exactly reflected in the reduplicant (the Ngiyambaa foot reduplicant only shows the onset consonant and nuclear vowel of the second base syllable, while in Chamorro the sole reduplicant syllable lacks the base coda), pointing toward an independently fixed shape for partial reduplicants merely to be filled by segmental information from the base (see Moravcsik 1978: 307−308, 311−312, 315). A further special characteristic when comparing a base and its reduplicant is the structural reduction in terms of markedness occasionally found in partial reduplication. In the example from Ngiyambaa above, vowel length is reduced in the reduplicant; another widespread case of reduced marked structures is the simplification of consonant clusters vis-à-vis the base as in Tagalog so-called proposed verbal forms, exemplified here by mag-ta~trabáhoh ‘X will work’ (the prefix mag- indicates agent focus) from trabáhoh ‘work’ (French 1988: 23). The latter example moreover demonstrates the possibility of a discontinuous string of segments in the base to form a partial reduplicant. Intensive adjective formation in Turkish via partial reduplication as in sarı ‘yellow’ → sap~sarı ‘yellow like a quince (i.e. bright yellow)’ (Müller 2004: 87; see also articles 77 on intensification and 184 on Turkish) reveals important characteristics as well. On the one hand, such an example demonstrates that the reduplicant and base do not necessarily have to appear directly adjacent to one another. On the other hand, it can be seen that what specifically interferes in this case is a so-called “fixed segment” in the reduplicant, i.e. a segmental unit not found in the base. Fixed segments are not restricted to partial reduplication, though; they can also appear as sound substitutions or additions with full reduplication in formations commonly known as “echo-words”. Relevant examples for the latter can once again be adduced from Turkish, e.g., hasta ‘sick’ → has- Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 470 II. Units and processes in word-formation I: General aspects ta~masta ‘sick or so’ and oyun ‘game’ → oyun~moyun ‘games and the like’ (Müller 2004: 18). 2.2. Theoretical approaches to reduplication form Examining cases of the exceptional (non-)application of phonological rules in reduplicative contexts nowadays commonly termed “overapplication” and “underapplication”, Wilbur (1973) raised fundamental issues for a generative-derivational architecture of grammar and the proper localization of reduplication in such a model. To better handle said exceptions in a framework of the mentioned type, Wilbur (1973: 58) formulated the identity constraint (basically saying that there is a tendency for a base and reduplicant to preserve identity in a reduplicated form) as a condition on over-/underapplying rules and assigned reduplication wholly to the morphological component (see Wilbur 1973: 64−65), thereby initiating and paving the way for an ensuing dominance of theoretical investigations into the formal nature of reduplication always making use of state-of-theart concepts and tools offered by linguistics. In the 1980s, observations like the one in Moravcsik (1978) alluded to in the previous subsection brought about a change from looking at the interaction of reduplication with phonological rules to investigating so-called “reduplicative templates” within the by then popular approaches committed to nonlinear or prosodic morphology (see article 7 on word-formation in generative grammar). Responding to the inadequacy of overgenerating transformational rules in the formalization of reduplication, Marantz (1982) put forth an autosegmental copy-and-association model, in which he treated reduplication as the concatenative affixation of a segmentally underspecified morpheme template later on to be filled by segments from the base via “phonological copying”. Addressing theoretical problems arising from the sometimes occurring additional transfer of prosodic information like syllabicity and length to the reduplicant, Clements (1985) subsequently proposed a non-concatenative account instead, claiming that the reduplicative affix is joined to the base in parallel so that prosodic features may be transferred as well before the linearization of the base and reduplicant takes place. In contrast to her above-mentioned predecessors, Steriade (1988: 78) finally rejected the possibility of partial reduplicative templates altogether; in her full-copy approach, partial reduplication always starts out as full reduplication, while the final reduplicant shape is determined by the application of reductional operations implementing requirements of syllable markedness (cf. Steriade 1988: 92). As a consequence of further pursuing and constantly refining prosodic morphology, the 1990s were marked by a turn to non-derivational, declarative models of language and, especially, the accompanying rise of optimality theory (see article 11), the general development and success of which are intimately connected with the application of various optimality-theoretic subtheories to cases of reduplication. Essentially going all the way back to Wilbur (1973: 72), (base-reduplicant) correspondence theory (e.g., McCarthy and Prince 1999) revived the central idea behind the identity constraint in terms of “correspondence relations” holding between the underlying stem and surface base as well as between the surface base and the surface reduplicant (see McCarthy and Prince 1999: 232); accordingly, the long-debated instances of overapplication and Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 25. Reduplication 471 underapplication are attributed to the high ranking of base-reduplicant identity constraints in this model. Generalized template theory (e.g., McCarthy and Prince 1994), on the other hand, strived to derive reduplicative templates by independent constraints concerning prosody, morphology and their interface (but see Hendricks 2001 for an argument against prosodic templatic constraints). In this approach, the often observed unmarked reduplicant structures already investigated by Steriade (1988) follow from a constraint ranking in which any structural constraint (e.g., a ban against syllable codas or complex onsets) is dominated by general input-output faithfulness but itself dominates base-reduplicant faithfulness (the effects of such a ranking are now commonly known as the emergence of the unmarked or simply TETU). In a similar vein, Alderete et al. (1999) investigated fixed reduplicative segmentism within optimality theory, arguing for two distinct types of the phenomenon; phonologically fixed segments are just regarded as another case of the emergence of the unmarked (i.e. the insertion of an unmarked default segment), while morphologically fixed segments (as found in echo-words) are treated as a kind of affixation realized simultaneously with reduplication and overwriting part of the reduplicated string (cf. Alderete et al. 1999: 328). Although reduplication research in the new millennium has seen an occasional return to derivational models (e.g., Raimy 2000 and, more recently, Frampton 2009; see also McCarthy, Kimber and Mullin 2012), optimality theory up until today remains the most popular umbrella theory for analyzing reduplication data in terms of their formal characteristics. However, especially studies of the past two decades have also shown a growing interest in reduplication semantics, spawning descriptions and a model of reduplication looked at more closely in the course of the next main section. 3. Meanings and functions Already the extensive early study undertaken by Pott (1862) had been largely devoted to reduplication meanings and functions in the languages of the world (for a summary and critical evaluation see Stolz, Stroh and Urdze 2011: 78−83). Despite the fact that after that scholars have time and again pointed out cross-linguistic regularities and peculiarities concerning the semantics of reduplicative formations, pertinent investigations (mostly of a typological nature) have always lagged behind form-related studies of the phenomenon since the beginning of generative and post-generative linguistics, and only recently has the meaning component of reduplication found a prominent place also in the more theoretically oriented literature. 3.1. General functional properties Reduplication can apply to many different word classes and may serve a wide range of meanings and functions some of which have already been exemplified in the previous main section (e.g., simple plurality or considerable/greater number of nouns, continuative aspect of verbs and intensification or attenuation of modifiers). Further examples follow. Next to the already encountered meanings related to a more general notion of plurality, reduplicated nouns also often express distributivity or totality, e.g., Lavukaleve mina Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 472 II. Units and processes in word-formation I: General aspects ‘thing’ → mina~mina ‘everything’ (Terrill 2003: 36). Another frequent function of nominal reduplication (though quite distinct from any type of plurality) is diminution as in Malagasy àlahélo ‘sadness’ → àlahèlo~hélo ‘little sadness’ (Keenan and Razafimamonjy 1998: 167; the grave and acute accents mark secondary and primary stress, respectively). With verbs, the most common meanings expressed by reduplication belong to the broad field of verbal plurality, including continuity or progressivity as in Swahili -cheka ‘laugh’ → -cheka~cheka ‘keep laughing’ (Novotna 2000: 65), repetition or iterativity as in Eastern Oromo bab~baas-e ‘took out often’ (with the past tense suffix -e) from the verbal base baas ‘to take out’ (Owens 1985: 84), frequentativity or habituality as in Hmong Njua quaj ‘to cry loudly’ → quaj~quaj ‘to always cry’ (Harriehausen 1990: 47) and distributivity or dispersion as in Plains Cree kāh~kīwikē-wak ‘they visit from time to time/here and there’ (the h indicates devoicing following the long fixed reduplicant vowel, while the ending -wak adds specifications for person, number, animacy and transitivity) from the base kīwikē- ‘to visit’ (Ahenakew and Wolfart 1983: 375). Also, reduplicating a verb may intensify its meaning, e.g., Kwaza kahɛ- ‘to bite’ → kahɛ~kahɛ- ‘to keep on biting (ferociously)’ (van der Voort 2003: 75). Furthermore, similarly to diminution in nouns, one frequently finds attenuation of verbal meanings with reduplication too as in Malagasy mànomé ‘gives’ → mànomè~mé ‘gives a bit’ (Keenan and Razafimamonjy 1998: 166). Adjectives and adverbs often reduplicate for plural reference or agreement as well as for distributivity, e.g., Amele ben ‘big’ → ben~ben ‘many big things’ (Roberts 1991: 121), Somali fiican ‘good’ → fiic~fiican ‘good (plural)’ (Berchem 1991: 159) and Georgian axal-i ‘new’ (with absolutive suffix -i) → axal~axali ‘new (obligatorily distributed over head noun)’ (Gil 1988: 1042−1043). Intensification as in Bagirmi you ‘quickly’ → you~ you ‘very quickly’ (Stevenson 1969: 161) is also a very common function of adjectival and adverbial reduplication, and as with verbs, attenuation is found as well, frequently in reduplicated colour terms like Modern Hebrew tsahov ‘yellow’ → tsahav~hav ‘yellowish’ (Levkovych 2007: 152; the vowel a in the reduplicated syllable is fixed and appears in the base as well). Minor word classes and certain subclasses of major word classes are also prone to reduplication, with similar semantic effects as found in (and exemplified above with) nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Pertinent examples are distributive numerals like Lezgian c’uwad~c’uwad ‘fifteen each’ (Haspelmath 1993: 235) and indefinite pronouns as in Gayo sahan ‘who’ → sahan~sahan ‘whoever’ (Eades 2005: 57). The semantic interpretation of echo-reduplication (called the “Et Cetera interpretation” by Singh 2005: 266) is relatively uniform across different word classes as well as across languages, context-dependently conveying different mixtures of generality, vagueness, plurality, indefiniteness, pejorative connotations and sometimes also intensification (see Keane 2001: 56−58), e.g., Tamil puli ‘tiger’→ puli~gili ‘tiger and the like’, vəndu ‘to come’ → vəndu~gindu ‘to come, etc.’, motti ‘fat’ → motti~gitti ‘fat and the like’ and əvən ‘he’ → əvən~givən ‘he, etc.’ (Abbi 1992: 21). There are also reduplicative phenomena with unclear semantic effects. For example, it is hard to tell whether in reduplications with simultaneous affixation as in Lavukaleve reciprocal formations (Terrill 2003: 366−367) showing a suffix -ria and initial consonant-vowel reduplication of the stem (e.g., numa ‘to choose’ → nu~numa-ria ‘to choose each other’) the reduplicative part itself contributes any meaning (in the Lavukaleve Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 25. Reduplication 473 case this is especially doubtful because reduplication in reciprocal forms is only obligatory with stems longer than two syllables) or if it is rather some kind of stem formation process upon which morphological rules act (cf. Saperstein 1997: 160; see also Niepokuj 1997: 83−86). It should be noted that most of the above meanings can be summarized as somehow expressing the concept of increased quantity, with the subtypes quantity of referents (loosely plurality) and amount of emphasis or intensification (cf. Moravcsik 1978: 317). The remaining meanings revolve around the quite opposite notions of diminution and attenuation. The theoretical interpretation of such rather stark semantic contrasts is a strong dividing line between two broad approaches to reduplication semantics to be discussed in the next subsection. There are, however, reduplicative meanings which do not easily fit into any of the above categories too, e.g., perfectivity, future, possession, inchoative and associative qualities (see Moravcsik 1978: 325; Inkelas and Zoll 2005: 14; Rubino 2005b: 20−21). At the same time, some meanings seldom or never seem to occur with any type of reduplication, e.g., gender, case and negation (for a longer list exclusively dedicated to full reduplication see Stolz, Stroh and Urdze 2011: 194). The above survey has left two important functions of reduplication completely out of the picture, namely the creation of new words and word-class change, both often correlated with an additional change involving plurality, intensity or diminution/attenuation (cf. Moravcsik 1978: 324). As the former functions constitute prime examples of wordformation, they will be described more thoroughly in the remaining main sections (for further cross-linguistic overviews of reduplication semantics see Key 1965; Niepokuj 1997: 65−87; Regier 1998). 3.2. Theoretical approaches to reduplication function Although Moravcsik (1978) stands out as a notable exception in early modern reduplication research in also containing a detailed discussion of reduplicative meanings, the paper’s overall conclusion on this point nevertheless 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 subsumable under general classes, no [emphasis mine] explanatory or predictive generalization about the meanings of reduplicative constructions can be proposed” (Moravcsik 1978: 325). The author thereby further supported from a functional-typological perspective an opinion which has more or less naturally fallen out from the formally oriented reduplication studies since Wilbur (1973). The latter were either not concerned with reduplicative semantics at all or they saw no reason to regard the meanings occurring with reduplications in different languages as special in any way. This was particularly true in reduplication-as-affixation approaches (e.g., Marantz 1982), in which the assumption of reduplicants as merely being segmentally underspecified affixes could be paralleled without difficulty by the view that the same range of meanings is in principle possible for reduplication and other types of affixation. Despite her above quotation, Moravcsik (1978: 330) did acknowledge “a tendency [...] for languages to use reduplicative patterns − i.e. quantitative form differentiation − for the expression of meanings that have something to do with the quantity of referents”, however. This already touched upon a topic of interest which would later on be taken Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 474 II. Units and processes in word-formation I: General aspects up more seriously especially by functional approaches to morphology (most notably natural morphology; see article 9) under the heading of iconic form-meaning relationships or “(constructional) iconicity” (for an early example see Mayerthaler 1977). In general, iconicity can be characterized as the non-arbitrary motivation of lexical items, morphological processes and aspects of morphological and syntactic structure, either directly by virtue of a sign’s homology with the entity signified or, more abstractly, via diagrammaticity, the latter being the mirroring of relations among concepts or elements of discourse by the make-up of linguistic structures (cf. Downing and Stiebels 2012: 379). Reduplication is special in that it very often reflects both these aspects of iconicity; it exhibits diagrammaticity because more complex concepts are expressed by more complex structures (cf. Mayerthaler 1977: 34), and it additionally shows homology because repetition of form mirrors repetition of meaning (cf. Downing and Stiebels 2012: 394). Observations like these led Kouwenberg and LaCharité (2005: 534) to propose the iconic principle of reduplication: “More of the same form stands for more of the same meaning”, where “more of the same meaning” must be interpreted in a metaphorical sense to be able to include meanings like distributivity, continuity and intensification as well (cf. Downing and Stiebels 2012: 395). The obvious question now arises if and how widespread reduplicative meanings like diminution and attenuation can also be motivated by the above principle. In her semantic study of Malayo-Polynesian noun and verb reduplication, Kiyomi (1995) regarded reduplication as both iconic and non-iconic, with a so-called “consecutive” as well as a “cumulative iconic process” bringing about all sorts of plurality and intensity meanings, respectively (similarly, Fischer 2011: 59 speaks of repetition on a horizontal and a vertical axis here), and a non-iconic process akin to affixation being responsible for sundry notions like diminution. On the other hand, Regier (1998) and Fischer (2011) both took a similar stance in granting reduplication a cognitively grounded iconic base that is semantically extendable via metaphoric and metonymic processes. The two authors also proceeded similarly in deriving the problematic diminutive and attenuative meanings from meanings ultimately connected to the concept of baby (Regier 1998) or the babytalk register in general (Fischer 2011; see also Niepokuj 1997: 72−73). From a somewhat different angle (and also in slight contrast to their earlier work on reduplication in Caribbean creoles, e.g., Kouwenberg and LaCharité 2001), Kouwenberg and LaCharité (2005: 540) subsumed diminution and attenuation in reduplication under the iconic principle by proposing an extension of dispersive readings from discontinuous occurrence to approximation, e.g., Jamaican Creole yala~yala ‘yellow-spotted’, in which “[t]he real-world effect of such scattered distribution of colour is to tone down rather than intensify the colour, to diminish rather than augment it” (Kouwenberg and LaCharité 2005: 538), ultimately yielding the meaning ‘yellowish’ (see Abraham 2005 for a critical reaction to Kouwenberg and LaCharité 2005). Finally, invoking a statement going all the way back to Pott (1862: 102), Stolz (2007: 342−345) developed a revised model of reduplicative iconicity, claiming that the latter is not primarily based on diagrammaticity or homology but rather on the conceptual deviation a reduplicated form expresses vis-à-vis the norm or prototype encoded in its unreduplicated counterpart. Obviously, by this the author was not only able to accommodate diminution and attenuation but all kinds of other reduplicative meanings problematic for a traditional conceptualization of iconicity as well (see also Stolz, Stroh and Urdze 2011: 178−191). Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 25. Reduplication 475 A recent theory of growing popularity which considers reduplication as being heavily based on semantics, yet does not concern itself with questions of iconicity at all, is morphological doubling theory (Inkelas 2005, 2008; Inkelas and Zoll 2005). This approach is rooted in optimality theory and construction grammar (see articles 11 and 12, respectively), assigning reduplicative constructions a mother node and two daughter nodes, each node endowed with its own meaning and so-called “co-phonology”, the latter in order to capture the general difference between full and partial reduplication as well as all sorts of more specific phonological peculiarities often associated with (especially partial) reduplication. Most importantly, “reduplication results when the morphology calls twice for a constituent of a given semantic description [emphasis mine], with possible phonological modification of either or both constituents” (Inkelas and Zoll 2005: 6), meaning that in an extreme case even formally unrelated synonyms can instantiate the construction (as in synonym compounding; see article 40 on co-compounds) and with the effect of downgrading the hitherto defining characteristic of phonological identity to a very common correlate of the process but not a required one (cf. Inkelas 2005: 84). In such a model, both phonological copying to fill a template and correspondence relations holding between segments of a base and its reduplicant are thus replaced by the insertion of two morphological units whose morphosemantic descriptions must match (cf. Inkelas 2005: 65). In contrast to reduplication-as-affixation approaches, morphological doubling theory thus pushes reduplication closer to compounding (see also Saperstein 1997). 4. Reduplication and word-formation This section looks at reduplication specifically from the perspective of word-formation in a narrower sense. For the discussion to follow it is useful to make a distinction between productive and lexical reduplication. The concept of (morphological) productivity (see article 47) has to be understood in a loose way here, however, productive patterns simply being those in which new words are formed or derived on the basis of existing vocabulary items (i.e. base forms). In contrast, lexical reduplications in fact show a repetitive segmental make-up as well as semantic similarities with (and perhaps diachronic connections to originally) productive reduplications but they crucially lack (at least synchronically) a corresponding unreduplicated base form (see also Vollmann 2009; Mattes 2014). To incorporate the latter formation type in the present discussion obviously entails a deviation from most traditional definitions of reduplication (including the one given at the beginning of this article) but it is nevertheless a common practice of many pertinent studies to discuss these sorts of patterns along with the more productive ones. 4.1. Productive reduplication 4.1.1. Formation of new words The creation of new words (see also article 26 on word-creation) from existing ones without or only very loosely predictable semantics can be achieved via reduplication in Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 476 II. Units and processes in word-formation I: General aspects many languages. Relevant examples include, among plenty of others, Afrikaans kort ‘short’ → kort~kort ‘every now and again’ (Botha 1988: 118), Swahili bata (denoting a kind of duck) → -bata~bata ‘waddle’ (Novotna 2000: 65) and Portuguese esconde~esconde (a traditional game of hide-and-seek), cf. esconder ‘to hide’ (Kröll 1991: 33). According to the standard interpretation rule of Afrikaans reduplications and a number of additional conceptual devices presented in Botha (1988), kort~kort above should mean ‘for a very short period’, its actual meaning thus being a case of lexicalization, a property also typical of many compounds and derived words (cf. Botha 1988: 118; see also Niepokuj 1997: 68). Apart from an apparent change in word class (see section 4.1.2), the Swahili case, on the other hand, is an example of a transfer of meaning based on similarity (see Novotna 2000: 65), a notion conceptually close to attenuation (cf. Moravcsik 1978: 323), which in turn is very often expressed by reduplication as has already been pointed out in the previous main section. In a similar vein, the Portuguese game-name reduplication can be interpreted as being connected to plurality via the conceptual link that the playing of a game typically (in hide-and-seek especially) involves more than one participant (cf. the discussion of Afrikaans reduplicated game names in Botha 1988: 122−128). 4.1.2. Word-class derivation Changing the word class of a base is a very common function of reduplication in various languages. It can affect all major word classes and displays all possible directions of change. To give just a handful of examples, Marshallese reduplicates a noun like bahat ‘smoke’ to form a verb bahat~hat ‘to smoke’ (Harrison 1973: 439), while in Papiamentu an adjective like zeta~zeta ‘very oily’ can be formed by reduplicating a noun, cf. zeta ‘oil’ (Kouwenberg and Murray 1994: 21). Similarly, Chamorro verbs like kanno’ ‘to eat’ and hatsa ‘to lift’ can be nominalized or changed into a modifier via reduplication, cf. ká~kanno’ ‘eater’ (Topping 1973: 182) and há~hatsa ‘lifting (attributive)’ (Topping 1973: 103), respectively. Finally, word-class changing reduplication from adjectival bases can be illustrated by Swahili -tamu ‘sweet’ → tamu~tamu ‘sweets, confectionary’ (Novotna 2000: 63) and Nama (a click language in which morpheme-final nasals can also carry tone) !óḿ ‘difficult’ → !óḿ~!om ‘to make (something) difficult’ (Hagman 1977: 18). Although in general word-class derivation is functionally quite distinct from the broad meaning categories of plurality, intensification and diminution so often found in reduplication (and discussed in the previous main section), it frequently occurs simultaneously with such notions in reduplicative constructions (cf. Moravcsik 1978: 324), for example in the Papiamentu denominal adjective above which also expresses intensification. 4.1.3. Intra-category changes and other functions Reduplication can also bring about clearly derivational changes within a given word class, a typical intra-category change of this kind being one that affects the transitivity of a verb as in Mokilese koso ‘to cut (transitive)’ → kos~kos ‘to cut (intransitive)’ Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 25. Reduplication 477 (Harrison 1973: 415). Another clear example of reduplicative derivation is the diminution of nouns which has already been exemplified in the previous main section. However, many cases of reduplication can pose problems when trying to classify them in terms of their morphological function. It has long been noted in linguistics that the difference between inflection and derivation is not necessarily a clear-cut one (see article 14 on the delimitation of derivation and inflection). While the previous main section showed that the meanings and functions of reduplication are at least to a great extent easily characterized in a general fashion (theoretically in terms of iconicity, for example, if one subscribes to such a concept), the question as to whether morphologically these meanings and functions are inflectional or derivational in nature is often much harder to answer (see also Inkelas 2014). Typically problematic instances are all sorts of meanings pertaining to plurality (cf. number in nouns and adjectives as well as certain aspectual differentiations in verbs) and intensification (cf. the degree of adjectives) but also less common reduplicative functions like forming the perfect (i.e. tense) as in some Latin and Ancient Greek verbs (for the latter see article 116 on from Ancient Greek to Modern Greek). However, it should be pointed out that many of these meanings can be related to inherent (i.e. derivation-like) inflectional categories in the sense of Booij (1993, 1996). What is more, even at first sight clearly inflectional meanings like plural agreement often turn out to lack some decisive properties like obligatoriness when expressed by reduplication (e.g., Owens 1985: 93 on Eastern Oromo). The question thus arises if indeed there is unambiguous reduplicative inflection at all in the languages of the world (see also Saperstein 1997: 161−163). 4.2. Lexical reduplication Lexical reduplicative formations (often called frozen, fossilized or pseudo-reduplications) lack an unreduplicated counterpart but may nevertheless exhibit striking formal and functional parallels to productive reduplication. Many of the forms in question probably hail from a once productively used pattern, others may have a more spontaneous and transparent origin (for general diachronic aspects of reduplication, including possible scenarios of grammaticalization, see Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994: 166−174; Niepokuj 1997; Hurch and Mattes 2005; Stolz 2008; Stolz, Stroh and Urdze 2011: 147− 204). 4.2.1. Inherent plurality and other semantic fields There is a cross-linguistic tendency for words containing some degree of inherent plurality to be formally reduplicated, especially zoological expressions, certain kinds of movement and botanical terms, e.g., Welsh pilipala ‘butterfly’ (see article 153 on Welsh), Koasati wananátlin ‘to shiver’ (Kimball 1988: 438) and Portuguese lemba-lemba (a local term from São Tomé) meaning ‘liana, cord’ (Kröll 1991: 28), respectively. Further semantic fields found fairly frequently in lexical reduplication relate to human beings or bodyparts, e.g., Bagirmi ṭɨṭɨk ‘bowels’ (Stevenson 1969: 18), nature or natural phenomena, e.g., Lavukaleve lamulam ‘storm’ (Terrill 2003: 106), diseases or sickness, Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 478 II. Units and processes in word-formation I: General aspects e.g., Ngiyambaa giraŋgira ‘sickly’ (Donaldson 1980: 37), and colours, e.g., Mokilese imwpwilapwil ‘pink’ (Harrison 1973: 437), to name just a few (for a systematic compilation of Portuguese lexical reduplications according to such categories see Kröll 1990, 1991). 4.2.2. Expressive formations Expressives of all sorts (see also article 62 on the pragmatics of word-formation), often with negative connotations, are also prone to be lexically reduplicated, e.g., German plemplem (sein) ‘(to be) nuts’ (see article 134 on German; for German reduplication and word-formation see also Wiese 1990; Schindler 1991), Portuguese xexé ‘ridiculous person’ (Kröll 1991: 40) and Swahili halahala ‘immediately!, at once!’ (Novotna 2000: 68). Especially widespread are reduplicated expressive forms of a sound-symbolic nature, i.e. onomatopoeia and ideophones, e.g., Danish klipklap (the sound of wooden shoes or horseshoes; see article 140 on Danish), Spanish cucú (cry of the cuckoo; see article 145 on Spanish), Polish and Slovak chi-chi (laughter; see articles 156 on Polish and 159 on Slovak), Albanian bu(m)bullin ‘to thunder’ (see article 171 on Albanian), Ossetic c’ipc’ip (sound produced by young chickens; see article 173 on Ossetic), Tat jiv-jiv zere ‘to chirp’ (ideophonic coverb; see article 174 on Tat), Udmurt zup-zup (heartbeat; see article 178 on Permic), Mari vrek-vrek (a cat or hare jumping; see article 179 on Mari) and Chuvash čučču ‘swing’ (noun based on sound imitation; see article 190 on Chuvash). 5. Reduplication, word-formation and the languages of Europe Putting the focus on Europe, striking observations on the status of reduplication in general as well as the phenomenon’s specific connection to word-formation can be made. As the examples provided throughout the previous main sections have already suggested, reduplication is normally found with onomatopoeia in European languages, next to some expressive forms and words relatable to certain common semantic fields. Compared to such cases of lexical reduplication, productive reduplication of whatever kind seems to be rare in this part of the world (see also article 16 on derivation). This state of affairs is normally related to the fact that the predominant language family spoken in Europe is (western) Indo-European, which is generally believed to lack reduplicating languages in a narrow sense. In additional support of this, important exceptions to the above characterization of Europe as an essentially reduplication-free area typically come from languages like Basque (an isolate) and Hungarian (Uralic) as well as from other non-IndoEuropean family members encountered when moving towards or straddling the outer borders of the continent (e.g., Turkish, Georgian and Modern Hebrew). The occurrence of productive reduplication thus appears to become markedly higher with an increasing distance from uncontroversial mainland Europe and western IndoEuropean languages, a fact which incidentally is nicely reflected in the sketches of individual languages collected in the present handbook (cf. articles 134−207). In principle, all kinds of reduplicative forms and functions show up, e.g., fully reduplicated plurality Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 25. Reduplication 479 in Komi ɫun ‘day’ → ɫun-ɫun ‘every day’ (see article 178 on Permic), partially reduplicated intensification (with fixed segmentism) in Gagauz koca ‘big’ → kos~koca ‘huge’ (see article 188 on Gagauz), attenuating echo-word formation in Akhwakh emada ‘liquid’ → ema~χ̄emada ‘more or less liquid’ (see article 205 on Akhwakh) as well as wordclass derivation, cf. Tat para ‘piece’ → para~para ‘scattered’ (see article 174 on Tat), Karaim jyrach ‘far’ → jyrach~jyrach ‘far away’ (see article 189 on Karaim) and Sardinian curre ‘run’ → curre curre ‘in a hurry’ (see article 149 on Sardinian). In coming from a Romance language, the latter example is hinting at a controversial topic which has only recently gained fresh interest to be discussed below. In line with the mainstream opinion presented above, the typological map of The World Atlas of Language Structures (Haspelmath et al. 2005) pertaining to reduplication portrays Europe as a more or less blank spot concerning this feature (see Rubino 2005a: 116−117). Among other things as a reaction to the methods reflected in Rubino (2005a), Stolz, Stroh and Urdze (2011) set out to redraw the European reduplicative landscape in an extensive areal-typological study concentrating on full reduplication. By quantitatively and qualitatively investigating a large corpus of literary texts instead of solely relying on written grammars, the authors take up several languages of Europe into the productively reduplicating class which more or less have been excluded before, but their approach crucially involves the expansion of the definition of reduplication so as to also include what many other researchers would rather count as syntactic repetition (see Stolz, Stroh and Urdze 2011: 26). Also, the reduplicative functions they discover often straddle the line between emphasis and intensification, i.e. they make it hard to unambiguously assign certain forms as belonging to either pragmatics or grammar (see Stolz, Stroh and Urdze 2011: 137−147). What is more, their results indeed only pertain to full reduplication as the authors explicitly state themselves that they find “no compelling evidence of P[artial]R[eduplication] as a systematically employed grammatical device in Europe” (Stolz, Stroh and Urdze 2011: 490; see also article 16 on derivation). It thus remains an open question to what extent reduplication in most European languages is really comparable to reduplication as it is found in the rest of the world, be it from a formal or from a functional perspective. Acknowledgements Many thanks are due to Bernhard Hurch for his suggestions concerning the overall outline of this article as well as some points of detail. Furthermore, much is owed to my former position as a research assistant in Hurch’s Graz reduplication project (duration 2005−2010) funded by the Austrian Science Fund (project number P18173-G03), a main outcome of which was the Graz database on reduplication (see Hurch and Mattes 2007, 2009) from where most of the examples given here have been drawn (http://reduplica tion.uni-graz.at/). 6. References Abbi, Anvita 1992 Reduplication in South Asian Languages. An Areal, Typological and Historical Study. New Delhi: Allied Publishers. Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 480 II. Units and processes in word-formation I: General aspects Aboh, Enoch Oladé, Norval Smith and Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.) 2012 The Morphosyntax of Reiteration in Creole and Non-Creole Languages. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. Abraham, Werner 2005 Intensity and diminution triggered by reduplicating morphology: Janus-faced iconicity. In: Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on Reduplication, 547−568. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ahenakew, Freda and H. Christoph Wolfart 1983 Productive reduplication in Plains Cree. In: William Cowan (ed.), Actes du Quatorzième Congrès des Algonquinistes, 369−377. Ottawa: Carleton University. Alderete, John, Jill Beckman, Laura Benua, Amalia Gnanadesikan, John McCarthy and Suzanne Urbanczyk 1999 Reduplication with fixed segmentism. Linguistic Inquiry 30(3): 327−364. Berchem, Jörg 1991 Referenzgrammatik des Somali. Köln: OMIMEE. Booij, Geert 1993 Against split morphology. In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 27−49. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Booij, Geert 1996 Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 1−16. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Botha, Rudolf P. 1988 Form and Meaning in Word Formation. A Study of Afrikaans Reduplication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bybee, Joan L., Revere Dale Perkins and William Pagliuca 1994 The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Clements, George N. 1985 The problem of transfer in nonlinear morphology. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 38−73. Donaldson, Tamsin 1980 Ngiyambaa. The Language of the Wangaaybuwan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Downing, Laura J. and Barbara Stiebels 2012 Iconicity. In: Jochen Trommer (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, 379−426. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eades, Domenyk 2005 A Grammar of Gayo. A Language of Aceh, Sumatra. Canberra: The Australian National University. El Zarka, Dina 2005 On the borderline of reduplication: Gemination and other consonant doubling in Arabic morphology. In: Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on Reduplication, 369−394. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Fischer, Olga 2011 Cognitive iconic grounding of reduplication in language. In: Pascal Michelucci, Olga Fischer and Christina Ljungberg (eds.), Semblance and Signification, 55−81. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Frampton, John 2009 Distributed Reduplication. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press. Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 25. Reduplication 481 French, Koleen Matsuda 1988 Insights into Tagalog Reduplication, Infixation and Stress from Nonlinear Phonology. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Gil, David 1988 Georgian reduplication and the domain of distributivity. Linguistics 26(6): 1039−1065. Gil, David 2005 From repetition to reduplication in Riau Indonesian. In: Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on Reduplication, 31−64. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hagman, Roy S. 1977 Nama Hottentot Grammar. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications. Harriehausen, Bettina 1990 Hmong Njua. Syntaktische Analyse einer gesprochenen Sprache mithilfe datenverarbeitungstechnischer Mittel und sprachvergleichende Beschreibung des südostasiatischen Sprachraumes. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Harrison, Sheldon P. 1973 Reduplication in Micronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics 12(1−2): 407−454. Haspelmath, Martin 1993 A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie (eds.) 2005 The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hendricks, Sean 2001 Bare-consonant reduplication without prosodic templates: Expressive reduplication in Semai. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10(4): 287−306. Hualde, José Ignacio and Jon Ortiz de Urbina 2003 A Grammar of Basque. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hurch, Bernhard and Veronika Mattes 2005 Über die Entstehung von partieller Reduplikation. In: Gertraut Fenk-Oczlon and Christian Winkler (eds.), Sprache und Natürlichkeit. Gedenkband für Willi Mayerthaler, 137− 156. Tübingen: Narr. Hurch, Bernhard and Veronika Mattes 2007 The Graz database on reduplication. In: Alexis Michaud and Aliyah Morgenstern (eds.), La Réduplication, 191−202. Paris: Ophrys. Hurch, Bernhard and Veronika Mattes 2009 Typology of reduplication: The Graz database. In: Martin Everaert, Simon Musgrave and Alexis Dimitriadis (eds.), The Use of Databases in Cross-Linguistic Studies, 301− 327. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Inkelas, Sharon 2005 Morphological doubling theory: Evidence for morphological doubling in reduplication. In: Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on Reduplication, 65−88. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Inkelas, Sharon 2008 The dual theory of reduplication. Linguistics 46(2): 351−401. Inkelas, Sharon 2012 Reduplication. In: Jochen Trommer (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, 355−378. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Inkelas, Sharon 2014 Non-concatenative derivation: Reduplication. In: Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, 169−189. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Inkelas, Sharon and Cheryl Zoll 2005 Reduplication. Doubling in Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 482 II. Units and processes in word-formation I: General aspects Keane, Elinor 2001 Echo words in Tamil. Ph.D. dissertation, Merton College, Oxford. Keenan, Edward L. and Jean Paulin Razafimamonjy 1998 Reduplication in Malagasy. In: Matthew Pearson (ed.), Recent Papers in Austronesian Linguistics. Proceedings of the Third and Fourth Meetings of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA), Los Angeles, 1996−1997, 159−183. Los Angeles: UCLA Department of Linguistics. Key, Harold 1965 Some semantic functions of reduplication in various languages. Anthropological Linguistics 7(3): 88−102. Kiefer, Ferenc 1995−96 Prefix reduplication in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 43(1−2): 175−194. Kimball, Geoffrey 1988 Koasati reduplication. In: William Shipley (ed.), In Honor of Mary Haas. From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics, 431−442. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kiyomi, Setsuko 1995 A new approach to reduplication: A semantic study of noun and verb reduplication in Malayo-Polynesian languages. Linguistics 27(6): 1145−1167. Kouwenberg, Silvia (ed.) 2003 Twice as Meaningful. Reduplication in Pidgins, Creoles, and other Contact Languages. London: Battlebridge Publications. Kouwenberg, Silvia and Darlene LaCharité 2001 The iconic interpretations of reduplication: Issues in the study of reduplication in Caribbean creole languages. European Journal of English Studies 5(1): 59−80. Kouwenberg, Silvia and Darlene LaCharité 2005 Less is more: Evidence from diminutive reduplication in Caribbean creole languages. In: Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on Reduplication, 533−545. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kouwenberg, Silvia and Eric Murray 1994 Papiamentu. München/Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. Kröll, Heinz 1990 Beitrag zu den Reduplikationen im Portugiesischen. Lusorama 11: 31−39. Kröll, Heinz 1991 Beitrag zu den Reduplikationen im Portugiesischen (II). Lusorama 15: 25−44. Levkovych, Nataliya 2007 Totale Reduplikation im modernen Hebräischen. In: Andreas Ammann and Aina Urdze (eds.), Wiederholung, Parallelismus, Reduplikation. Strategien der multiplen Strukturanwendung, 109−163. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Marantz, Alec 1982 Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 435−482. Mattes, Veronika 2014 Types of Reduplication. A Case Study of Bikol. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Mayerthaler, Willi 1977 Studien zur theoretischen und zur französischen Morphologie. Reduplikation, Echowörter, morphologische Natürlichkeit, Haplologie, Produktivität, Regeltelescoping, paradigmatischer Ausgleich. Tübingen: Niemeyer. McCarthy, John J. and Alan S. Prince 1994 The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In: Mercè Gonzàlez (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 24, 333−379. Amherst: GLSA. Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 25. Reduplication 483 McCarthy, John J. and Alan S. Prince 1999 Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In: René Kager, Harry van der Hulst and Wim Zonneveld (eds.), The Prosody-Morphology Interface, 218−309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, John J., Wendell Kimper and Kevin Mullin 2012 Reduplication in harmonic serialism. Morphology 22(2): 173−232. Mel’čuk, Igor 2006 Aspects of the Theory of Morphology. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Merlan, Francesca 1982 Mangarayi. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978 Reduplicative constructions. In: Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language. Vol. 3: Word Structure, 297−334. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Müller, Hans-Georg 2004 Reduplikationen im Türkischen. Morphonologische Untersuchungen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Naylor, Paz Buenaventura 1986 On the semantics of reduplication. In: Paul Geraghty, Lois Carrington and Stephen Adolphe Wurm (eds.), FOCAL I. Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 175−185. Canberra: The Australian National University. Niepokuj, Mary 1997 The Development of Verbal Reduplication in Indo-European. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man. Novotna, Jana 2000 Reduplication in Swahili. Afrikanische Arbeitspapiere 64: 57−73. Owens, Jonathan 1985 A Grammar of Harar Oromo (Northeastern Ethiopia). Hamburg: Buske. Pfau, Roland and Markus Steinbach 2005 Backward and sideward reduplication in German Sign Language. In: Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on Reduplication, 569−594. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pott, August Friedrich 1862 Doppelung (Reduplikation, Gemination) als eines der wichtigsten Bildungsmittel der Sprache, beleuchtet aus Sprachen aller Welttheile. Lemgo/Detmold: Verlag der Meyer’schen Hofbuchhandlung. http://reduplication.uni-graz.at/pott/index.html [last access 18 Apr 2013]. Raimy, Eric Stephen 2000 The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Regier, Terry 1998 Reduplication and the arbitrariness of the sign. In: Morton Ann Gernsbacher and Sharon J. Derry (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, University of Wisconsin-Madison, August 1−4, 1998, 887−892. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Roberts, John R. 1991 Reduplication in Amele. In: Tom Dutton (ed.), Papers in Papuan Linguistics No. 1, 115−146. Canberra: The Australian National University. Rubino, Carl Ralph Galvez 2005a Reduplication. In: Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures, 114−117. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28 484 II. Units and processes in word-formation I: General aspects Rubino, Carl Ralph Galvez 2005b Reduplication: Form, function and distribution. In: Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on Reduplication, 11−29. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Saperstein, Andrew D. 1997 A word-and-paradigm approach to reduplication. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University. Schindler, Wolfgang 1991 Reduplizierende Wortbildung im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 44(5): 597−613. Schütz, Albert J. 1985 The Fijian Language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Singh, Rajendra 2005 Reduplication in Modern Hindi and the theory of reduplication. In: Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on Reduplication, 263−281. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Steriade, Donca 1988 Reduplication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere. Phonology 5(1): 73−155. Stevenson, R. C. 1969 Bagirmi Grammar. Khartoum: University of Khartoum. Stolz, Thomas 2007 Re: duplication: Iconic vs counter-iconic principles (and their areal correlates). In: Paolo Ramat and Elisa Roma (eds.), Europe and the Mediterranean as Linguistic Areas. Convergencies from a Historical and Typological Perspective, 317−350. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Stolz, Thomas 2008 Grammatikalisierung ex nihilo: Totale Reduplikation − Ein potentielles Universale und sein Verhältnis zur Grammatikalisierung. In: Thomas Stolz (ed.), Grammatikalisierung und grammatische Kategorien, 83−109. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh and Aina Urdze 2011 Total Reduplication. The Areal Linguistics of a Potential Universal. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Terrill, Angela 2003 A Grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Topping, Donald M. 1973 Chamorro Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Vollmann, Ralf 2009 Reduplication in Tibetan. Grazer Linguistische Studien 71: 115−134. Voort, Hein van der 2003 Reduplication of person markers in Kwaza. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 35: 65−94. Wiese, Richard 1990 Über die Interaktion von Morphologie und Phonologie: Reduplikation im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 43(5): 603− 624. Wilbur, Ronnie Bring 1973 The Phonology of Reduplication. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Wilbur, Ronnie Bring 2005 A reanalysis of reduplication in American Sign Language. In: Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on Reduplication, 595−623. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Thomas Schwaiger, Graz (Austria) Bereitgestellt von | Karl-Franzens-Universitaet/Universitaetsbibliothek Graz Angemeldet Heruntergeladen am | 30.03.15 10:28