Abstract
<p>Some languages show patterns of order-disrupting reduplication, in which the input order of elements is not faithfully preserved in the reduplicated form. Based on data from Saisiyat, an endangered Austronesian language of Taiwan, I propose that these patterns of order-disrupting reduplication are driven by syllable-based locality. In Saisiyat Progressive Reduplication, the second occurrence of the elements in Base-Reduplicant correspondence interrupts the expected linear sequence; for example, the unreduplicated form [koma:at] ‘write’ has the reduplicated form [kokma:at] ‘be writing’, in which the second [k] is order-disrupting. To account for such patterns, I propose a constraint SyllableProximity-BR, which demands that elements in Base-Reduplicant correspondence be dominated by the same syllable node. Order disruption results when SyllableProximity-BR dominates a constraint requiring order preservation. This account captures both the position and the minimal size of the Reduplicant in order-disrupting reduplication, and makes the strong empirical prediction that all order-disrupting reduplication is local. An alternative account of these phenomena that enforces position and size requirements by separate constraints predicts unattested patterns of order-disrupting reduplication with a variable source of copy and an arbitrarily long distance between correspondents.</p>
Highlights
If the reduplicated form in (1) is parsed as in (2), the Base [ma ... vit] is not a contiguous string, violating O-CONTIGUITY
I propose that order-disrupting reduplication is compelled by the constraint SYLLABLEPROXIMITY-BR
SYLLPROX-BR demands that elements in correspondence between the Reduplicant and the Base must be contained within the same syllable, or, equivalently, dominated by the same syllable node (e.g., the corresponding [m]s in (1))
Summary
Several languages show phenomena of order-disrupting reduplication, in which the linear order expected on the basis of related forms does not surface faithfully in the reduplicated form, and the Reduplicant is minimal and atemplatic. The accounts given previously of order-disrupting reduplication use separate constraints to account for the minimality and the position of the Reduplicant (Fitzgerald 1999, 2000; Struijke 2000; Riggle 2004, 2006). In Progressive reduplication, only the first consonant of the root is copied, and the second occurrence of this consonant occupies the coda of the initial syllable This consonant splits the Agent Focus infix, separating the vowel of the infix [o]/[əә]/[ø] from the consonant [m] (4-9) ((4-6) from personal fieldwork, (7-9) from Zeitoun and Wu forthcoming). I give the following generalization of the two different patterns: in the Agent Focus (unreduplicated) form, if the root begins in one consonant, the [m] of the AF infix [om] occurs in the onset of the second syllable, so that the initial syllable is open. In the reduplicated form, the second occurrence of the root-initial consonant cannot appear in this position: either the vowel [o] of the AF infix is reduplicated, so that this consonant appears in the onset of the second syllable, or a suppletive prefix [ka-] is used instead of both reduplication and the [om] infix, in which case the root-initial consonants surfaces in the coda of the initial syllable
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
