Abstract
This paper offers a phonological account of various ways in which reduplication interacts with independent processes in Lakota: transparent application in the case of cluster simplification, overapplication in the case of palatalization, and underapplication in the case of vowel mutation. I argue that all three patterns follow from phonological optimization rather than morpheme-specific constraints on the reduplicant or on other morphemes, and that the co-existence of divergent patterns is compatible with such a phonological analysis. Local application is the default pattern, while overapplication receives a cyclic explanation. For underapplication, which is the most recalcitrant pattern in Lakota, I offer an account in terms of Trigger Poverty, a concept which denotes an imbalance between the number of triggers and the number of potential targets created by copying. Trigger Poverty is likely to be a more general abstract source of underapplication beyond Lakota. This paper thus contributes to the discussion of modularity in phonology by presenting evidence that identity effects in reduplication can be epiphenomenal.
Highlights
When a reduplicated form is targeted by some independent process, the interaction space between these two processes is delineated by three scenarios: transparent application, overapplication, and underapplication
I have argued for a phonological account of over- and underapplication in Lakota that is based on the idea of non-segmental affixation
Underapplication, which at first glance seems highly problematic for item-based approaches, is derived with the help of Trigger Poverty, a configuration whereby a shortage of triggers against an overabundance of potential targets blocks a certain process altogether
Summary
When a reduplicated form is targeted by some independent process, the interaction space between these two processes is delineated by three scenarios: transparent application, overapplication, and underapplication. In the case of overapplication, a process applies to both the base and the reduplicant(s) even though only a single application would be expected. A process is exceptionally inhibited from applying to a reduplicated form. Transparent application occurs with cluster simplification, which is pervasive in Lakota and makes no distinction between reduplicated and non-reduplicated forms (1-a). Overapplication is observed with palatalization induced by certain prefixes which palatalize both a base and a reduplicant velar stop even though only the base form is preceded by a palatalizing vowel (1-b). (1) Transparent and opaque reduplication patterns in Lakota a. I will argue that all three patterns follow purely from the optimization of incomplete and/or imbalanced phonological structures
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
