REDUPLICATION FROM A CROSS-LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

The use of grammars depends on the focus and the objectives of their authors, which do not always correspond with the aims of a particular crosslinguistic research. [...]the over-representation of Indo-European languages has resulted from the effort to map the situation in this language territory and to compare reduplication in IE languages with that in the rest of the world. [...]diminutive-formation like (12) runs counter the diagrammaticity principle, because the longer form results in 'lesser' meaning: (12) Arabana mala-mala 'doggie' < madla 'dog' (Hercus 1994: 42) In fact, the quantity-raising meanings of reduplication, like INTENSITY, ITERATIVITY, DURATIVENESS, AUGMENTATIVITY, have their counterparts in the quantity-reducing meanings of DIMINUTIVENESS, ATTENUATION, etc. [...]one and the same word-formation process can have two opposite effects in terms of iconicity, an issue that has recently attracted considerable interest on the part of morphologists, for example, Kiyomi (1995), Bakker and Parkval (2005), Abraham (2005), Kouwenberg and LaCharité (2005). INTENSIFICATION (13) a. Arabana kurpi-kurpi 'shiver' < kurpi 'skahe' (Hercus 1994: 135) b. Bachamal pamalan- pamalan 'very big, huge' < pamalan 'big' (Ford 2004 : 94) c. Basque argi-argia 'very clear'< argi 'clear' (Hualde and Ortiz 2003: 360) d. Khwarshi ungo-ungoyab 'really real' < ungoyab 'real' (Khalilova, forth-coming) ITERATIVITY (14) a. Amharic wär-wär 'every month' < wär 'month' (Hudson, pers. com.) b. Cupeño kem-kem-yax 'bow again and again' < kem-yax 'bow' (Hill 2005: 134) c. Tzutujil q'iijq'iij 'daily' < q'iij 'day' (Dayley 1985: 55) d. Jacaltec cha pitz'pe 'you squeeze sth. gently several times' < pitz'a 'squeeze sth. gently' (Day1973: 45) An interesting case of iterativity is provided by Wari, a Chapacura-Wanhan language spoken in Brazil, where the reduplication of 'mouth' yields the meaning of 'talker', i.e., a person using his/her mouth frequently : (15) capija capija capija-0 capija-0 mouth-1s mouth-1s 'talker' (Everett, pers. com.) DURATIVITY (16) a. Hausa cìye-cìye eat-eat 'constant eating' (Newman, pers.com.) b. Marathi karata-karata doing-doing 'doing continuously' (Dixit, pers.com.) c. Bahasa senyum-senyum smile-smile 'to keep smiling' (Mojdl 2006: 75) A variant of DURATIVITY is GRADUALITY, as in the following examples from Arabana and Gagauz: (17) a. Arabana palthi-palthingka 'to break open bit by bit' < palthi 'to break open' (Hercus 1994: 135) b. Gagauz adim-adim 'step by step'< adim 'step' (Menz, pers. com.) DISTRIBUTIVE PLURALITY: (18) a. Cupeño suk-suk-in 'tie something up with several knots in different places' .< suk-in 'tie a knot' (Hill 2005: 134) b. Gã jò-jò-ó-I 'dance in several places or on several occasions' < jò ' dance' (Kropp Dakubu, pers. com.) c. Omaha nujiñjiñga 'boys of different sizes and ages' < nujiñga 'boy' (Hale 2001: 41) DIVERSITY (19) a. Khwarshi k'oro-moro 'cheese and things like it' < k'oro (Khalilova, forthcoming) b. Bahasa ikan-ikan 'various kinds of fish' < ikan 'fish'(Müller, pers. com.) AUGMENTATIVENESS (20) Cirecire ba-bashaa 'very old woman' < bashaa 'old woman' (Chebanne, pers. com.) DIMINUTIVENESS (21) a. Bachamal pøcca^ak-pøcca^ak 'tiny' < pøcca^ak 'small' (Ford 1990: 94) b. Maya ka-kah 'small pueblos' < kah 'pueblo' (Tozzer 1921: 34) A variant of DIMINUTIVENESS is ATTENTUATION (22) a. Hausa fari-fari < fari white-white 'whitish' (Newman, pers. com.) b. Zulu giji-gijim-a RDP-run-VERB 'run a little' (van der Spuy, pers. com.) This overview of various categories of meanings of reduplication is far from being exhaustive. [...]edition.

Headnote

Abstract: While reduplication is a marginal word-formation process in the majority of languages of the Indo-European language family, it is widely employed in both derivational and inflectional morphology in other languages of the world. The paper examines the use of reduplication in word-formation from a cross-linguistic perspective. The analysis is based on a sample of 100 languages, which makes it possible to provide an overview of its productive use in various language families and language genera. Furthermore, the paper examines fundamental types of reduplication as well as its semantic, formal and structural characteristics. The final part summarizes the dominant features of reduplication resulting from my typological research.

Keywords: cross-linguistic research, formal structure, reduplication, semantics, reduplication types

1. Introduction

Reduplication is the process of repetition of the full root/stem or part of it, that may be prefixed, suffixed to or infixed into the word-base. The present paper is based on a sample of 100 languages and focuses on the role of reduplication in word-formation in order to map the fundamental reduplication types as well as its semantic and formal characteristics.

The structure of the sample used and its areal distribution are presented in Table 1and Table 2:

Table 2 gives a list of language families, including the number of languages represented in the sample.

It follows from Table 2 that the sample is not ideally balanced in terms of language representation per family. Most strikingly, the Indo-European language family is over-represented. This has several reasons. The first one follows from the availability of data for the individual languages. In my research, I have combined the data obtained from informants with the data taken from descriptive grammars (cf. the References). The data from informants are highly valuable when provided by (in this particular case) a morphologist who has expertise in a particular language. This ideal situation enables the researcher not only to collect data directly from the expert, but also to consult and clarify problematic cases with him/her. The use of grammars depends on the focus and the objectives of their authors, which do not always correspond with the aims of a particular crosslinguistic research. Moreover, the over-representation of Indo-European languages has resulted from the effort to map the situation in this language territory and to compare reduplication in IE languages with that in the rest of the world. If only non-Indo-European languages are taken into account, one can notice an unambiguous tendency to productively use reduplication for the formation of new complex words. Of the 86 non-IE languages, 61 employ reduplication productively in word-formation; this amounts to 71 per cent of the sample languages.

My research data correspond with Himmelmann's conclusion (2005: 121) that "[r]eduplication is probably the most pervasive morphological process in western Austronesian languages in that it is a productive process in all of them", as well as with the assumption by Wiltshire and Marantz (2000: 561), in particular, that "reduplication plays a major role in the formation of words in members of the Austronesian family [...], while it is less common in the Indo-European family members", and that "[r]eduplication also seems to be found in languages of all morphological types [...]". It follows from my data that all six languages of the Austronesian family make use of reduplication. This is also true of all nine Australian languages. A striking tendency towards reduplication has also been observed for African languages (14 out of 16 languages) - the two exceptions include Aghem, one of seven Niger-Congo languages in my sample, and Agaw, one of five Afro-Asiatic languages. In America, two thirds of the 18 sample languages use reduplication, including all four Mayan languages. Only one of the five languages does not employ reduplication in the Altaic family. Indo-European languages are basically non-reduplicating (with very few exceptions of productive reduplication, like Marathi), even though some of them show a sort of lowproductive reduplication of the type illustrated by Hohenhaus in (2004). He demonstrates that cases such as job-job, jealous-jealous, home-home, etc. represent a semantically regular type of

(1) 'an XX is a proper/prototypical X' for nouns

and

(2) 'XX = really/properly/extremely X' for adjectives, adverbs and verbs.

It should, however, be stressed that Hohenhaus did not find (in the British National Corpus) more than a few dozen reduplications, which indicates a very low productivity of this word-formation type in English. These observations can be generalized to the majority of Indo-European languages, both in terms of their semantics and low productivity.

It should be also noted that my analysis does not take into account onomatopoetic reduplications, such as the Slovak and Hindi examples in (3):

(3) hav-hav 'bow-vow' (my example)

ce~ce 'chirping' (Kachru 2006: 127)

Finally, and in accordance with Moravcsik (1978: 301), syntactic cases of the type 'very very bright' are also ignored.

2. Types of reduplication2

Complete reduplication obtains in 48 non-IE languages of my sample (56%), partial reduplication is slightly less frequent than complete reduplication: 43 nonIE languages (50%). Even if there is an implicational tendency for languages to also have complete reduplication if they have partial reduplication, which is in accordance with Moravcsik's (1978: 328) observation that languages with productive partial reduplication most likely also have full reduplication, this is not a universally valid implication. In my sample, Nelemwa, Totonac, Pipil, Movima, Turkish, Khwarshi, Alawa and Omaha have partial reduplication, but no complete reduplication. No correlation can be identified for these languages, because each of them belongs to a different language family. Three of them are spoken in North America (Totonac, Pipil and Omaha), one in South America (Movima), two in Eurasia (Turkish and Khwarshi), one in Australia (Alawa), and one in South-East Asia (Nelemwa).

Preposing partial reduplication is more common than postposing. The proportion is 30 non-IE featuring the former to 19 non-IE languages featuring the latter. Only seven languages employ partial infixing reduplication: Amharic, Hebrew, Ilocano, Amele, Movima, Alawa and Omaha. Neither here can be found any correlations.

Reduplication may be recursive, which is labeled 'triplication' (Wiltshire and Marantz 2000: 559). This phenomenon can be illustrated with Zhang's (1987: 379) example of Chinese triplicated adjectives, whose semantics is different as a result of reduplication:

(4) ang 'red'

ang~ang 'reddish'

ang~ang~ang 'extremely red'

Harrison (1973: 426) provides an example from Mokilese, where triplication functions as a continuative and reduplication expresses progressive aspect.

(5) roar 'give a shudder'

roar~roar 'be shuddering'

roar~roar~roar 'continue to shudder'

Rose (2003: 14) gives an example of increasing attenuation due to recursive reduplication in Tigre, a Semitic language:

(6) d^gm-a: 'tell, relate'

d^ga: ~g^m-a: 'tell stories occassionally'

d^ga: ~ga: ~g^m-a: 'tell stories very occasionally'

d^ga: ~ga: ~ga: ~g^m-a: 'tell stories infrequently'

3. Semantic characteristics

As my data show, reduplication is a very productive and widespread morphological process. While in inflectional morphology its basic function is to form the plural, the range of word-formation meanings is much wider. My data give support to Moravcsik's observation (1978: 316) that the meanings associated with reduplication recur strikingly across languages. The range of meanings is considerable, but two of them clearly dominate, namely INTENSIFICATION and ITERATIVITY. In addition, reduplication plays a crucial role in evaluative morphology (diminutives and augmentatives) across languages. All these basic semantic functions unambiguously suggest an important iconic function of reduplication. It is especially diagrammaticity that is crucial here, which corresponds with the fundamental principles of Natural Morphology: extended form is accompanied by 'growth' in meaning or, in other words, reduplication of a particular form is an indicator of a growing quantity of items, actions, or quality in general. A paradigmatic example of the diagrammatic function of reduplication is the way of expressing the numeral 'four' in the Australian languages Binbinga and Kalkutungu:

(7) Binbinga gudjarl~gudjari

two~two

'four' (Chadwick 1978: 197)

Kalkutungu lyuati~lyuati

two~two

'four' (Blake, pers. com.)

where the doubling of the form doubles the meaning. The diagrammaticity principle is present in numerous formations with the meaning of INTENSITY as in (8), and ITERATIVITY as in (9):

(8) Arabana kumpira-kumpira 'long dead' < kumpira 'dead' (Hercus 1994: 63)

(9) Cupeño kem-kem-yax 'bow again and again' < kem-yax 'bow' (Hill 2005: 134)

While Regier's (1994: 3-4) 'universal radial category model' identifies REPETITION as the core semantic concept, it may be assumed - with regard to what we have suggested in the previous paragraph - that the core semantic concept may be specified more generally, as INCREASED QUANTITY (of various kinds), with a range of manifestations mentioned by, for example, Moravcsik (1978), Nomura and Kiyomi (1993), Regier (1994).

It should be, however, noted that the same process of reduplication may have different and even contradictory semantic effects in the same language with two different word-classes, as in the case of adjectives and adverbs in Hausa, a Chadic language, where many adverbs comply with the core meaning of INCREASED QUANTITY when reduplicated, for example:

(10) maza-maza

fast-fast

'very fast'

yau-yau

today- today

'this very day' (Newman, pers. com.);

but adjectives generally run counter this core meaning, their reduplication leading to REDUCED QUANTITY:

(11) fari-fari 'whitish' < farii 'white'

doogo-doogo 'somewhat tall' < doogoo 'tall' (Newman, pers. com.)

This is not an isolated case of violation of the iconicity principle. Thus, diminutive-formation like (12) runs counter the diagrammaticity principle, because the longer form results in 'lesser' meaning:

(12) Arabana mala-mala 'doggie' < madla 'dog' (Hercus 1994: 42)

In fact, the quantity-raising meanings of reduplication, like INTENSITY, ITERATIVITY, DURATIVENESS, AUGMENTATIVITY, have their counterparts in the quantity-reducing meanings of DIMINUTIVENESS, ATTENUATION, etc. Thus, one and the same word-formation process can have two opposite effects in terms of iconicity, an issue that has recently attracted considerable interest on the part of morphologists, for example, Kiyomi (1995), Bakker and Parkval (2005), Abraham (2005), Kouwenberg and LaCharité (2005).

The following overview gives the various meanings of reduplications.

INTENSIFICATION

(13) a. Arabana kurpi-kurpi 'shiver' < kurpi 'skahe' (Hercus 1994: 135)

b. Bachamal pamalan- pamalan 'very big, huge' < pamalan 'big' (Ford 2004 : 94)

c. Basque argi-argia 'very clear'< argi 'clear' (Hualde and Ortiz 2003: 360)

d. Khwarshi ungo-ungoyab 'really real' < ungoyab 'real' (Khalilova, forth-coming)

ITERATIVITY

(14) a. Amharic wär-wär 'every month' < wär 'month' (Hudson, pers. com.)

b. Cupeño kem-kem-yax 'bow again and again' < kem-yax 'bow' (Hill 2005: 134)

c. Tzutujil q'iijq'iij 'daily' < q'iij 'day' (Dayley 1985: 55)

d. Jacaltec cha pitz'pe 'you squeeze sth. gently several times' < pitz'a 'squeeze sth. gently' (Day1973: 45)

An interesting case of iterativity is provided by Wari, a Chapacura-Wanhan language spoken in Brazil, where the reduplication of 'mouth' yields the meaning of 'talker', i.e., a person using his/her mouth frequently :

(15) capija capija

capija-0 capija-0

mouth-1s mouth-1s

'talker' (Everett, pers. com.)

DURATIVITY

(16) a. Hausa cìye-cìye eat-eat 'constant eating' (Newman, pers.com.)

b. Marathi karata-karata doing-doing 'doing continuously' (Dixit, pers.com.)

c. Bahasa senyum-senyum smile-smile 'to keep smiling' (Mojdl 2006: 75)

A variant of DURATIVITY is GRADUALITY, as in the following examples from Arabana and Gagauz:

(17) a. Arabana palthi-palthingka 'to break open bit by bit' < palthi 'to break open' (Hercus 1994: 135)

b. Gagauz adim-adim 'step by step'< adim 'step' (Menz, pers. com.)

DISTRIBUTIVE PLURALITY:

(18) a. Cupeño suk-suk-in 'tie something up with several knots in different places' .< suk-in 'tie a knot' (Hill 2005: 134)

b. Gã jò-jò-ó-I 'dance in several places or on several occasions' < jò ' dance' (Kropp Dakubu, pers. com.)

c. Omaha nujiñjiñga 'boys of different sizes and ages' < nujiñga 'boy' (Hale 2001: 41)

DIVERSITY

(19) a. Khwarshi k'oro-moro 'cheese and things like it' < k'oro (Khalilova, forthcoming)

b. Bahasa ikan-ikan 'various kinds of fish' < ikan 'fish'(Müller, pers. com.)

AUGMENTATIVENESS

(20) Cirecire ba-bashaa 'very old woman' < bashaa 'old woman'

(Chebanne, pers. com.)

DIMINUTIVENESS

(21) a. Bachamal pøcca^ak-pøcca^ak 'tiny' < pøcca^ak 'small' (Ford 1990: 94)

b. Maya ka-kah 'small pueblos' < kah 'pueblo' (Tozzer 1921: 34)

A variant of DIMINUTIVENESS is ATTENTUATION

(22) a. Hausa fari-fari < fari

white-white 'whitish' (Newman, pers. com.)

b. Zulu giji-gijim-a

RDP-run-VERB 'run a little' (van der Spuy, pers. com.)

This overview of various categories of meanings of reduplication is far from being exhaustive. Nevertheless, it indicates an enormous semantic capacity of reduplication as a word-formation process, which, outside Indo-European languages, approaches the word-formation capacity of affixation processes. It should also be noted that the semantic changes expressed by reduplication are sometimes accompanied by the change of word-class, as exemplified in (23):

(23) Amele bagac bagac 'leaflike, i.e., thin' < bagac 'leaf' (Roberts, pers. com.)

The possibility to distinguish between class-changing and class-maintaining reduplication further strengthens the analogy to affixation processes.

4. Formal characteristics

4.1 Combination of word-formation processes

As pointed out by Inkelas (2006: 417), reduplication need not occur as the only word-formation process in a naming act. It may accompany or may be accompanied by some other process, like in Konni where, as observed by Cahill (1999: 58), AGENTIVE derivations also take, besides the AGENTIVE suffix, "a reduplicative prefix consisting of the first consonant of the stem and a high vowel that generally agrees in roundness (or the [dorsal]ature) [...] and ATR"3 with the following stem:

(24) si~siè-rú

RDP~dance-AG 'dancer'

mÌ~mÌÌ-rú

RDP-build-AG 'builder'

A combined reduplication-affixation process is also typical of Karao, Bahasa Indonesia and Gã (25):

(25) Gã tsO-mO~tsO-mOi

turn.over-ITER/PL~turn.over-ITER/PL 'turn over and over, many things in many places' tsO-mO (Kropp Dakubu, pers. com.),

where, interestingly, what is reduplicated is an affixed stem: the suffix -mO is used to derive ITERATIVE/PLURACTIONAL form of the verb. The reduplicated form then takes the suffix -i.

In Mandarin Chinese, reduplication may be combined with compounding, as in (26):

(26) xiao3-xie2~xie2

little-shoe(s)~shoe(s) - 'shoesies' (Chung, pers. com.)

In Tzotzil, reduplication may be combined with a suffix attached to so-called stative stems. If a stative stem combines with the suffix -tik (meaning 'pretty ___', 'somewhat ___'), it is always formed by root reduplication; see (27):

(27) sák~sák-tik

white~white-somewhat - 'whitish' (Cowan 1965: 103)

In Jacaltec, the suffix -on derives intransitive verbs from stems already derived by reduplication of the first consonant of a CVC root:

(28) xyucyuni 'it keeps shaking' < yuc 'making noise' (Day1973: 45)

Moreover, Tzotzil also provides an example of reduplication of an affixed stem, the so-called radical:

(29) mákan~mákan

repeatedly.close.off~repeatedly.close.off

'keep on taking over (as land)' Cowan 1965: 103)

4.2. Position of the reduplicated material

As maintained by Wiltshire & Marantz (2000: 560), "the position of the material in the base that is copied in reduplication may vary [...] material copied from base-initial position may appear in prefix, suffix or infix position. Base-final material may be copied by prefixes, suffixes, or infixes as well." In the case of partial reduplication, the most frequent position of the reduplicated material is at the beginning of a base (Rubino 2005a: 114). Let us illustrate the situation on the basis of our sample:

(30) Stem-final material copied by suffix:

a. Nêlêmwa fwa~wa

hole~RDP - 'full of holes, tattered' (Bril, pers. com.)

b. Bardi jala~la

see~RDP - 'stare' (Bowern, pers. com.)

c. M a ori pätai~tai

ask~RDP - 'ask frequently' < pätai 'ask' (Harlow, pers. com.)

(31) Stem-final material copied by infix:

Ilocano ag~<tilmo>~tilmón

swallow~<RDP> - 'swallow repeatedly' (Rubino, pers. com.)

(32) Stem-initial material copied by prefix:

a. Nêlêmwa bi~bilic

RDP~be.weak/flexible - 'be very weak / flexible' (Bril, pers.com.)

b. Anejoü al-alai

RDP~swell.up - 'fat, thick' (Lynch, pers. com.)

c. Amele ab~abale^

RDP~to.search.with.hands'

'to search repeatedly with hands' (Roberts 1991: 120).

d. M a ori pah-pachua

RDP~pachua

RDP~hold.down - 'to press' (Harlow, pers. com.)

e. Tatar jäm~jäsel

RDP~green - 'very green' (Wertheim, pers. com.)

(33) Stem-initial material copied by suffix:

Vietnamese ^^p~^^

nice/fine~RDP - 'nice/fine' (Thái Ân, pers. com.)

(34) Stem-initial material copied by infix:

a. Nêlêmwa ko~<xo>~le

throw.away/empty~<RDP>

'scatter, spread, sow' < kole 'throw away, empty' (Bril, pers. com.)

b. Amele hili~<holo>~doc

'to ripple repeatedly in a haphazard manner' (Roberts, pers. com.)

c. Klallam ^ ú ^ p

^ úp~< ^ >

eat.soup

'eating soup' (Montler, pers. com.)

(35) Stem-internal material copied by infix:

a. Karao man~<ba>~bakal

to.fight.each.other (2 participants)~<RDP>

'to fight each other' (more than 2 participants) (Brainard, pers. com.)

b. Ilocano ag~<sa>~sao

speak~<RDP> - 'speak (cont.)' (Rubino, pers. com.)

c. Klallam: sq~<a^>~á^xa? ^

dog~<RDP> - 'puppy' (Montler, pers. com.)

(36) Mirror-image reduplication

* with stem final material copied as suffix:

Amele ene~^-en

here~RDP - 'it is here' (Roberts 1991: 120)

* with stem internal material copied as infix:

Tibetan sal~le~ba

be-bright~<RDP> - 'very bright' (Hill, pers. com.)

My analysis of the available data indicates the following tendency: in partial reduplications, there is a tendency to copy the stem material on the side from which it is taken, i.e., prefixes tend to copy stem-initial material, suffixes stem-final material, and infixes stem-internal material.

4.3. The structure of the reduplicated material

Apart from the absolute linear position of the reduplicated material, it is also segmental consonantality and vowelhood that is crucial for the formal description of reduplications (Moravcsik 1978: 305, 307). The most frequent structures of the reduplicated material in our sample of languages are:

[arrow right] CV , as in Omaha sasabe 'black here and there', Marathi suswaagata (su-su-aagata ('most welcome'), Maori papai ('very good'), Nêlêmwa duduji ('be very tired'), Maya ka-kah 'small pueblos', Amele ab-abalena ('he searches repeatedly with hands'), Bardi jalala ('stare'), Hausa bibiyu ('two each'), and Pipil tutu: nia ('to heat'), and

[arrow right] CVC, as in Romanian ^ur^ur ('icicle'), Tatar kap-kara ('very black'), Datooga γυλ[radical]~γυλ('knock repeatedly'), Klallam n^cn^? cu^ ('one after'), Georgian xev-xuv-eb-i ('small/unimportant gorges') < xev-I, and Vietnamese bán bi^c ('to sell' pejor).

Other structures may also occur, such as:

[arrow right] CVV in M a ori pätaitai ('ask frequently'),

[arrow right] V in Ga jò-jò-ó-I (dance-dance-ITER.-PLURAL) ('dance in several places or on several occasions'),

[arrow right] VC in Anejoü al-alai ('fat, thick'),

[arrow right] CVCV in Zulu giji-gijim-a ('run a little'),

[arrow right] CVC(C)V in Ilocano ag-tilmotilmón ('swallow repeatedly'),

[arrow right] VCCV in Khvarshi ungo-ungoya-w ('very real')

5. Conclusion

My cross-linguistic research has proved the considerable power of the word-formation process of reduplication, which is employed in a large number of Australian, Austronesian, African, and partly, American languages. Reduplication is characterized by a wide range of diagrammaticity-governed semantic patterns. Two of them clearly dominate, the semantic categories of INTENSITY and ITERATIVITY. These and some other semantic categories (such as DISTRIBUTION, DURATIVITY, DIVERSITY, AUGMENTATIVENESS) may be subsumed under the 'supercategory'of quantity, which finds its inflectional counterpart in plural-formation. Formally, the most widespread type is complete reduplication. The productivity of reduplication as a word-formation process is enhanced by its ability to combine with affixation processes. Furthermore, there is a range of different patterns of partial reduplication. The material taken from the initial part, final part as well as middle part of the stem can be copied onto any of these three stem- locations, which gives rise to a variety of partial reduplication types. Eventually, it was illustrated that the most frequently copied material is CV and CVC, but the number of options is much higher.

Footnote

Notes

1 The author wishes to express her gratitude to the following informants who were so kind to provide the data on the individual sample languages: Afrikaans (S. Pilon and G. B. Van Huyssteen), Amele (J. R. Roberts), Amharic (G. Hudson), Anejom (J. Lynch), Bardi (C. Bowern), Belorussian (S. Rudaja and A. Rudenka), Breton (G. T. Stump), Catalan (M. Wheeler), Cirecire (A. Chebanne), Clallam (T. Montler), Dangaléat (E. Shay), Datooga (R. Kießling), Diola-Fogny (K. Fudeman), Dutch (J. Don), English (A. Carstairs-McCarthy), Estonian (A. Kilgi), Finnish (V. Koivisto and J. Laakso), French (D. Amiot), Gã (M.E. Kropp Dakubu), Gagauz (A. Menz), Georgian (N. Amiridze), German (Ch. Dalton-Puffer), Greek (A. Ralli), Hausa (P. Newman), Hebrew (O. Schwarzwald), Hungarian (F. Kiefer), Ilocano (C. Rubino), Indonesian (F. Müller), Italian (L. Gaeta), Japanese (M. Volpe), Kalkatungu (B. Blake), Karao (S. Brainard), Ket (E. Vajda), Konni (M. Cahill), Lakhota (R. Pustet), Luganda (X. Luffin), Luo (J. Zwarts), Maipure (R. Zamponi), Malayalam (K.-P. Mohanan), Mandarin Chinese (K.-S. Chung), Maori (R. Harlow), Marathi (V. Dixit), Nelemwa (I. Bril), Portuguese (R. Marques), Romanian (N. Iacob and G. Maciuca), Russian (P. Arkadiev), Serbian-Croatian (G. Stasni), Slavey (K. Rice), Slovak (J. Horecký and M. Olostiak), Spanish (L. M. Kornfeld), Swahili (E. Contini-Morava), Swedish (A. Olofsson), Tamil (H. F. Schiffman), Tatar (U. Schamiloglu and S. Wertheim), Telugu (P. Sailaja), Tibetan (N. W. Hill), Totonac (D. Beck), Ukrainian (P. Lizanec), Vietnamese (M. Alves and N. Thái Ân), Wari (D. Everett), West Greenlandic (M. Fortescue), Wichí (V. Nercesian), Yoruba (O. Taiwo), Zulu (A. van der Spuy). All the other data was obtained from the grammars included in the References.

2 A useful outline of various types and semantic functions of reduplication is Rubino's (2005b).

3 + ATR Advanced (retracted) tongue root

- ATR Non-advanced (retracted) tongue root

References

References

Abraham, W. 2005. 'Intensity and diminution triggered by reduplicating morphology: Janus-faced iconicity' in Hurch, B. (ed.). Studies on Reduplication. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 547-568.

Bakker, P. and M. Parkvall. 2005. 'Reduplication in pidgins and creoles' in Hurch, B. (ed.). Studies on Reduplication. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 511-532.

Cahill, M. 1999. Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Konni. Ohio State University OH. PhD dissertation. Published by Ohio State University.

Chadwick, N. 1978. The West Barkly Languages: Complex Morphology. Melbourne: Monash University. PhD dissertation.

Cowan, H.K.J. 1965. Grammar of the Sentani Language. S'Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.

Day, C. 1973. The Jacaltec Language. Bloomington: Indiana University.

Dayley, J. P. 1985. Tzutujil Grammar. University of California Publications in Linguistics, 107. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ford, L. J. 1990. The Phonology and Morphology of Bachamal (Wogait). Australian National University. MA thesis. (MS 3410).

Hale, H. 2001. The Tutelo Language. Bristol, Penn: Evolution Publishing.

Harrison, Sheldon P. 1973. 'Reduplication in Micronesian languages' in Oceanic Linguistics 12, pp. 407-54.

Hercus, L. A. 1994. A Grammar of the Arabana-Wangkangurru Language, Lake Eyre Basin, South Australia. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Hetzron, R.1976. The Agaw Languages. Malibu: Undena Publications.

Hill, J. H. 2005. A Grammar of Cupeño. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Himmelmann, N. P. 2005. 'The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: typological characteristics' in Adelaar, K. A. and N. P. Himmelmann (eds.). The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 110-81.

Hohenhaus, P. 2004. 'Identical constituent compounding - a corpus-based study' in Folia Linguistica 38 (3-4), pp. 297-332.

Hualde, J. I. and J. O. de Urbina (eds.). 2003. A Grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hyman, L. M. 1979. Aghem Grammatical Structure. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

Inkelas, Sh. 2006. 'Reduplication' in Brown, K. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Second edition. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 417-19.

Kachru, Y. 2006. Hindi. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Khalilova, Z. (forthcoming). Khwarshi. in Müller, P. O., I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, F. Rainer (eds.). HSK Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Berlin / New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

Kiyomi, S. 1995. 'A new approach to reduplication: A semantic study of noun and verb reduplication in the Malayo-Polynesian languages' in Linguistics 33, pp. 1145-1167.

Kouwenberg, S. and D. LaCharité. 2005. 'Less is more: evidence from diminutive reduplication in Caribbean Creole languages' in Hurch, B. (ed.). Studies on Reduplication. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 533-46.

Lewis, G. 2000. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mojdl, L. 2006. Malajstina: ucebnice malajsko-indonéské gramatiky v príkladech. Praha: Academia.

Moravcsik, E. A. 1978. 'Reduplicative constructions' in Greenberg, J. H. (ed.). Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3. Word Structure. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 297-334.

Nomura, M. and S. Kiyomi. 1993. 'How to motivate the meanings of verbal reduplication: cognitive and typological perspectives'. Handout at Berkeley/UCSD Cognitive Linguistics Workshop. University of California, San Diego CA.

Regier, T. 1994. A Preliminary Study of the Semantics of Reduplication. Technical Report TR-94-019. Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.

Roberts, J. R. 1991. 'Reduplication in Amele' in Dutton, T. (ed.). Papers in Papuan Linguistics 1. Pacific Linguistics A 73. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, pp. 115-146.

Rose, Sh. 2003. 'Triple take: Tigre and the case of internal reduplication' in San Diego Linguistic Papers 1, pp. 109-28.

Rubino, C. 2005a. 'Reduplication' in Haspelmath, M., M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, and B. Comrie, (eds.). World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 114-115.

Rubino, C. 2005b. 'Reduplication: form, function and distribution' in Hurch, B. (ed.). Studies on Reduplication. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 11-30.

Sharpe, M. C. 1972. Alawa Phonology and Grammar. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Tamura, S. 2000. The Ainu Language. Tokyo: Sanseido.

Tozzer, A. M. 1921. A Maya Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: The Museum.

Wiltshire, C. and A. Marantz. 2000. 'Reduplication' in Booij, G. E., Ch. Lehmann, and J. Mugdan, (eds.). Morphologie/Morphology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung /An International Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation. Vol. I. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 557-567.

Zhang, Zh-Sh. 1987. 'Reduplication as a type of operation' in Bosh, A., B. Need, and E. Schiller (eds.). Papers from the 23rd Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 376-388..