1887
Volume 47, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper aims at investigating the semantics of nominal reduplication cross-linguistically. Nominal reduplication is treated as an iconic morphological device expressing functions that have something to do with plurality. Nevertheless, in the languages of the world, other types of functions are attested as well, which seem to pivot around different notions like conceptual similarity, heterogeneity, combinations of them, or even possession. Based on a large-scale cross-linguistic analysis, we provide a typology of nominal reduplication considering the range of semantic functions and the type of reduplicative patterns. We argue that the attested variation clearly points to a common semantic core underlying the various functions, and this core can be identified in some modification of the degree and type of referentiality. Finally, the attested tendencies and correlations may shed new light on the role of iconicity in explaining the connection between reduplicated nouns and their functions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.21050.mat
2022-05-23
2024-02-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abbi, Anvita
    1992Reduplication in South Asian languages. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakker, Dik
    2011 Language sampling. InSong, Jae Jung (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 100–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bar-el, Leora
    2008 Verbal number and aspect in Skwxwú7mesh. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes371. 31–54. 10.4000/rlv.1695
    https://doi.org/10.4000/rlv.1695 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bhatia, Tej K.
    1993Punjabi: A cognitive-descriptive grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boas, Franz
    1892 Notes on the Chemakum Language. American Anthropologist51. 37–44. 10.1525/aa.1892.5.1.02a00050
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1892.5.1.02a00050 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bugenhagen, Robert D.
    1995A Grammar of Mangap-Mbula: An Austronesian Language of Papua New Guinea. Notes on Linguistics. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Capell, Arthur & Hinch, H. E.
    1970Maung grammar: Texts and vocabulary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111586649
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111586649 [Google Scholar]
  9. Churchward, Maxwell C.
    1953 Tongan Grammar. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Churchward, Maxwell C.
    1999 [1953]Tongan grammar. Tonga: Vava’u Press. (Originally Published byOxford University Press 1953).
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohn, Abigail C.
    1989 Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory7(2). 167–216. 10.1007/BF00138076
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138076 [Google Scholar]
  12. Comrie, Bernard
    1976Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Corbett, Greville
    2000Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164344
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cristofaro, Sonia
    2004 Past habituals and irrealis. InYury A. Lander, Vladimir A. Plungian & Anna Yu. Urmanchieva. (Eds.). Irrealis and irreality, 256–272. Moscow: Gnosis.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Croft, William
    2001Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2003Typology and universals, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cysouw, Michael
    2007 Building semantic maps: The case of person marking. InBernhard Wälchli & Matti Miestamo. (Eds.), New challenges in typology, 225–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2010 Semantic maps as metrics on meanings. Linguistic Discovery8(1). 70–95. 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.346
    https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.346 [Google Scholar]
  19. Daniel, Michael & Edith Moravcsik
    2013 The associative plural. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath. (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atwals.info/chapter/36, last access18 April 2022.)
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dineen, Anne H.
    1990A comparative survey of reduplication in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian National University: MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Du Feu, Veronica
    1996Rapanui. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dunn, Michael J.
    1999A grammar of Chukchi. Canberra: Australian National UniversityPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Evans, Nicholas
    1995A grammar of Kayardild, with historical-comparative notes on Tangkic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110873733
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110873733 [Google Scholar]
  24. Fischer, Olga
    2011 Cognitive iconic grounding of reduplication in language. InPascal Michelucci, Olga Fischer & Christina Ljungberg. (Eds.), Semblance and signification, 55–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ill.10.04fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.10.04fis [Google Scholar]
  25. Fitzgerald, Colleen M.
    2001 The morpheme-to-stress principle in Tohono O’odham. Linguistics39(5). 941–972. 10.1515/ling.2001.039
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.039 [Google Scholar]
  26. Galloway, Brent Douglas
    1977A grammar of Chilliwack Halkomelem. Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Georgakopoulos, Thanasis & Stéphane Polis
    2018 The semantic map model: State of the art and future avenues for linguistic research. Language and Linguistics Compass12(2). 12:e12270. 10.1111/lnc3.12270
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12270 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ghomeshi, Jila, Ray Jackendoff, Nicole Rosen & Kevin Russell
    2004 Contrastive focus reduplication in English (the salad-salad paper). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory221. 307–357. 10.1023/B:NALA.0000015789.98638.f9
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALA.0000015789.98638.f9 [Google Scholar]
  29. Givón, T.
    2001Syntax. An introduction. 2nd edn.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.syn2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.syn2 [Google Scholar]
  30. Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake
    2005Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Goswami, Upendranath
    1970A study on Kāmrūpī: A dialect of Assamese. Gauhati, Assam: Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Grandi, Nicola, & Lívia Körtvélyessy
    (Eds.) 2015Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9780748681754
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748681754 [Google Scholar]
  33. Haiman, John
    1980 The iconicity of grammar: isomorphism and motivation. Language591. 781–819. 10.2307/413373
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413373 [Google Scholar]
  34. Haji-Abdolhosseini, Mohammad, Diane Massam & Kenji Oda
    2002 Number and events: Verbal reduplication in Niuean. Oceanic Linguistics41(2). 475–492. 10.1353/ol.2002.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2002.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank
    2021Glottolog4.4.Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atglottolog.org, last access18 April 2022.) 10.5281/zenodo.4761960
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4761960 [Google Scholar]
  36. Haspelmath, Martin
    2003 The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. InMicheal Tomasello. (Ed.), The new psychology of language, Vol.21, 217–242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2008 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language86(3). 663–687. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  38. Horton, A. E.
    1949A grammar of Luvale. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hurch, Bernhard
    (Ed.) 2005Studies on reduplication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110911466
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110911466 [Google Scholar]
  40. Inkelas, Sharon
    2012 Reduplication. InJochen Trommer. (Ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence: The state of the art, 355–378. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2014 Non-concatenative derivation: Reduplication. InRochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer. (Eds), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology, 169–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Inkelas, Sharon & Laura J. Downing
    2015 What is reduplication? Typology and analysis part 1/2: The typology of reduplication. Language and Linguistics Compass9(12). 502–515. 10.1111/lnc3.12166
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12166 [Google Scholar]
  43. Johnston, Raymond Leslie
    1980Nakanai of New Britain: The grammar of an Oceanic language. Canberra: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University for Linguistic Circle of Canberra.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Key, Harold
    1965 Some semantic functions of reduplication in various languages. Anthropological Linguistics71. 88–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kirton, Jean & Charlie, Bella
    1996Further aspects of the grammar of Yanyuwa, Northern Australia. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kiyomi, Setsuko
    1993A typological study of reduplication as a morpho-semantic process: evidence from five language families (Bantu, Australian, Papuan, Austroasiatic and Malayo-Polynesian). Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kluge, Angela
    2017A grammar of Papuan Malay. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Komu, Mary W.
    2008An analysis of Gikuyu reduplication in the light of prosodic morphological approach. Nairobi: Kenyatta UniversityMA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Kornfilt, Jaklin
    1997Turkish. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kouwenberg, Silvia & Darlene LaCharité
    2005 Less is more: Evidence from diminutive reduplication in Caribbean Creole languages. InBernhard Hurch. (Ed.), Studies on reduplication, 533–546. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kuipers, Aert H.
    1974The Shuswap language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Leslau, Wolf
    2000 Introductory grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lǐ, Yuèyuán & Dan Ponsford
    2018 Predicative reduplication: Functions, their relationships and iconicities. Linguistic Typology22(1). 51–117. 10.1515/lingty‑2018‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2018-0003 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lichtenberk, Frantisek
    1983A grammar of Manam. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Lynch, John & Rex Horoi
    2002 Arosi. InJohn Lynch, Malcolm Ross & Terry Crowley. (Eds.), The Oceanic languages, 562–572. Richmond: Curzon.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Lynch, John & Malcolm Ross
    2002 Banoni. InJohn Lynch, Malcolm Ross & Terry Crowley. (Eds.), The Oceanic languages, 440–455. Richmond: Curzon.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Lyons, Christopher
    1999Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  58. Mattes, Veronika
    2014Types of reduplication: A case study of Bikol. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110363128
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110363128 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mattiola, Simone
    2019Typology of pluractional constructions in the languages of the world. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.125
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.125 [Google Scholar]
  60. Mattiola, Simone & Francesca Masini
    . Forthcoming. Discontinuous reduplication: A typological sketch. STUF – Language Typology and Universals. 10.1515/stuf‑2022‑1055
    https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2022-1055 [Google Scholar]
  61. Mauri, Caterina
    2017 Building and interpreting ad hoc categories: a linguistic analysis. InJoanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman & Cristopher Laenzlinger. (Eds.), Formal models in the study of language, 297–326. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑48832‑5_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48832-5_16 [Google Scholar]
  62. Mauri, Caterina & Andrea Sansò
    2021 Heterogeneous sets: a diachronic typology of associative and similative plurals. Linguistic Typology. Available at10.1515/lingty‑2021‑2072, last access18 April 2022.
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2021-2072 [Google Scholar]
  63. Merlan, Francesca
    1994A grammar of Wardaman. A language of the Northern Territory of Australia. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110871371
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871371 [Google Scholar]
  64. Miestamo, Matti
    2003Clausal negation: A typological study. Helsinki: University of HelsinkiPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 2005Standard negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Miestamo, Matti, Dik Bakker & Antti Arppe
    2016 Sampling for variety. Linguistic Typology20(2). 233–296. 10.1515/lingty‑2016‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0006 [Google Scholar]
  67. Montaut, Annie
    2008 Reduplication and echo words in Hindi/Urdu. InRajendra Singh. (Ed.), Annual review of South Asian languages and linguistics 2008, 21–91. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Moravcsik, Edith A.
    1978 Reduplicative constructions. InJoseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, Edith A. Moravcsik. (Eds.), Universals of human language. Vol.31: Word structure, 297–334. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Paperno, Denis
    2014 Grammatical sketch of Beng. Mandenkan511. 1–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Peirce, Charles S.
    1932Collected writings, Vol.21: Elements of logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Pott, August Friedrich
    1862Doppelung (Reduplikation, Gemination) als eines der wichtigsten Bildungsmittel der Sprache, beleuchtet aus Sprachen aller Welttheile. Lemgo: Meyer'sche Hofbuchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Raffo, Yolanda Adela
    1972A phonology and morphology of Songish. A dialect of Straits Salish. Lawrence: University of KansasPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Regier, Terry
    1994A preliminary study of the semantics of reduplication. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 1998 Reduplication and the arbitrariness of the sign. InMorton Ann Gernsbacher & Sharon J. Derry. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 887–892. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Rijkhoff, Jan & Dik Bakker
    1998 Language sampling. Linguistic Typology2(3). 263–314. 10.1515/lity.1998.2.3.263
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.3.263 [Google Scholar]
  76. Rijkhoff, Jan, Dik Bakker, Kees Hengeveld & Peter Kahrel
    1993 A method of language sampling. Studies in Language17(1). 169–203. 10.1075/sl.17.1.07rij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17.1.07rij [Google Scholar]
  77. Robinson, J. O.
    1976 His and hers morphology: the strange case of Tarok possessives. InLarry Hyman, L. Jacobson & Russell Schuh. (Eds.), Studies in African linguistics, Supplement61, 201–209. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, UCLA.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Rosen, Joan
    1977 The functions of reduplication in Indonesian. InIgnatius Suharno. (Ed.), Miscellaneous Studies in Indonesian and languages of Indonesia, Part IV, 1–9. Jakarta: NUSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Rozhanskiy, Fedor Ivanovich
    2015 Two semantic patterns of reduplication: Iconicity revisited. Studies in Language39(4). 992–1018. 10.1075/sl.39.4.02roz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.4.02roz [Google Scholar]
  80. Rubino, Carl
    2005 Reduplication: Form, function and distribution. InBernhard Hurch. (Ed.), Studies on reduplication, 11–30. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 2013 Reduplication. InMatthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath. (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online atwals.info/chapter/27, last access18 April 2022.)
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Sapir, Edward
    1921Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Schachter, Paul & Fe T. Otanes
    1972Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520321205
    https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520321205 [Google Scholar]
  84. Schmidt, Hans
    2002 Rotuman. InJohn Lynch, Malcolm Ross & Terry Crowley. (Eds.), The Oceanic languages, 815–832. Richmond: Curzon.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Sharpe, Margaret C.
    1972Alawa phonology and grammar. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Stolz, Thomas
    2007 Re: duplication: Iconic vs counter-iconic principles (and their areal correlates). InPaolo Ramat & Elisa Roma. (Eds.), Europe and the Mediterranean as linguistic areas: Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective, 317–350. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.88.14sto
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.88.14sto [Google Scholar]
  87. 2008 Total reduplication vs. echo-word formation in language contact situations. InPeter Siemund & Noemi Kintana. (Eds.), Language contact and contact languages: Hamburg studies on multilingualism71, 107–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hsm.7.07sto
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.7.07sto [Google Scholar]
  88. Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze
    2011Total reduplication. The areal linguistics of a potential universal. Berlin: Akademie. 10.1524/9783050050973
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050050973 [Google Scholar]
  89. Terrill, Angela
    2003A grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110923964
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110923964 [Google Scholar]
  90. Tosco, Mauro
    1991A grammatical sketch of Dahalo including texts and a glossary. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Tyler, Stephen B.
    1969Koya: An outline grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Vázquez Álvarez, Juan Jesús
    2011A grammar of Chol, a Mayan language. Austin: University of Texas at AustinPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Velupillai, Viveka
    2012An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.176
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.176 [Google Scholar]
  94. Voegelin, Charles F.
    1935Tübatulabal grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Wilkins, David P.
    1989Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. Canberra: Australian National UniversityPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Woollams, Geoff
    1996A Grammar of Karo Batak, Sumatra. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Zeitoun, Elizabeth
    2005A grammar of Mantauran (Rukai). Taipei: Academica Sinica.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Ziervogel, Dirk
    1952A grammar of Swazi. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.21050.mat
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.21050.mat
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): morphology; plurality; reduplication; referentiality; typology
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error