(Some) partial reduplication is full reduplication

(Some) partial reduplication is full reduplication
Introduction and Background. McCarthy et al. (2012) propose a theory of reduplication in Harmonic
Serialism (HS) based on an operation that copies a contiguous string of elements of type segment, syllable, or
foot. In this theory, called Serial Template Satisfaction (STS), partial reduplication is a result of copying a
string that is less than the full base, but still contiguous.
In this presentation, I show that STS is unable to analyze attested patterns of skipping, in which noncontiguous elements are copied. I show additionally that STS’s copying mechanism must be augmented with
full copying of the segmental content of the base, followed by parsing of some of those segments (Marantz,
1982; Steriade, 1988).
STS and the skipping problem. There is an increasing body of evidence supporting Harmonic Serialism
(HS), a serial derivative of OT in which only one change to the input is permitted in a single step. STS posits
that partial reduplication is created by an underlying prosodic template in the input that is filled by a copy
operation, Copy(X). Like all operations in HS, it has an accompanying constraint prohibiting application,
*C OPY (X), which is violated to satsify H EADEDNESS(X+1).
(1)
Copy(X): Create a copy of a string of constituents of type X (with their contents), place the copy,
and integrate it with pre-existing prosodic structure.
(2)
H EADEDNESS (X) (H D (X)): Assign one violation mark for each constituent of type X that does
not contain a constituent of type X – 1 as its head.
A ranking of H D (σ) ąą *C OPY(seg), for example, will prefer copying a contiguous string of segments from
the base in order to fill the underlying syllable; compare candidates (a) and (c) in tableau (4).
STS cannot analyze certain reduplication forms, such as skipping reduplication in Ulu Muar Malay.
(3)
Root
budaP
kawan
Reduplicated
buP-budaP
kaN-kawan
(Hendon, 1966)
Gloss
‘children’
‘friend’
By the definition of Copy(seg), skipping reduplication must be the result of more than one application of the
copy operation. Thus, the derivation for Malay would be RED-budaP Ñ bu-budaP Ñ buP-budaP. However, no
possible ranking allows this derivation. C OPY-L OCALLY(seg) assigns a violation mark for each intervening
segment between the copy and the segments being copied, and R-A NCH favors preservation of right-edge
material. N O -C ODA or C OPY-L OC(seg) ąą R-A NCH in order to ensure the appropriate output in Step 1.
However, in Step 2, both must be ranked below R-A NCH to ensure parsing of the rightmost segment.
(4)
(5)
Step 1
Ñ (a)
(b)
(c)
σ-budaP
bu-budaP
daP-budaP
σ-budaP
N O -C ODA
C OPY L OC(seg)
1W
2W
Step 2
Ñ (a)
(b)
bu-budaP
buP-budaP
bu-budaP
N O -C ODA
1
L
C OPY L OC(seg)
4
L
H D (σ)
1W
R-A NCH
1
L
L
*C OPY(seg)
1
L
L
H D (σ)
R-A NCH
*C OPY(seg)
1
L
1W
The proposal: Full-copy followed by partial parsing. I argue that these patterns should be analyzed as full
copying followed by truncation (following Marantz (1982), Steriade (1988), a.o.). This truncation is a result
of copying segmental material without accompanying prosodic structure, followed by parsing portions of this
segmental material. These unparsed segments are unpronounced.
1
The morpheme is filled to satisfy R EALIZE -M ORPH rather than H EADEDNESS(X).
(6)
R EALIZE -M ORPH1 : Assign one violation mark for each morpheme with no segmental content.
At the first step of the derivation, R EALIZE -M ORPH, *C OPY(seg) ąą PARSE - SEG, *C OPY(root) drives
copying of the entire segmental content of the root rather than a substring.
This general analysis is demonstrated below for Malay. M ONOSYLL(Afx) drives monosyllabicity of
the reduplicant, PARSE -R IGHT-E DGE (P-R-E) prefers the right-edge segment of the base to be parsed, and
PARSE -V1 prefers the first vowel to be parsed.
Tableau (7) demonstrates that R EALIZE -M ORPH and *C OPY(seg) are ranked above the remaining
constraints. In order to have a monosyllabic reduplicant rather than a fully-parsed reduplicant in Step 2,
M ONOSYLL must be ranked above P- SEG.
(7)
Step 1:
RED -budaP
Ñ (a)
(b)
(c)
(8)
budaP-budaP
bu-budaP
RED -budaP
R-M ORPH
*C OPY(seg)
M ONOσ
P-R-E
P- SEG
P-V1
*C OPY(root)
1W
1
L
L
1
1
L
5
2L
L
1
1
L
1
L
L
1W
Step 2:
budaP-budaP
Ñ (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(bu)da(P)-budaP
(bud)aP-budaP
(bu)(daP)-budaP
(b)ud(aP)-budaP
M ONOσ
P-R-E
1W
1W
P- SEG
P-V1
2
2
L
2
1W
Discussion. Certain forms of reduplication prove problematic for STS. In addition to skipping reduplication,
attested in several dialects of Malay (Austronesian; Malaysia), these forms include reduplication that shows
sensitivity to the shape of the base, such as Makassarese (Austronesian; Indonesia) and Tagalog (Austronesian;
Philippines). Some languages, such as Nakanai (Austronesian; Papua New Guinea), exhibit both – Nakanai
exhibits skipping reduplication for bases of a certain shape but contiguous reduplication for others.
I will present a full-copy and deletion analysis of the four languages mentioned here. This analysis is also
extendable to several other languages exhibiting base sensitivity in reduplicants, including West Tarangan
and Kola (both Austronesian; Indonesia).
The first step in all languages results from the same general ranking: R EALIZE -M ORPH, *C OPY(seg) ąą
PARSE - SEG, *C OPY(root). Incomplete parsing of the resultant segmental material is driven in subsequent
steps by markedness constraints; language-particular rankings result in variability in parsing at Step 2.
Selected references.
Marantz, Alec. (1982). Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry, 13:483545.
McCarthy John J., Wendell Kimper, and Kevin Mullin. (2012). Reduplication in Harmonic Serialism.
Morphology, 22:173232.
Steriade, Donca. Reduplication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere. (1988). Phonology, 5.1:73155.
1
Kurisu (2001).
2

Download Report