Nonlocal Reduplication

Marantz (1982) observed that reduplicative affixes generally copy the string of segments beginning with the edge to which the affix is attached and proceeding into the word. Though Marantz described ‘edge-in association’ as a tendency, many subsequent researchers have (at least tacitly) taken it to...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Riggle, Jason
Format: Text
Language:unknown
Published: GLSA, University of Massachusetts 2004
Subjects:
Online Access:https://dx.doi.org/10.7282/t3gt5pzf
https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/46832/
id ftdatacite:10.7282/t3gt5pzf
record_format openpolar
spelling ftdatacite:10.7282/t3gt5pzf 2023-05-15T17:05:20+02:00 Nonlocal Reduplication Riggle, Jason 2004 https://dx.doi.org/10.7282/t3gt5pzf https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/46832/ unknown GLSA, University of Massachusetts Text article-journal ScholarlyArticle 2004 ftdatacite https://doi.org/10.7282/t3gt5pzf 2021-11-05T12:55:41Z Marantz (1982) observed that reduplicative affixes generally copy the string of segments beginning with the edge to which the affix is attached and proceeding into the word. Though Marantz described ‘edge-in association’ as a tendency, many subsequent researchers have (at least tacitly) taken it to be an inviolable principle in reduplication (e.g. McCarthy and Prince 1996, Kager 1999, Nelson 2003 and others). This assumption is incompatible with the existence of nonlocal patterns of reduplication where unreduplicated surface material intervenes between the two surface copies.To maintain the inviolability of edge-in association such patterns must be analyzed as showing covert locality or as non-instances of reduplication. On the other hand, if edge-in association is merely a tendency, nonlocal reduplicative patterns can be given a straightforward analysis with locality constraints and a relaxed definition of the ‘base’ -the string the reduplicant is obliged to copy. (1) The base generalized: Everything in the output that isn’t the reduplicant is the base. (2) LOCALITY: No segment that isn’t itself in the correspondence relation M1 R M2 may intervene between two segments corresponding via R.– One mark is assigned per segment y that lies between x and x' in S where x R x', unless there's a y' in S and y R y'. LOCALITY says that only segments that are themselves in B/R-correspondence may separate corresponding elements in the base and reduplicant. Under the generalized definition of basehood, reduplicant placement will be determined solely by LOCALITY and the constraints generally responsible for affix placement (e.g. ALIGN). Reduplicant content can then be determined by B/R-MAX constraints indexed to salient elements like stems, edges, and stressed syllables. These constraints generate a typology of reduplication that includes nonlocal patterns like the ones in Koryak and Creek but is overwhelmingly composed of reduplicative patterns that obey Marantz’s generalization. Text Koryak DataCite Metadata Store (German National Library of Science and Technology) McCarthy ENVELOPE(66.543,66.543,-70.404,-70.404)
institution Open Polar
collection DataCite Metadata Store (German National Library of Science and Technology)
op_collection_id ftdatacite
language unknown
description Marantz (1982) observed that reduplicative affixes generally copy the string of segments beginning with the edge to which the affix is attached and proceeding into the word. Though Marantz described ‘edge-in association’ as a tendency, many subsequent researchers have (at least tacitly) taken it to be an inviolable principle in reduplication (e.g. McCarthy and Prince 1996, Kager 1999, Nelson 2003 and others). This assumption is incompatible with the existence of nonlocal patterns of reduplication where unreduplicated surface material intervenes between the two surface copies.To maintain the inviolability of edge-in association such patterns must be analyzed as showing covert locality or as non-instances of reduplication. On the other hand, if edge-in association is merely a tendency, nonlocal reduplicative patterns can be given a straightforward analysis with locality constraints and a relaxed definition of the ‘base’ -the string the reduplicant is obliged to copy. (1) The base generalized: Everything in the output that isn’t the reduplicant is the base. (2) LOCALITY: No segment that isn’t itself in the correspondence relation M1 R M2 may intervene between two segments corresponding via R.– One mark is assigned per segment y that lies between x and x' in S where x R x', unless there's a y' in S and y R y'. LOCALITY says that only segments that are themselves in B/R-correspondence may separate corresponding elements in the base and reduplicant. Under the generalized definition of basehood, reduplicant placement will be determined solely by LOCALITY and the constraints generally responsible for affix placement (e.g. ALIGN). Reduplicant content can then be determined by B/R-MAX constraints indexed to salient elements like stems, edges, and stressed syllables. These constraints generate a typology of reduplication that includes nonlocal patterns like the ones in Koryak and Creek but is overwhelmingly composed of reduplicative patterns that obey Marantz’s generalization.
format Text
author Riggle, Jason
spellingShingle Riggle, Jason
Nonlocal Reduplication
author_facet Riggle, Jason
author_sort Riggle, Jason
title Nonlocal Reduplication
title_short Nonlocal Reduplication
title_full Nonlocal Reduplication
title_fullStr Nonlocal Reduplication
title_full_unstemmed Nonlocal Reduplication
title_sort nonlocal reduplication
publisher GLSA, University of Massachusetts
publishDate 2004
url https://dx.doi.org/10.7282/t3gt5pzf
https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/46832/
long_lat ENVELOPE(66.543,66.543,-70.404,-70.404)
geographic McCarthy
geographic_facet McCarthy
genre Koryak
genre_facet Koryak
op_doi https://doi.org/10.7282/t3gt5pzf
_version_ 1766059848312553472