Abstract
Recent approaches to morphological spellout have been cyclic in nature, whereby category-defining heads trigger the spellout of phases in word formation. A prediction of these types of cyclic approach is that phonological conditioning of outer morphemes must be local, such that a conditioning morpheme must be linearly adjacent to the target. This paper presents evidence from Madurese reduplication that provides evidence to the contrary. Two major problems are isolated: (i) a long-distance relationship can exist between a reduplicant and a base, and (ii) the compositional semantics of reduplicants places them outside of a phase, even when the reduplicant must access properties of the root inside of the phase. Both of these problems provide prima facie evidence for a non-local configuration. In order to account for these non-locality effects, it is proposed that identity demands are placed on the base-reduplicant correspondence, and that reduplicative locality is a violable constraint in grammar.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The generalizations governing contextual allomorphy that Embick provides are as follows:
-
a.
…α]x]Z]
Generalization: Noncyclic Z may show contextual allomorphy determined by α, as long as x is not overt.
-
b.
…α]x]y]
Generalization: Cyclic y may not show contextual allomorphy determined by α, even if x is not overt.
-
a.
Stemberger and Lewis (1986) treat reduplication as a type of allomorphy, though one that is not lexically listed. If this position is adopted, then there is indeed little difference between contextual allomorphy and reduplication.
Recent work in the field has cited outward-looking morphology as a counterexample to cyclic spellout, with the idea that an inner morpheme should not be available for readjustment if it has already been spelled out. However, under versions of cyclic spellout more consistent with Chomsky’s (2001) Phase Impenetrability Condition, such as that endorsed by Marantz (2001), Marvin (2002), and Embick (2010), the merger of a phase head triggers spellout of the complement of that head, but the head remains visible for the spellout of a higher phase head. Thus, the approach here takes the conservative position that unambiguous evidence against cyclic spellout would include cases of non-adjacency with intervening heads.
Madurese data comes primarily from the extensive documentary work provided by Stevens (1965, 1994) and Davies (1999, 2010). Forms were confirmed by a Madurese speaker. Madurese data is presented in the orthography (cf. Davies 2010), where the glottal stop is represented by the apostrophe <’>. Phonetic forms are taken directly from sources and are indicated as such; in some cases, sources employ different levels of phonetic detail. Hyphenation has been provided in the current work in order to make the morphological boundaries transparent.
In addition, Davies (2010:49) notes there are two suffixes that consistently induce gemination of a preceding consonant.
Weeda (1987:408) also presents an example with final syllable reduplication falling outside of a prefix, the nasal stem modification marking the actor voice (marking active verbs with an actor subject), and a less commonly employed form of reduplication composed of a copy of the first syllable of the root with a fixed vowel (Weeda does not provide glosses): ne’-ma-ba-bine’ ‘act like a woman’ (from red-n-pa-red-bine-’).
This is also true for more relaxed versions of adjacency that involve ‘spans’ of heads within a maximal projection (Merchant 2015), as the allomorphy must be tied to each element in the span.
Many thanks to Daniel Harbour for bringing this case to my attention.
Haugen (2011) and Cook (2013) discuss scenarios where reduplicants are spelled out after Vocabulary Insertion. For instance, with respect to Bantu, Cook states that “When RED undergoes Vocabulary Insertion, it is realized as a bare template, and it is subsequently filled with segmental material from the constituent to its right” (18). While this operation is potentially a legal readjustment rule at PF, it still relies on locality conditions such as adjacency. The Madurese case thus remains problematic for cyclic approaches that entertain post-VI spellout.
Krifka’s (1998) definition of a measure function could provide a unified analysis of reduplication and the functional heads that merge with nominal, verbal, and adjectival structures, though this will be left for future research.
For those morpheme orders that are optional, stochastic evaluation (Boersma and Hayes 2001) can be assumed.
Another case of overapplication in Madurese successfully modeled in Optimality Theory, but not discussed here, is nasal harmony (McCarthy and Prince 1995).
References
Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In University of Maryland working papers in linguistics, Vol. 10, eds. Kleanthes K. Grohmann and Caro Struike, 35–71. College Park: University of Maryland.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Boersma, Paul, and Bruce Hayes. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 45–86.
Bonet, Eulàlia, and Daniel Harbour. 2012. Contextual allomorphy. In The morphology and phonology of exponence, ed. Jochen Trommer, 195–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, vol. 2: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Broselow, Ellen I. 1983. Salish double reduplications: Subjacency in morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 317–346.
Broselow, E., and J. McCarthy. 1983. A theory of internal reduplication. The Linguistic Review 3: 25–88.
Buckley, Eugene. 1999. Uniformity in extended paradigms. In The derivational residue in phonological optimality theory, eds. Ben Hermans and Marc van Oostendorp, 81–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Carstairs, Andrew. 1979. Allomorphy in inflexion. Kent: Croom Helm.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cook, Toni. 2013. Morphological and phonological structure in Zulu reduplication. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Davies, William. 1999. Madurese. München: Lincom Europa.
Davies, William. 2000. Events in Madurese reciprocals. Oceanic Linguistics 39: 123–143.
Davies, William. 2010. A grammar of Madurese. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Downing, Laura J. 2000. Morphological and prosodic constraints on Kinande verbal reduplication. Phonology 17: 1–38.
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1984. Ergative and nominative–accusative features in Mandara. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 6: 35–45.
Gribanova, Vera, and Boris Harizanov. 2016. Locality and directionality in inward–sensitive allomorphy: Russian and Bulgarian. In The morphosyntax-phonology connection, eds. Vera Gribanova and Stephanie Shih, 61–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haugen, Jason. 2011. Reduplication in distributed morphology. In Coyote papers: Working papers in linguistics, Vol. 18, eds. Jessamyn Schertz, Alan Hogue, Dane Bell, Dan Brenner, and Samantha Wray, 1–27. Tucson: University of Arizona Linguistics Circle.
Henderson, Eugénie J. A. 1976. Vestiges of morphology in modern standard Khasi. In Austroasiatic studies, eds. Philip N. Jenner, Laurence C. Thompson, and Stanley Starosta, 477–522. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.
Idsardi, William, and Eric Raimy. 2013. Three types of linearization and the temporal aspects of speech. In Challenges to linearization, eds. Theresa Biberauer and Ian Roberts, 31–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Inkelas, Sharon, and Cheryl Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiliaan, H. N. 1904/1905. Madoereesch-Nederlands woordenboek. Leiden: Brill.
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lunden, S. L. Anya. 2004. Reduplicant placement, anchoring and locality. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz, ROA 885–1206.
Marantz, Alec. 1982. Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 435–482.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–225.
Marantz, Alec. 2001. Words. Ms., MIT.
Marantz, Alec. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Distributed morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, eds. Ora Matushansky and Alec Marantz, 95–116. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Marvin, Tatjana. 2002. Topics in the stress and syntax of words. PhD diss., MIT.
Maskikit-Essed, Raechel, and Carlos Gussenhoven. 2016. No stress, no pitch accent, no prosodic focus: The case of Ambonese Malay. Phonology 33: 353–389.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Rutgers University.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993a. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Rutgers University.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993b. Generalized alignment. In Yearbook of morphology, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 79–153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: Papers in optimality theory, eds. Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 239–384. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1999. Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In The prosody-morphology interface, eds. René Kager, Harry van der Hulst, and Wim Zonneweld, 218–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Merchant, Jason. 2015. How much context is enough? Two cases of span-conditioned stem allomorphy. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 273–303.
Mester, R. Armin. 1986. Studies in tier structure. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Moskal, Beata. 2015. Domains on the border: Between morphology and phonology. PhD diss., University of Connecticut.
Moskal, Beata, and Peter W. Smith. 2015. Towards a theory without adjacency: Hyper-contextual VI-rules. Morphology 26(3–4): 295–312.
Mutaka, Ngessimo, and Larry M. Hyman. 1990. Syllables and morpheme integrity in Kinande reduplication. Phonology 7: 73–119.
Nelson, Nicole. 2005. Wrong side reduplication is epiphenomenal: Evidence from Yoruba. In Studies on reduplication, ed. Bernhard Hurch, 135–160. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Paster, Mary. 2006. Phonological conditions on affixation. PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley.
Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from modern Hebrew. In Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing, ed. Susan D. Rothstein, 37–62. San Diego: Academic Press.
Shaw, Patricia. 2005. Non-adjacency in reduplication. In Studies on reduplication, ed. Bernhard Hurch, 161–210. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Stemberger, Joseph Paul, and Marshall Lewis. 1986. Reduplication in Ewe. Phonology Yearbook 3: 151–160.
Steriade, Donca. 1988. Reduplication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere. Phonology 5: 73–155.
Stevens, Alan M. 1965. Madurese phonology and morphology. PhD diss., Yale University.
Stevens, Alan M. 1971. Fixed morpheme order. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 420–421.
Stevens, Alan M. 1994. Madurese reduplication revisited. In Papers from the Second Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (SEALS), eds. Karen Adams and Thomas J. Hudak, 357–381. Tempe: Arizona State University Press.
Urbanczyk, Susanne. 1996. Patterns of reduplication in Lushootseed. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
van Zanten, Ellen, Rob Goedemans, and Jos Pacilly. 2003. The status of word stress in Indonesian. In The phonological spectrum, vol. 2: Suprasegmental structure, eds. Jeroen van de Weijer, Vincent J. van Heuven, and Harry van der Hulst, 151–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Weeda, Donald. 1987. Formal properties of Madurese final syllable reduplication. In Papers from the 23rd annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS), part two: Parasession on autosegmental and metrical phonology, 403–417.
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 245–274.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Brian Agbayani for discussion of an earlier draft. Thanks also to three anonymous reviewers and to Daniel Harbour for valuable comments and guidance. All errors are my own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brown, J. Non-adjacent reduplication requires spellout in parallel. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 35, 955–977 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9367-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9367-y