National Taiwan Normal University
November 6, 2013 Reduplication in Hawaiian: Variations on a theme of minimal word
John Alderete, Kayleigh MacMillan
Simon Fraser University
PDF of article available at: anderei.net
Reduplication in Hawaiian (Elbert & Pukui 1979)
Reduplication is a pervasive word-­‐‑formation device:
•  Applies to all major subcategories of verbs and nouns
•  Marks a variety of meanings: frequentative, increased action, plural action, diminutives, intensives, etc.
•  Output paferns are quite diverse
•  No clear correlations between output paferns and morpho-­‐‑
syntactic or semantic categories.
Representative examples (copied part is underlined):
1.  Whole word (Foot): hèlu-­‐‑hélu 2.  Whole word (Foot + mora):
maʔùː-­‐‑maʔúː 3.  Foot suffix: màkawèla-­‐‑wéla 4.  Foot prefix: hòlo-­‐‑hòlokáke 5.  Syllable prefix: ha-­‐‑háki 6.  CV infix:
kàʔa-­‐‑le-­‐‑léwa 7.  Foot suffix + lengthening: ʔàːlòhi-­‐‑lóhi see article for glosses
Frequencies of output pa:erns (N=1632 reduplicated words)
whole
prefix
infix
suffix
516
188
9
515
σµ
0
246
69
4
σµσµµ
60
11
0
0
Footµµ
Some leading questions:
What accounts for the considerable variation in shape?
What accounts for the length alternations correlating with reduplication?
How is infixation captured in the same analysis as affixation?
Claim 1. There is unity in the diverse output paferns that derives from the prosodic structure of words. Many of the output paferns can be elegantly captured by assuming the reduplicant is minimal word. Input [ ]PrWd
(màka)(wéla) Ouptut
[ ]PrWd[ ]PrWd
(màka)(wèla) (wéla) base
reduplicant
Key assumptions:
•  Reduplicated words are prosodic compounds in which the reduplicant is analyzed as a full Prosodic Word (as in McCarthy & Prince’s (1994) analysis of Diyari)
•  As a minimal word, certain shape properties can be characterized as constraints on PrWds: must be binary, one foot befer than two, etc.
Bigger picture: Output form not prescribed by construction-­‐‑specific templates; they are explained by arguably universal constraints of prosodic words. Generalized Template theory (McCarthy & Prince 1994, NELS, Utrecht lectures)
Claim 2. Variation in output form not unconstrained. Different output paferns can be captured by assuming words may subcategorize for distinct correspondence relations; different rankings of faithfulness constraints on these relations can account for all of the variation. (Itô & Mester 1995, 1999)
Prediction: Markedness constraints cannot be re-­‐‑ranked. Sketch of the analyses:
Prefixing vs. suffixing reduplication A mafer of ranking BR-­‐‑Anchoring constraints on distinct prefixing and suffixing correspondence relations.
Vowel lengthening vs. no vowel lengthening A mafer of ranking Ident(Length) differently in the different word classes.
Foot vs. syllable reduplicants
A difference between ‘internal’ (one PrWd) and ‘external’ (two PrWds, i.e., prosodic compound), governed by Anchoring constraints between PrWds and Stems (after Selkirk 2009, 2011)
Linguistic Background
Consonants
p k ʔ
h
m n
l
w
Vowels
i u iu
e o ei eu oi ou
a ai ae au ao
Syllable template: (C)V1V2
•  V may be long or short, but bimoraic maximum
•  Diphthongs must be one of the falling sonority diphthongs shown above or iu
Stress
Main stress on the rightmost syllable containing the penultimate mora.
Secondary stress falls on syllables containing an even-­‐‑numbered mora counting backward from the main stress or next secondary stress; unless three short syllables in a row initially, in which case get an initial dactyl.
Examples: mà.ka.wé.la ‘clowing, burning’, cf. ʔè.le.ma.kú.le ‘old man’
Overview of the three basis reduplicative subsystems
Bases
Foot suffix
Foot prefix
Syllable infix to foot
a. CVɏ
CVɏ-CVɏ
CVɏ-CVɏ
CVɏ-CVɏ
b. CVCV
CVCV-CVCV
CVCV-CVCV
CV-CVCV
c. CVCVɏ
CV(ɏ)CVɏ-CVɏ
CVCVɏ-CVCVɏ
CV-CV-CV:
d. CVɏCVɏ
e. CVCVCV
CVɏCVɏ- CVɏ
CVɏCVCV-CVCV
CVCVɏ-CVCVɏ
CVCV-CVCVCV
CVɏ-CV(ɏ)-CVɏ
CV-CV-CVCV
f. CVɏCVCV
CVɏCVCV-CVCV
CVCV-CVCVCV
CV(ɏ)-CV-CVCV
g. CVCVCVCV
CVCVCVCV-CVCV
CVCV-CVCVCVCV
CVCV-CV-CVCV
Specific research questions:
•  How account for basic differences between subsystems?
•  Why do you get lengthening in the foot suffix subsystem, but shortening in the foot prefix system?
•  What accounts for the variable length alternations?
Sketch of the suffixing analysis
Reduplicant is always a minimal word
a. 2µμ bases
i.  CVː [(ʔèː)]PrWd [(ʔéː)]PrWd
ii. CVCV [(hèlu)]PrWd [(hélu)]PrWd
b. 3µμ bases
i. CVCVː
[(pàː)(ʔùː)]PrWd [(ʔúː)]PrWd Initial lengthening
ii. CVCVCV
[(ʔàː)(lòhi)]PrWd [(lóhi)]PrWd Initial lengthening
c. 4µμ bases
i. CVːCVː
[(hòː)(lùː)]PrWd [(lúː)]PrWd ii. CVːCVCV
[(ʔàː)(nòni)]PrWd [(nóni)]PrWd
iii. CVCVCVCV [(màka)(wèla)]PrWd[(wéla)]PrWd Preliminary. Need an analysis of the core stress system, because the reduplicant is shaped by constraints on prosodic structure.
Right-­‐‑to-­‐‑left bimoraic trochees (after Hayes 1995, McCarthy & Prince 1993)
Constraints. Alignment: MainRight, InitDact (all PrWd, some Ft, left), MainLeft, AllFeetRight, AllFeetLeft. Other markedness: FootBinarity, ParseSyllable.
Minimal word shape as the emergence of the unmarked
External reduplication: The reduplicant is a stem that is analyzed prosodically as a PrWd, because Match(Stem,PrWd) requires stems to be separate PrWds: [[(màka)(wèla)]PrWd-­‐‑[(wéla)]PrWd]PrWd , not: *[(màka)(wèla)-­‐‑(wéla)]PrWd
Input: makawela, RED
a.
!
b.
[[(màka)(wèla)]-[(màka)(wéla)]]
c.
[[(màka)(wèla)]-[ka(wéla)]]
d.
[[(màka)(wèla)]-[(lá)]]
FTBIN
[[(màka)(wèla)]-[(wéla)]]
PARSSYLL
ALLFTRT
BR-MAX
-
2+4
****
2+4+6!
*!
*!
3+5
**
1+3
******
Explanations:
Candidate B: has misaligned feet, worse than A.
Candidate C: has unparsed syllables, worse than A. Candidate D: doesn’t have binary feet, worse than A. All the same constraints required for analysis of stress have a role in shaping the reduplicant.
A puzzle: initial lengthening in three mora bases.
Why does the initial syllable lengthen specifically in three mora bases, and more specifically with foot suffixing reduplication?
Reduplication cf. Five syllable words
ʔalóhi à (ʔàː)(lò.hi)-­‐‑(hó.li) (ʔè.le)ma(kú.le) ‘old man’
(ʔàlo)hi-­‐‑(hóli), with no lengthening, would be more consistent with the phonology of initial dactyls. Possibly related problem: Nominalizations derived with –na
(ʔá.li) ‘to scar’ à (ʔàː)(lí-­‐‑na) ‘scar’, not: *ʔa(lí-­‐‑na) Solution: Lengthening retains the headedness relations between base and derivative.
Lengthening (odd parity)
base
Ța (lóhi)
!
derivative (Țà ɏ )(lòhi)-(lóhi)
No lengthening (even parity)
(màka)(wéla)
!
(màka)(wèla)-(wéla)
Observation: the left edge of the main stress foot is always perserved as some foot in the derived form.
OO-­‐‑PROSMATCH (Burzio 1994, Crosswhite 1998, Itô et al. 1996, McCarthy 2000, Nelson 2003)
The segment at the left edge of the main stress foot in the underived stem must have a correspondent at the left edge of some foot in the base of the derived word (e.g., the base of the reduplicated word). Explaining the Minimal word suffix with initial lengthening
Input: Ța(lóhi)
FTBIN
OO-PRMATCH
BR-ANCHRT
INITDACT
a. ! [(Țàɏ)(lòhi)]-[(lóhi)]
b.
[ (Țàlo) hi ]-[(lóhi)]
c.
[ Ța (lòhi) ]-[(lóhi)]
d.
[ (Țà)(lòhi) ]-[(lóhi)]
e.
[(Țàlo)]-[ Ța (lòhi)]
*!
ALLFTRT
IDENT
2+4
*
3
*!
*!
2
2+4
*!
3
Candidate B: otherwise fine initial dactyl, but fatally violates OO-­‐‑ProsMatch: left edge of input (lóhi) is not at the left edge of base …lo) hi
Candidates C and D: these violate independently motivated constraints in the language, FootBinary and InitDactyl, and InitDactyl crucially dominates AllFeetRight, as it must in stress.
Candidate E: no problem if use a foot prefix, but this is the suffixing system. Explains why only find lengthening with suffixing reduplication!
Sketch of Minimal Word prefixing system
Reduplicant is also a MinWd, but as a prefix. Also: loose MinWd and shortening.
a. 2! i. CVɏ
[(Țèɏ)]PrWd [(Țéɏ)]PrWd
b. 3!
c. 4!
ii. CVCV
[(hèlu)]PrWd [(hélu)]PrWd
i. CVCVɏ
[ma(lùɏ)]PrWd [ma(lúɏ)]PrWd
ii. CVCVCV
[(hì.o)]PrWd [hi(ólo)]PrWd
i. CVɏCVɏ
ii. CVɏCVCV
[hu(nàɏ)]PrWd [hu(náɏ)]PrWd
[(Țòla)]PrWd [Țo(lápa)]PrWd
iii. CVCVCVCV
[(hòlo)]PrWd[(hòlo)(káke)]PrWd
Loose MinWd
Loose MinWd
Initial shortening
Focus: Loose MinWd effects and initial shortening. Fact of prefixing is a simple ranking result, reversing the order of BR-­‐‑AnchorLeft with BR-­‐‑
AnchorRight
Shortening as an effect of Stress Clash (Liberman & Prince 1977)
Shortening reduces stress clash in prefixing reduplication; suffixing reduplication actually violates *Clash to avoid higher-­‐‑ranking violations.
Loose MinWd effects: ProsMatch and Anchoring
i. ma(Țúɏ), !pref
ii. ki(póna), !suf
a. ! [ma(Țùɏ)]-[ma(Țúɏ)]
b.
[(màȚu)]-[(máȚu)]
c.
[(màɏ)]-[(màɏ)(Țúɏ)]]
*
*!
*
*!
*
a. ! [(kìɏ)(pòna)]-[(póna)]
b.
[ ki (pòna)]-[(póna)]
c.
[ (kìpo) na ]-[(póna)]
IDENT
INITDACT
Outputs
BR-ANCHRTPREF
Inputs
OO-PRMATCH
Prefixing reduplication has a chance to satisfy both BR-­‐‑AnchorRight and BR-­‐‑
AnchorLeft. This is not an option with suffixing, because of InitDactyl.
*
*!
*!
An important detail: to rule out the fully-­‐‑faithful form with HH bases, e.g., (hùː)(náː) → hu(nàː)-­‐‑hu(náː), cf. *(huː )(nàː)-­‐‑(huː )(náː) , we require an additional stress clash constraint, *CLASH2, which, while somewhat stipulative, has crucial applications elsewhere in the analysis. Two exceptional prefixing pa:erns: Special status of the initial syllable.
Double reduplication
hoʔivià hòho-­‐‑hóʔi ‘to leave (plural)’
Heavy syllable reduplication
kiːʔalovtà kìː-­‐‑kìːʔálo ‘to dig/scoop out (freq.)’
Observation: reduplicant only copies from the initial syllable.
i. (lóhe), "pref2
ii. (kìɏ)(Țále), "pref2
a. ! [(lòlo)]-[(lóhe)]
b.
[(lòhe)]-[(lóhe)]
c.
[(lò)]-[(lóhe)]
d.
[(lòɏ)]-[(lóhe)]
*
*!
*!
*!
a. ! [(kìɏ)]-[(kìɏ)(Țále)]
b.
[(kìȚa)]-[ ki (Țále)]
BR-INTEGRITY
*CLASH
BR-IDENT
Outputs
FOOTBIN
Inputs
BR-DEP(!1)PREF2
BR-­‐‑DEP(σ1): If a segment of the reduplicant stands in correspondence with a segment of the base, the base correspondent is in the initial syllable of the base. *
*!
Internal reduplication: prefixing to the main stress foot.
Assumption. Internal reduplication arises because Match(Stem,PrWd) is dominated by constraints banning recursive structure.
a. 2µμ base
i. CVː ii. CVCV
b. 3µμ base
i. CVCVː
ii. CVCVCV
c. 4µμ base
i. CVːCVː
ii. CVːCVCV
iii. CVCVCVCV [ ku-­‐‑(kúː)]PrWd
[ ha-­‐‑(háki)]PrWd
[ko-­‐‑(hàː)-­‐‑(háː)]PrWd [(mà-­‐‑na)-­‐‑(náʔo)]PrWd [(kìː)-­‐‑pu-­‐‑(púː)]PrWd [(mò-­‐‑hi)-­‐‑(hío)]PrWd [(kù.a)-­‐‑li-­‐‑(liʔi)]PrWd CV prefixation to the main stress foot
BR-­‐‑ANCHORHEADFOOT = ANCHOR(RED, L, FOOTH , L): The left edge of the reduplicant has a correspondent in the left edge of the main stress foot. ma(náȚo), "inf1
a. ! [(mà-na)-(náȚo)]
b.
[(mà-ma)(náȚo)]
c.
[ ma-(nàɏ)-(náȚo)]
d.
[(mà-na)Țo-(náȚo)]
BR-MAX
PARSESYLL
INITDACTYL
BR-DEP(!1)
Outputs
BR-IDENT
Inputs
BR-ANCHHDFT
EAD
4
*!
4
*!
*
*!
*
4
*
2
Observations: single syllable size arises from independently motivated constraints, BR-­‐‑Ident and BR-­‐‑Dep(σ1). Comparing and contrasting the three core subsystems
Suffixing vs. prefixing systems
Integration:
MinWd suffix
MinWd prefix
Right edge of stem: ANCHORRIGHT >>
Left edge of stem: ANCHORLEFT
ANCHORLEFT
>> ANCHORRIGHT
!1 lengthening (3µ)*: only suffix
!1 shortening (4µ): only suffix
causes mismatch
causes mismatch
external reduplication: MATCH (STEM , PRWD ) >> NON REC(PRWD )
Shape:
Ftµµ: MARKEDNESS >> BR-MAX
Position:
Alternations:
Internal vs. external systems
Position:
Integration:
Shape:
External
Affixed to stem: ANCHORING >>
ANCHORHEAD FOOT
External: MATCH (STEM , PRWD ) >>
NON REC(PRWD )
Ftµµ: external PrWd, some faithfulness
constraints
Internal
Prefixed to head foot:
ANCHORHEAD FOOT >> ANCHORING
Internal: NON REC(PRWD )>>
MATCH (STEM , PRWD )
!µ: internal PrWd, some faithfulness
constraints
Conclusions
1.  Hawaiian reduplication can be subdivided into three basic subsystems: MinWd suffix, MinWd prefix, and a CV prefix to the main stress foot (both formal prefix and infix).
2.  The MinWd targets for reduplication can be cogently analyzed as external affixation, where the reduplicant constitutes a separate prosodic word and is shaped by the constraints on prosodic words.
3.  The CV prefix/infix target is an internal affix also shaped by constraints on prosodic structure.
4.  All of the output paferns in reduplicated words can be unified within generalized templates; reduplicant shape and position is explained as the interaction of faithfulness constraints and prosodic well-­‐‑
formedness constraints that have independent support.
5.  All of the variation in output form, including all major and minor paferns, can be analyzed as the permutation of constraints defined on a correspondence relation; as a result, markedness constraints occupy a fixed position across all subsystems.
Why does the Fixed Markedness Hierarchy assumption ma:er?
Restrictiveness.
If token-­‐‑wise variation is limited to rankings of faithfulness constraints, then the range of possible exceptions has been significantly limited. Learnability.
Two constraint-­‐‑ranking algorithms exist for learning exceptional phonological paferns:
Surgery on R (Alderete 2008)
Morpheme-­‐‑specific constraints (Pater 2009)
But only one of them is fully parsimonious with formal learning theory. Surgery on R simply assumes that learners can revise lexical representations such that inputs can be assigned to new correspondence relations. Standard constraint-­‐‑ranking protocols determines which constraints are active in analysis. Morpheme-­‐‑specific constraints requires a constraint selection sub-­‐‑routine in additional to standard ranking procedures. Only Surgery on R explains the fixed markedness hierarchy assumption.
Thanks!
Comments or questions:
è [email protected]
PDF download of paper:
è anderei.net