Reduplication as Affixation in Paiwan

Meylysa Tseng

National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan

The Optimality Theory analysis presented in this study shows evidence that the same principles governing suffixation are those that govern reduplicative suffixes as well.  In addition, it also predicts the effects of extraprosodic word final codas on suffixal reduplication and affixation, as well as offering concrete reasons for the position of an infixed reduplicant.  

Marantz's (1982) claim that reduplication is actually affixation would be strengthened with independent empirical evidence showing that when affixation and reduplication co-occur in the same words, they are subject to the same constraints.  Using data from Paiwan, an Austronesian language spoken in Southern Taiwan, this study offers cases where a suffix and a reduplicant suffix occur within the same word.  The reasons for their final positioning within the word are best explained by suffix alignment constraints and independent phonological properties of the language.

I list the pattern under investigation below (data from fieldwork, affixes are capitalized, possible reduplicants are separated with hyphens): 

(1)Two Syllable Root Reduplication

a. kalava            “to ask”                a.’ ka-lava-lava         “asking”

b. saladj             “parents”              b.’ sala-sala-dj        “classmates, co-workers”

c. sEMutjiray        “to spit”              c.’ sEMu-tjira-tjira-y         “drinking”,

d. djamuq                “blood”         d.’ djamu-djamu-qAN         “bloody”

Previous studies on Austronesian languages have analyzed this type of reduplication as prefixation (L. Chang 1998, H. Chang 1999).  One study (McCarthy and Broselow 1984: 59) proposes that this type of pattern is prefixation to the main stressed foot.  In our example below, we have indicated the main stressed foot in parenthesis.  As one can see, Paiwan reduplication does not always reduplicate the main stressed foot. 

(4) Reduplication of Stem As Opposed to a Foot

a. dja.muq                “blood”         a.’ djamu-dja(muqAN) “bloody”

I conclude that the reduplicant is a disyllable stem-final suffix since its position can be explained through suffix alignment constraints and independent phonological criteria in the language.  I also show that it cannot be a prefix because it is not subject to the same constraints as prefixes.

The reason the reduplicant is infixed instead of placed at the end of the word is illustrated in (3) below.  To avoid violation of No-Coda, the reduplicant suffix will infix into the word.  Since the suffix AN has a coda, it can gain nothing from infixing into the word. 

(3) Avoidance of Word Internal Codas

dja.mu.-dja.mu.-qAN.   Red. infixes as far in as necessary to avoid a word internal coda

*dja.mu.qAN.-dja.mu   AN is placed before Red but cannot avoid creating a word internal coda

*dja.muq.-dja.mu.AN.   Red. is placed before AN but there is a word internal coda

In Optimality Theory the above result is accomplished by a ranking of constraints marking the word final consonant as extraprosodic, No-Coda and suffix alignment constraints.  Thus, the position of the reduplicant and the suffix can both be explained through properties of suffixation and properties specific to syllable formation in the language.

References

Chang, Laura M.  1998.  “Thao Reduplication”.  Oceanic Linguistics 38, 298-322.

Chang, Hsiou-chun.  2000.  Paiwan Yu Cankao Yufa (Paiwan Reference Grammar).  Taipei.  Yuanliu Quban ShiyeYiouxian Gongse (Yuanliu Publishers).

McCarthy, John and E. Broselow.  1984.  “A Theory of Internal Reduplication”.  The Linguistic Review 3.  25-88.

McCarthy, John and Alan Prince.  1995.  “Prosodic Morphology”.  In John Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory., 318-366.  Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Marantz, Alec.  1982.  “Re Reduplication”.  Linguistic Inquiry.  Vol. 13:3, 435-482.