I received many responses to my enquiry of Sept. 17th, and have tried to compile them into useful rubrics, below. It's divided into subjects such as
My original purpose in making this query was to be able to describe this phenomenon better to novice linguistics students and others not conversant with the data, and especially people who see reduplication only as a phenomenon in baby-talk or 'lesser' forms of language, not in modern English(!). With the help of Vasu Renganathan, I have started a kind of data-base of new items, espl. those not already found in extant publications, etc.
This can be viewed at: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/echo. Here you can view items I have entered, and if you wish to contribute your own, scroll down and use the data-entry page.
(not yet in alphabetical order)
These are people who contributed comments, data, bibliography, ideas.
Reduplication and the Arbitrariness of the
Sign
Terry Regier (regier@uchicago.edu)
Department of Psychology; University of Chicago
5848 South University Avenue; Chicago, IL 60637 USA
Abstract: The meanings expressed by reduplication, or linguistic
doubling, are similar across a wide array of languages. Interestingly,
some of these shared meanings do not concern doubling,repetition, or
plurality. This non-arbitrariness of the sign may be attributable to
the interplay of two forces: iconicity, and conceptually-based
semantic extension. Cross-linguistic evidence supporting this account
is presented. More generally,this paper argues that the interaction of
iconicity and semantic extension constitutes a potentially powerful
source of non-arbitrariness in the mapping between sound and meaning.
Introduction
While the relationship between sound and meaning in language is
largely arbitrary (de Saussure, 1966), there are exceptions to this
general rule. One of these can be found in reduplication, or
linguistic doubling. While this form expresses an array of meanings
cross-linguistically, there is a core set of meanings which recur so
frequently and in so many languages as to demand explanation.
Consider for example the English words dum-dum, claptrap, nitwit, and
riffraff. These words have two things in common: a reduplicative form,
and an element of contempt in the meaning. One can also cite examples
such as arbitraryshmarbitrary, based on a productive borrowing from
Yiddish. Moving further linguistically afield we find Uzbek
ikir-chikir (petty, trivial, idle) and Farsi chart-o-part (irrelevant
talk, nonsense), among many others. This phenomenon is intriguing
because the connection between contempt and doubling is not an obvious
one.
Other senses that recur cross-linguistically include small, scatter,
lack of control, plurality, intensity, affection, baby, continuity,
and completion (Moravcsik, 1978; Niepokuj, 1991; Regier, 1994). There
is no simple abstraction over the set of meanings expressed by
reduplication. But the set of meanings is not boundless either, and in
fact covers only a relatively small region of semantic space
(Moravcsik, 1978). Interestingly, the same fairly specific meaning is
often expressed by reduplication in unrelated languages. It is
exceedingly unlikely that this would occur either by chance, or
through widespread borrowing. What is happening, then? And what are
the ramifications for the doctrine of the arbitrariness of the sign?
Iconicity and Semantic Extension
This paper suggests that the observed regularities may result from the
interplay of two forces. One force is iconicity or sound symbolism - a
"direct linkage between sound and meaning" (Hinton et al., 1994). For
example, many languages use reduplication in baby talk, that register
of the language used when addressing small children (Ferguson, 1964;
Haynes and Cooper, 1986). Since babies themselves reduplicate
extensively in learning to speak (Fee and Ingram, 1982; Ferguson,
1983; Schwartz et al., 1980), it is understandable why doubling and
babies would come to be associated, and this association reflected in
a variety of unrelated languages. Similarly, the widespread use of
reduplication to express repetition and plurality is
self-explanatory. But what about other widely attested meanings, such
as contempt? In such cases, there is no clear mirror of the meaning in
the doubled form.
This is where the second force comes into play, building on the
first. Meaning may spread, either synchronically or over the history
of a language. Once reduplication marks one meaning in a language, it
may come to also mark others that are closely conceptually
related. And this process of semantic extension may then repeat
itself, chaining out to yet other meanings (Bybee et al., 1994; Heine
et al., 1991; Lakoff, 1987; Sweetser, 1990). For example, the
iconically grounded notion of baby is clearly related to the notion
small. Thus, we might expect to find reduplication expressing small in
some languages - and we do. In its turn, small is conceptually close
to contempt, as small things tend to be dismissible (small fry,
peanuts). Thus, reduplication may mark contempt in some languages
because of a trail of semantic extension from the iconically grounded
sense of baby, through small, to contempt. Categories formed of senses
chained together in this fashion have been termed 'radial categories'
(Lakoff, 1987).
Figure 1 illustrates the central theoretical claim being advanced
here: that the interaction of these two forces can account for what
might otherwise be a puzzling set of crosslinguistic regularities in
the semantics of reduplication. We begin by noting that dissimilar
senses can be iconically grounded in the same form. In this case,
baby, repetition, and plurality are all taken to be sound-symbolically
related to the form itself - this is shown by the dashed lines
crossing the sound-meaning divide. Motivation has already been given
for baby, and the other two (repetition and plurality) do not require
much. Each of these three senses then serves as the root node for a
tree of related concepts. Links between senses are initially posited
on the basis of apparent conceptual relatedness, and motivation is
then sought for each of the connections. The senses listed in the
graph (repetition, continuation, small, baby, attenuation, contempt,
affection, plural, intensity, completion, lack of control,
non-uniformity, spread out or scatter) are the primary ones attested
in the literature (Bybee et al., 1994; Moravcsik, 1978; Niepokuj,
1991). The hypothesis is that they appear because of this interaction
between iconic and conceptual structure.
reduplication SOUND
/ | \
/-----------/ | \---------\
/ | \
==================================================================
/ | \
| | | MEANING
| | |
baby repetition plural
/ \ | / \
/ \ | / \
small affection continuation intensity --- spread,
/\ | - scatter
/ \----\ | / |
/ \ | / |
attenuation contempt completion | lack of control
|
|
non-uniformity
Figure 1: The interaction of iconicity and semantic extension
How can this hypothesis be tested? It makes two related predictions,
both stemming from the assumption that much of the observed regularity
is conceptually rather than iconically mediated. The first prediction
is that we should expect to find each of the displayed inter-concept
links implicated in the semantic extension of other linguistic
forms. For example, in the expressions small fry and peanuts we have
already seen that terms for small things sometimes assume a
contemptuous or dismissive meaning. This observation supports the
small to contempt conceptual link in Figure 1, since it is a
linguistic manifestation of that link that has nothing whatever to do
with reduplication per se. Such evidence strongly suggests that the
connection is both real, and genuinely conceptual. It will be the
burden of this paper to demonstrate that some such non-reduplicative
motivation can be adduced for many of the individual links shown here,
such that this first prediction is largely met. This prediction will
be referred to as the local prediction, since it concerns individual
links on a one-by-one basis.
The second, or global, prediction is that we may expect to find a
non-reduplicative linguistic form that expresses an entire subtree of
the senses in this graph. Why should this be expected? Because if
conceptually-mediated semantic extension produces a chain from baby
all the way out to the apparently unrelated notion of contempt in the
case of reduplication, this same conceptual chain should be available
to other linguistic forms. Thus, one might expect to find, for
example, a form associated with all senses in the circled subtree on
the left, or in the circled subtree on the right. This global
prediction is met as well, as we shall see. This paper will argue that
the entire subtree of senses rooted at baby is shared with the
diminutive (Jurafsky, 1996): cross-linguistically, diminutives express
a range of senses other than just small, including each of the senses
in the baby subtree. This systematic semantic overlap strongly
suggests that these senses cohere for conceptual reasons, rather than
reasons related to linguistic form. A similar argument will be
advanced concerning the other circled subtree, rooted at spread,
scatter. Each of the senses in this subtree is expressed by the
Russian verbal prefix raz- (Regier, 1994). Again, this semantic
sharing of an entire cluster of senses with a linguistic form that is
not itself doubled suggests a conceptual basis for the particular set
of senses observed. It is significant for this argument that while the
diminutive and raz- each express a range of senses, that range is
fairly limited in both cases (Jurafsky, 1996; Regier, 1994). Thus, the
sharing of specific sets of senses cannot be attributed simply to
extreme broadness of coverage of either the diminutive, or raz-.
The central ramification of this account is simple. If there is indeed
such a conceptual rippling-out to senses that are not themselves
iconically grounded, this can generate a greater degree of
non-arbitrariness in the mapping between sound and meaning than we
would otherwise expect. Reduplication serves only as an instance of
this more general point. The same principle could also operate
elsewhere in language.
This paper takes the following form. It considers each of the senses
in Figure 1 in turn, and provides linguistic evidence for the local
and global predictions with respect to the current sense. This
supports the overall view that iconicity and semantic extension may
both contribute to the observed regularities in the mapping from
reduplicative form to meaning. Finally, the data are discussed as they
bear on the question of the arbitrariness of the sign.
The Senses of Reduplication
Each of the senses listed above is treated in turn. Each entry is
subdivided into three parts. First, evidence is given exemplifying the
cross-linguistic use of reduplication to express the sense in
question. Sometimes, this data will indicate that reduplication
expresses a particular sense in the grammar of some language. However,
coverage is also deliberately broadened to include non-productive uses
in the lexicon, such as nitwit, knick-knack, and the like. Many of
these express the same senses as those expressed by more properly
grammatical reduplication. The second part of the entry lists
non-reduplicative evidence for any links that may tie this sense to
its predecessors in the semantic network - in support of the local
prediction. Finally, the third part lists evidence for any overlap
this sense may exhibit with the diminutive, or with raz-, in support
of the global prediction.
Baby: Reduplication: English baby, French b'eb'e, and Tamil papa
(baby). In addition to these lexical examples, many languages use
reduplication productively to mark baby register, that register used
when addressing babies (Ferguson, 1964; Haynes and Cooper, 1986). This
is exemplified by the English forms Georgie-Porgie, doggy-woggy, and
there there. Links: The iconic grounding of this sense has already
been motivated. Overlap: Baby is also a central sense of the
diminutive cross-linguistically, along with the very closely related
notions child and young. We can see this in examples such as Ojibwa
kwezens (girl; kwe - woman), Tibetan dom-bu (bearcub; dom - bear), and
Nez Perce 'icey'e.ye-qen (young coyote; 'icey'e.ye - coyote).
Affection: Reduplication: Arabic Ramr_um (the affectionate form of the
name R_ima), English honey-bunny and bye-bye (a more intimate version
of bye). Moravcsik (1978) also notes that this sense appears
cross-linguistically. Links: The link from baby to affection is a
pragmatically natural one. Evidence for this link comes from the use
of the term baby itself as an endearment in English. Overlap: The
diminutive is also very commonly used to mark affection. Examples
include Russian belochka (dear little squirrel), Afrikaans
oorgrootjies (dear great-grandparents), and English Terry (the
affectionate form of the name Terrance).
Small: Reduplication: Agta walawer (small creek; wer - creek), Comox
djidjidis (little tooth; djidis - tooth), and English tidbit and
itty-bitty. Links: The link from baby to small is motivated by the
perceptually very salient fact that babies are small, and may well be
the most conceptually salient class of small things. The use of
linguistic forms meaning baby to also mean small is illustrated in
such English sentences as Look, a baby airplane, meaning a small
airplane. Overlap: The notion small is also a central sense of the
diminutive, and appears widely across languages, such as Ewe kp'e-v'i
(small stone; kp'e - stone), and Hungarian felh"ocske (small cloud;
felh"o - cloud).
Attenuation: Reduplication: Swahili maji-maji (somewhat wet; maji
wet), Thai k`aw-k`aw (oldish; k`aw - old), Tagalog mahiyahiya (be a
little ashamed; mahiya - ashamed) (Moravcsik, 1978). Links: The link
from small to attenuation is exemplified in non-reduplicative
expressions such as It's a little cold today, in which the word
little, which means small, is used to attenuate the force of the
utterance. Overlap: The diminutive is widely used to express
attenuation, for example Hungarian nagyocska (fairly large; nagy -
large) and Greek ksinutsikos (sourish; ksinos - sour).
Contempt: Reduplication: Bengali bhethor-shethor (in, but that is
insignificant; bhethor - in), Dutch mik-mak (worthless collection),
English claptrap, hillbilly, German Pille-palle (insignificant
things), and Yiddish layfen-shmayfen (running is beside the point;
layfen - to run). Links: We have already seen motivation for the link
from small to contempt in the English expressions small fry and
peanuts. Overlap: As one might expect, given the existence of such a
link, the diminutive is also often used to express contempt. Consider
for example Latin Graeculus (miserable Greek), and English limey (a
derogatory term for an Englishman, considered a diminutive by analogy
with doggy, Jimmy, and the like).
This concludes the set of senses that overlap with senses of the
diminutive. Diminutive data listed here was obtained from a recent
cross-linguistic treatment of the semantics of the diminutive
(Jurafsky, 1996). In this work, we find 16 separate senses of the
diminutive that are commonly found in the languages of the world. The
fact that only 16 senses were identified suggests that the diminutive
is relatively restricted in the range of meanings it may assume. This
grants the fivesense overlap with reduplication that we see here its
significance, for it means that the overlap cannot be attributed to
broad semantic coverage on the part of the diminutive. This in turn
suggests that the overlap may result from a network of shared
conceptual links.
Repetition: Reduplication: English boogie-woogie, Mongolian bayn bayn
(often, constantly), Sundanese guguyon (to jest repeatedly; guyon - to
jest), and Tzeltal -pikpik (to touch it lightly repeatedly; -pik - to
touch it lightly). Links: This sense is taken to be sound-symbolically
grounded directly in the doubled form - the repetition of the stem in
the doubled form maps easily onto the meaning of repetition. Overlap:
This sense is not a part of a systematic semantic overlap with any
other linguistic form currently under study.
Continuity: Reduplication: The use of reduplication to express
continuity has been noticed by many researchers. Reduplication
expresses continuative aspect in Tagalog (French, 1988) and Javanese
(Niepokuj, 1991). In addition, the continuative sense of reduplication
is evident in Hindi kit kit (monotonous droning on) and arguably
English dilly-dally. Links: The use of reduplication in the sense of
continuity is easily motivated from repetition. Lakoff (1987) has
noted that multiplicities are often spoken of as masses, as we see in
the sentence The guards were posted all over the hill. Here, the
multiple guards are implicitly viewed as a mass which covers the
hill. Such examples may occur because when a multiplicity is viewed at
a coarser level of resolution, it will appear to be a mass. While this
sentence concerns physical mass and multiplicity, it motivates the
multiplicity-to-mass transformation generally. The link from
repetition to continuity is the temporal analog of this physical
example: we blur the individual repetitions of an action together such
that conceptually it becomes a single continued action. Overlap: This
sense is not a part of a systematic semantic overlap with any other
linguistic form currently under study.
Plurality: Reduplication: The use of reduplication to express
plurality is widespread, appearing in Dakota, Agta (Niepokuj, 1991),
Comox (Sapir, 1915), Papago, Samoan, and numerous other languages
(Moravcsik, 1978). Links: This sense is taken to be sound-symbolically
grounded directly in the doubled form - the plurality of elements in
the form maps cleanly onto the meaning of plurality. Overlap: This
sense is not a part of a systematic semantic overlap with any other
linguistic form currently under study.
Spread Out, Scatter: Reduplication: A number of languages use
reduplication to express the notion of spread out or scatter. Examples
are Japanese tokoro-dokoro (scattered) and Mongolian aravgarsaravgar
(spread out). Links: The link from plurality can be motivated by
noting that the result of scattering is a plurality of objects in a
plurality of locations. However, this paper does not present
non-reduplicative linguistic evidence for this link. In this case, we
must rely rather on the intuitive plausibility of such a
connection. Overlap: Many Russian verbs beginning with the prefix raz-
also have a semantics related to scattering or spreading out. Examples
are razgonjat' (to disperse), razmetat' (to scatter (s.t.); to spread
(s.t.) out), raznosit'sja (to spread), raskidyvat' (to scatter;
spread), rasprostranjat' (to spread, distribute), rasseivat' (to
disperse, scatter), rassredotochivat' (to disperse), and rasstilat'
(to spread).
Intensity: Reduplication: Reduplication is very widely used to express
intensity. Consider for example English a whole whole lot, very very
good, Hindi lal-lal (very red; lal - red), and Mongolian aray ^caray
(just barely; aray - barely) and "o^cn"o"on t"o^cn"o"on (a great
deal). In addition to these examples, this sense appears in Dakota,
Turkish, Dagur, Perak Malay, Tangale (Niepokuj, 1991), Sundanese, and
Thai (Moravcsik, 1978). Links: There are at least two possible sources
of motivation for this sense. One of these is a link from plurality,
highlighted by the English expressions many thanks (Moravcsik, 1978)
and a thousand pardons, in which quantity is used to express
intensity. The other is a link from spread out, or the result of
spreading out, namely enlargement. For example, we can see from the
Russian expression bol'shoe spasibo (literally, big thank-you) that
size can also be used to express intensity. Overlap: The Russian
prefix raz- can be used to express intensity of a condition or
feeling: razbalivat'sja (to be or become properly ill), razobidet'sja
(to take great offense; obidet'sja - to be offended), raskaljat' (to
make scorching hot), and rasshalit'sja (to get very playful).
Completion: Reduplication: Many languages use reduplication to express
completion or perfectivity, particularly in the Indo-European family
(Moravcsik, 1978; Niepokuj, 1991), including Sanskrit, Greek, Latin,
and Gothic. Links: A possible motivation for the use of reduplication
in this sense stems from intensity: performing an action intensely can
lead to completion of the overall action. Thus, working on a project
intensely will lead directly to completion of the project, while a
more lackadaisical approach to the same project will result in its
remaining in a state of incompletion for a considerable time. However,
this paper does not present non-reduplicative linguistic evidence for
this link. In this case, we must rely rather on the intuitive
plausibility of such a connection. Overlap: The Russian prefix raz-
can be used as a perfective marker: rasserdit'sja is the perfective
form of serdit'sja (to become angry). In addition, a number of Russian
lexical entries beginning with raz- express completion: raskupat' (to
buy up), raspivat' (to empty a bottle drinking), razgadyvat' (to
solve; to get to the bottom of), razljubit' (to stop loving),
razrjazhat'sja (to run down, be used up), and razygryvat' (to bring to
a conclusion).
Lack of Control: Reduplication: Lack of control and disorder are
expressed by reduplication in a number of languages. Consider for
example Danish misk-mask (mess, disorganized jumble), Dutch
schelle-belle (overly independent young woman), English
helter-skelter, higgledy-piggledy, pell-mell, willy-nilly, Farsi
g. ati-pati (pell-mell), Hebrew tohu-va-bohu (chaos), and Russian
tjap-ljap (anyhow, in a slipshod manner). Reduplication is also used
grammatically to express lack of control in some Salish languages
(Carlson and Thompson, 1982). Links: This sense may be motivated by
noting that lack of control can easily cause spatial scattering or
spreading out. This link is highlighted in the English word
scatterbrained: the notion of scattering here is used to express
mental lack of control or absent-mindedness. We see this link again in
the colloquial American English sentence She's a very together person,
which uses a word whose central sense is the opposite of dispersion or
distension to express poise and self-control, i.e. the opposite of
lack of control. Overlap: A number of Russian verbs beginning with the
raz- verbal prefix have meanings that concern lack of
control. Consider for example: razbushevat'sja (to rage, get violent,
start lashing out), razvolnovat' (to upset (s.o.)), razlazhivat'sja
(to go wrong), razmechtat'sja (to be lost in dreams), razozlit'sja (to
get furious), razrydat'sja (to burst into sobs), raskapriznichat'sja
(to become very naughty, act up), and rasserdit' (to annoy, to make
angry).
Non-Uniformity: Reduplication: Non-uniformity is sometimes expressed
by reduplication. Consider colloquial Levantine Arabic nus.-nus. (half
and half, a mixture of the two; nus. - half), English hodge-podge,
bric-a-brac, mish-mash, Neoaramaic rangerange (in several different
colors; range - color), and Tamil ithe-athe (this and that). Links:
This sense may be linked to scatter, in that non-uniformity of state
may be metaphorically viewed as non-uniformity of location - which is
the natural result of scattering. We can see this in such colloquial
expressions as This guy's grades are all over the place, meaning that
they are not at all uniform. There is a reliance here on a very
general and widespread metaphor that views abstract states as
locations (Lakoff, 1987). This sense may also be iconically grounded
to some extent. It is interesting to note that the sense of
non-uniformity is often expressed by nonuniformity of form. Many
English reduplicatives with this sense seem to exhibit variance in
form between the first and second instantiations of the stem, such as
mish-mash, hodgepodge, knick-knacks, bric-a-brac, zig-zag. This is not
the case in all languages however; Arabic nus. -nus. and Neoaramaic
range-range are counterexamples. Overlap: The Russian prefix raz- can
be seen to also express non-uniformity in examples such as: razdumat'
(to change one's mind), razlichat'sja (to differ, be distinguished),
raznit'sja (to differ), raznoobrazit' (to diversify), and
raskhodit'sja (to disagree, differ).
This concludes the subset of senses that overlap with senses of
raz-. Earlier work had identified seven different senses of this
verbal prefix: scatter, lack of control, non-uniformity, intensity,
completion, split, and analysis (Regier, 1994). Of these, the first
five appear to be shared with reduplication. As in the case of the
diminutive, this semantic overlap suggests a conceptual basis for this
subset of senses, as the senses cohere across linguistic forms.
Discussion
This paper has argued that the regularities in the semantics of
reduplication stem from an interaction of iconicity and semantic
extension. On this account, some senses are iconically grounded, and
others derive from these through a conceptual spreading-out. This
account predicts that we will be able to find non-reduplicative
manifestations of each of the links in Figure 1 (the local
prediction), since if the links truly exist and are conceptual in
nature, they should be available, one by one, to other linguistic
forms. As we have seen, such linguistic evidence has been cited for
links to all but two of the senses under consideration. Thus, this
local, link-based, prediction is in large measure substantiated. The
account also predicts, more globally, that entire clusters of senses
will be marked by the same non-reduplicative linguistic form. As we
have seen, there is a subset of five senses that are shared with the
diminutive, and another subset of five senses that are shared with the
Russian verbal prefix raz-. This sharing of entire clusters of senses
across linguistic forms strongly suggests a conceptual, rather than
purely iconic, basis for the phenomenon.
This argument is not without its weaknesses. There are three that
demand immediate treatment, and future work will be directed at
them. The first weakness is that evidence from more languages is
clearly required, to further determine just how widely shared the
listed senses are. The current paper has relied heavily for its data
on earlier published studies of reduplication. On that basis it has
simply demonstrated that each sense is fairly widely shared - this is
perhaps a reasonable beginning, but it is only that. The second
weakness is that there are some senses that have not yet been
incorporated into the network of senses. An apparently fairly
widespread example is the notion game: consider English ping-pong,
pall-mall, tic-tac-toe, Basque (and now Spanish and English) jai-alai,
Hindi holi-koli, and ^se^s-be^s, the name for backgammon in large
regions of Turkish- and Persian-influenced southwestern Asia. One
might imagine a link to the baby cluster on the basis of playfulness,
or since the games tend to pit one player against another, a link to
plurality. But given the current lack of either local (link-based) or
global (cluster-based) support for this sense, such connections must
remain speculative at this point. The third weakness is that it is
possible, even probable, that some of the links in the proposed graph
are incorrect. This is particularly true in light of the fact that
non-reduplicative linguistic evidence could not be found for two of
these links. A more satisfying approach to this issue would be to
provide further independent motivation for the links, by basing the
links in the graph on non-linguistic evidence, such as conceptual
relatedness judgments collected from subjects.
Returning to the central claim, however, even given such possible
flaws, it still seems quite probable that these regularities in the
sound-meaning mapping can be attributed to an interaction between
iconicity and semantic extension. For even if our cross-linguistic
coverage is somewhat limited, and not all senses have been worked into
the semantic network, and some of the links have been incorrectly
ascertained, there remain two critical facts. First, across a range of
languages, the same general form is used to express the same fairly
tightly circumscribed set of meanings. Some of these meanings are
clearly iconically grounded in the form itself, and interestingly,
some of them appear not to be. Second, subsets of these senses are
also expressed by other linguistic forms, suggesting that the senses
travel together for reasons of conceptual relatedness. Thus, we have a
clear exception to the arbitrariness of the sign, and a strong
suggestion that conceptually mediated semantic extension may play a
role in this exception.
Ultimately, reduplication is simply a case study; it establishes a
principle. It is an instance in which iconicity and semantic extension
seem to have conspired to violate de Saussure's doctrine in a less
than transparent fashion. There may be other instances, iconically
rooted at very different spots in semantic space. It remains to be
determined to what extent such other instances exist. But the larger
ramifications of this study lie precisely in the possibility of such
other instances. For if these two forces, iconicity and semantic
extension, can yield non-trivial regularities of the sort we have seen
in the case of reduplication, they should in principle also be able to
do so elsewhere in language. In this manner, they constitute a
potentially powerful source of non-arbitrariness in the mapping
between sound and meaning.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Kathryn Campbell-Kibler, who has assisted
in the research project reported here. Thanks also to the many many
other people who have contributed to this work, through enjoyable and
helpful conversations.
Reduplicative data: Arabic (Ferguson, 1956; Wehr, 1961); Bengali
(Subutai Ahmad); Comox (Sapir, 1915); Dutch (Dirk Geeraerts); Farsi
(Nikki Mirghafori); Japanese (Matsuda, 1974); Mongolian (Bosson,
1964); Neoaramaic (Krotkoff, 1982); Russian (Taube et al., 1987);
Sundanese (Robins, 1959); Tamil (Srini Narayanan); Uzbek (Waterson,
1980). All other reduplicative data (Bybee et al., 1994; Moravcsik,
1978; Niepokuj, 1991). Diminutive data (Jurafsky, 1996).
References
Bosson, J. E. (1964). Modern Mongolian - A Primer and Reader. Indiana
University Publications, Bloomington, Indiana. Uralic and Altaic
Series, volume 38.
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evo lution of
Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the
World. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Carlson, B. F. and Thompson, L. C. (1982). Out of control in two
(maybe more) Salish languages. Anthropological Linguistics,
24(1):51-65.
de Saussure, F. (1966). Course in General Linguistics. McGraw-Hill,
New York. Translation and notes by Wade Baskin.
Fee, J. and Ingram, D. (1982). Reduplication as a strategy of
phonological development. Journal of Child Language, 9:41-54.
Ferguson, C. (1956). Arabic baby talk. In Halle, M., editor, For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Mouton, The Hague.
Ferguson, C. (1964). Baby talk in six languages. American
Anthropologist, 66(6):103-114.
Ferguson, C. (1983). Reduplication in child phonology. Journal of
Child Language, 10:239-243.
French, K. M. (1988). Insights into Tagalog: Reduplication,
Infixation, and Stress from Nonlinear Phonology. Summer Institute for
Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas.
Haynes, L. M. and Cooper, R. L. (1986). A note on Ferguson's proposed
baby-talk universals. In Fishman, J., Tabouret-Keller, A., Clyne, M.,
Krishnamurti, B., and Abdulaziz, M., editors, The Fergusonian Impact:
In Honor of Charles A. Ferguson, Volume 1: From Phonology to Society,
pages 127-134. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Heine, B., Claudi, U., and H"unnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization
: A Conceptual Framework. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hinton, L., Nichols, J., and Ohala, J. J. (1994). Sound
Symbolism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jurafsky, D. (1996). Universal tendencies in the semantics of the
diminutive. Language, 72:533-578.
Krotkoff, G. (1982). A Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Kurdistan: Texts,
Grammar, and Vocabulary. American Oriental Society, New Haven,
Connecticut.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories
Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Matsuda, K. (1974). Kenkyusha's Japanese-English
Dictionary. Kenkyusha, Tokyo.
Moravcsik, E. (1978). Reduplicative constructions. In Greenberg,
J. H., editor, Universals of Human Language, Volume 3: Word Structure,
pages 297-334, Stanford, California. Stanford University Press.
Niepokuj, M. K. (1991). The historical development of reduplication,
with special reference to Indo-European. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley.
Regier, T. (1994). A preliminary study of the semantics of
reduplication. Technical Report TR-94-019, International Computer
Science Institute, Berkeley, California.
Robins, R. H. (1959). Nominal and verbal derivation in Sundanese.
Lingua, 8:337-369.
Sapir, E. (1915). Noun Reduplication in Comox, a Salish Language of
Vancouver Island. Government Printing Bureau, Ottowa, Canada. Canada
Department of Mines, Geological Survey, Anthropological Series, number
6, memoir 63.
Schwartz, R., Leonard, L., Wilcox, M. J., and Folger, M. K. (1980).
Again and again: reduplication in child phonology. Journal of Child
Language, 7:75-87.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and
Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, England.
Taube, A. M., Litvinova, I. W., Miller, A. D., and Daglish, R. C.
(1987). Russian-English Dictionary. Russky Yazyk Publishers, Moscow.
Waterson, N. (1980). Uzbek-English Dictionary. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Wehr, H. (1961). A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Otto
Harrassowitz; Wiesbaden.