Reduplication in Distributed Morphology

Item Type text; Article

Authors Haugen, Jason D.

Publisher University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona)

Journal Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics, Linguistic Theory at the University of Arizona

Rights http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Download date 27/09/2021 03:15:12

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/143067 The Coyote Papers 18 (May 2011), University of Arizona Linguistics Department, Tucson, AZ, U.S.A.

Reduplication in Distributed Morphology

Jason D. Haugen Oberlin College [email protected]

Keywords reduplication, Distributed Morphology, allomorphy, reduplicative allomorphy, base-dependence, Hiaki (Yaqui), Tawala

Abstract The two extant approaches to reduplication in Distributed Morphology (DM) are: (i) the readjustment approach, where reduplication is claimed to result from a readjustment operation on some stem triggered by a (typically null) affix; and (ii) the affixation approach, where reduplication is claimed to result from the insertion of a special type of Vocabulary Item (i.e. a reduplicative affix–“reduplicant” or “Red”) which gets inserted into a syntactic node in order to discharge some morphosyntactic feature(s), but which receives its own phonological content from some other stem (i.e. its “base”) in the output. This paper argues from phonologically-conditioned allomorphy pertaining to base-dependence, as in the case of durative reduplication in Tawala, that the latter approach best accounts for a necessary distinction between “reduplicants” and “bases” as different types of morphemes which display different phonological effects, including “the emergence of the unmarked” effects, in many languages. I also defend a blended model of DM which incorporates a constraint-based Correspondence Theoretic vision of Phonological Form. In this model the syntax builds morphological structure as per standard DM assumptions, which in turn leads to local and cyclic restrictions on allomorph selection, as argued in Embick (2010). I argue contra Embick (2010), however, that the phonology must be an essential part of the grammar in order to account for surface form-oriented (or “output-centered”) prosodic morphology such as reduplication and mora affixation. In this model, the output of Morpho- logical Structure serves as an input into PF, which I construe as Optimality Theoretic tableaux as in Correspondence Theory, thus accounting for surface-oriented phonological copying effects like base-dependence.

1 Introduction

Most research from the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM, Halle and Marantz (1993, 1994); Harley and Noyer (1999); Siddiqi (2009); Embick (2010)) has centered on issues in morphosyntax, with proponents of the theory taking a strong “piece-based” (or, in the classical terminology of Hockett (1958), “Item-and-Arrangement”) approach toward word-formation in natural language. Scholars working within this theory, however, have yet to come to a consensus on how best to approach the morphological phenomenon of reduplication, which as a canonical form of prosodic morphology does not obviously lend itself to the kind of piece-based analysis that is typical for work in DM.

1 Jason D. Haugen 1 INTRODUCTION We can identify two distinct approaches to reduplication within the DM framework: (i) the readjustment approach, wherein reduplication is claimed to emerge as a phonological readjustment operation triggered by a (typically null) syntactic affix (as proposed in Raimy (2000) and Frampton (2009)), and (ii) the affixation approach, wherein reduplication itself is claimed to involve an affixal reduplicative morpheme (a “reduplicant”, or Red) which serves as a Vocabulary Item inserted to spell-out the phonological content of some terminal syntactic node (as proposed in Haugen (2008), following much other work utilizing an affixation approach to reduplication in other theoretical frameworks, including the autosegmental copying theory of Marantz (1982), the Prosodic Morphol- ogy framework of McCarthy and Prince (1986), and the Correspondence Theory of McCarthy and Prince (1995)). The present paper compares and contrasts these two different DM approaches, ultimately arguing that the latter avoids some of the pitfalls of the former while also offering important advantages. It is worth noting here in advance that, as far as I can tell, many of the major empirical predictions regarding the actual syntax of reduplication made by these two competing approaches are often equivalent. That is, both approaches can usually make the same claims with respect to the actual syntactic placement of either the Red morpheme (in the affixation approach) or the reduplication-triggering ø-morpheme (in the readjustment approach). For example, Haugen and Harley (2010) (henceforth H&H) address the issue of the syntax of reduplication in noun incorporation (and other compounding) contexts in Hiaki (a.k.a. Yaqui, Uto-Aztecan), where reduplication applies word-internally to the head of an N-V compound (cf. 1b) (reduplicants will appear underlined throughout this paper):

(1) Hiaki (Yaqui) Reduplication + Compounding

(a) aapo maso-m peu-peu-ta √ 3.sg deer-pl red- butcher-tr ‘S/he is always butchering deer’ (b) aapo maso-peu-peu-te √ 3.sg deer-red- butcher-intr ‘S/he is always deer-butchering’

H&H are particularly concerned with the special (verb)-prefixal status of aspectual reduplication in Hiaki, which is unlike other T/A/M affixes which are more typically verb suffixes in this head- final language. Following standard assumptions about phrase structure and the order of affixes in Hiaki, H&H propose the structure in (2) as the Deep Structure representation of (1b); note that H&H assume the affixation approach for reduplication, and thus place the Red morpheme as the exponent of the Aspect head (Asp◦), which, like other aspect morphemes in the language, ought to occur between v ◦ and T◦ in the surface syntax given this underlying structure. The post-head-movement tree representation is given in (3).

2 Jason D. Haugen 1 INTRODUCTION (2) The syntactic structure for Hiaki habitual reduplication (Haugen and Harley (2)(2) (2010))TheThe syntactic syntactic structure structure for for Hiaki Hiaki habitual habitual reduplication reduplication (Haugen (Haugen & &Harley Harley 2010) 2010)

DeepDeep-Structure-Structure TP TP

T' T'

AspPAspP T°T°

Asp'Asp'

vPvP Asp°Asp°

DP v' DP v'

√P√P v°v°

NPNP √ √

N°N°

Aapo maso peu te RED Ø Aapo maso peu te RED Ø He deer- √butcher- INTR RED Ø He deer- √butcher- INTR RED Ø

AnAn importantAn important important question question raised raised by by this by this thisanalysis analysis analysis is ishow how isthe the how reduplication reduplication the reduplication applies applies to tothe appliesthe left left to the left edge edgeedge of of the the verb verb Root Root√ √butcher √butcher in inthe the Surface Surface Structure Structure of of (2) (2). The. The problem problem is isgraphically graphically illustratedof the verb by the Root tree inbutcher (3): in the Surface Structure of (2). The problem is graphically illustrated byillustrated the tree by in the (3): tree in (3):

(3) The Expected Surface Structure (3) (3) TheThe Expected Expected Surface Surface Structure Structure

TP TP

DPi T' DPi T'

AspPAspP T°T°

Asp'Asp' Asp° Asp° T° T°

vP tAsp v° Asp° vP tAsp v° Asp°

ti v' √ v° ti v' √ v°

√P tv N √ √P tv N √

NP t√ NP t√

tN tN

Aapo maso- peu te RED Ø Aapo maso- peu te RED Ø He deer-√butcher-INTR-RED-Ø He deer-√butcher-INTR-RED-Ø ? ?

H&HH&H propose propose that that the the answer answer to tothis this problem problem lies lies in ina morphologicala morphological operation operation made made available available by the framework of DM, Local Dislocation (cf. Embick and Noyer 2007), as sketched in (4): by H&Hthe framework propose of that DM, theLocal answer Dislocation to this (cf. problemEmbick and lies Noyer in a 2007 morphological), as sketched operation in (4): made available

3 Jason D. Haugen 2 THE DM FRAMEWORK by the framework of DM, Local Dislocation (cf. Embick and Noyer (2007)), as sketched in (4):

(4) One Approach to the Preﬁxal Status of Red: Local Dislocation (Haugen & Harley 2010)

◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ a. [[ N V ]V ◦ Asp ]Asp◦ (Complex Asp head – Output of syntax) b. [[ maso [peute-Red]]Asp◦ (Insertion of Vocabulary Items, Linearization) c. [[ maso [Red-peute]Asp◦ ]Asp◦ (Local dislocation of Red and peute) d. [ maso [peu-peute]] (Phonological content of Red computed by copying from the base.)

Another possible analysis of these data could be given from within the readjustment approach, however. Under a readjustment analysis the Asp◦ head could be realized as a null affix which √ somehow targets for reduplication the left edge of the verb Root, peu ‘butcher’, specifically, as √ opposed to the left edge of the nominal root maso or the left edge of the compound [maso-peu] as a whole. This latter possibility would lead, de facto, to reduplication at the left edge of the nominal Root. The point to be emphasized here is that reduplication, whether as a Vocabulary Item in its own right or as an epiphenomenal result of zero-affixation-triggered readjustment, can be originated in or by the same syntactic head (here, Asp◦) under both extant DM approaches to reduplication, whether affixational or readjustment-based. For this reason much of what I will have to say below rests on conceptual issues pertaining to the best approach to accounting for reduplicative morphology within DM, although of course important theoretical consequences (in other domains) will also be important in our discussion. This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 I will outline the theoretical framework of DM as presented in the recent book by Embick (2010), since it is to his presentation of issues pertaining to allomorphy (both phonological and suppletive) that the rest of our discussion will be oriented. Sections 3 and 4 then outline in some detail the two DM approaches to reduplication: the readjustment approach of Raimy 2000 (§3.1) and Frampton 2009 (§3.2) and the affixation approach of Haugen 2008 (§4). I will give an evaluation of the pro’s and con’s of each of these theories in light of considerations raised by Embick (2010). Section 5 will propose a tentative reconciliation of DM’s tenets (particularly as articulated in Embick (2010)) with Haugen (2008)’s integration of DM with an output-based theory of reduplication utilizing phonological copying, such as Correspondence Theory. Section 6 concludes.

2 The DM Framework

This section provides relevant background on two aspects of Embick (2010) which play an important role in the discussion to follow: Embick’s articulation of DM architecture and the generalizations about allomorphy, both phonologically-conditioned and suppletive, that he proposes therein (§2.1), and Embick’s more general discussion of ‘globalism’ and ‘localism’ in morphology (§2.2).

2.1 Embick (2010) on the Architecture of DM The version of DM addressed here is the framework as proposed in Embick (2010). I focus on Em- bick (2010)’s discussion not only because it is the most thorough up-to-date version of the theory,

4 Jason D. Haugen 2 THE DM FRAMEWORK but particularly because Embick presents a very explicit discussion of important conceptual and empirical issues pertaining to the issue of allomorphy, both phonologically-conditioned and suppletive, in DM, and because he also explicitly contrasts DM with “globalist” theories like Optimality Theory (OT). Embick adopts standard architectural assumptions for DM, such as the traditional Y-model of generative grammar; a “single-engine” (Anti-Lexicalist) architecture; underspecifica- tion; and “syntactic hierarchical structure all the way down” (in the sense of Harley and Noyer (1999)). Embick’s primary focus is on locality restrictions for root-conditioned allomorphy. He proposes two conditionsEmbick on‘s contextual primary focus allomorphy: is on localitycyclicity restrictionsand forlinear root-conditioned adjacency. allomorphy. The cyclicity He condition, proposes two conditions on contextual allomorphy: cyclicity and linear adjacency. The for Embick, maintains that outer cyclic heads cannot be sensitive to elements in the domain of cyclicity condition, for Embick, maintains that outer cyclic heads cannot be sensitive to innerelemen cyclicts heads; in the domain where of “cyclic” inner cyclic is equated heads; where to category-defining ―cyclic‖ is equated heads to category (i.e. n,-defining v, a, ...). Embick’s linearheads adjacency (i.e. n, v condition, a, ...). Embick‘s holds l thatinear foradjacency contextual condition allomorphy holds that to for occur, contextual overt allomorphy morphemes should not interveneto occur, overt between morphemes the allomorphs should not intervene and the triggersbetween the for allomorphs those allomorphs. and the triggers for Onethose consequence allomorphs. of Embick’s cyclicity restriction is that outer cyclic (category-defining) heads cannot showOne Root-determined consequence of Embick‘s allomorphy, cyclicity since restriction Roots are is that already outer withincyclic (category the domain- of a category definingdefining) head. heads This cannot is supposed show Root to-determined explain the allomorphy difference, since inbehavior Roots are betweenalready within “special the nominals” Embick‘s primary focus is on locality(created restrictionsdomain by of for special, a categoryroot-conditioned Root-specific defining allomorphy. head. “n Thisheads” is He supposed such asto explain-age) andthe difference gerunds in behavior English (where the n between ―special nominals‖ (created by special, Root-specific ―n heads‖ such as –age) and proposes two conditions on contextual allomorphy:head deriving cyclicity nominalsand linear adjacency from verbs. The cannot be Root-specific, but must be a default form such as gerunds in English (where the n head deriving nominals from verbs cannot be Root-specific, but cyclicity condition, for Embick, maintains that-ing outer). This cyclic is heads shown cannot in (5): be sensitive to elements in the domain of inner cyclic heads; wheremust ―cyclic‖ be a default is equated form tosuch category as –ing-defining). This is shown in (5): heads (i.e. n, v, a, ...). Embick‘s linear adjacency condition holds that for contextual allomorphy (5) Root-Triggered Allomorphy in English: “Special nominals” vs. Gerunds (Embick to occur, overt morphemes should not intervene between(5) Root the-Triggered allomorphs Allomorphy and the triggers in English: for ―Special nominals‖ vs. Gerunds (Embick 2010: 16) those allomorphs. 2010: 16) One consequence of Embick‘s cyclicity restrictiona. is “Special that outer nominals” cyclic (category - b. Gerunds (a) “Special nominals” defining) heads cannot show Root-determined allomorphy , since Roots are already within the domain of a category defining head. This is supposed to explain marriage the difference in behavior marrying between ―special nominals‖ (created by special, Root -specific ―n heads ‖ suchn as – age) and n gerunds in English (where the n head deriving nominals from verbs cannot 2 be Root -specific, but 3 must be a default form such as –ing). This is shown in (5): √MARRY [n, -age] v [n, -ing] 2 (5) Root-Triggered Allomorphy in English: ―Special nominals‖ vs. Gerunds (Embick 2010: 16) √MARRY [v, Ø] Root-determined Root-determined allomorphy allomorphy is okay. a. “Special nominals” b. Gerunds is okay. (b) Gerunds marriage marrying Root-determined allomorphy n n is outlawed. 2 3 √MARRY [n, -age] Non -cyclic heads v in an outer [n domain, -ing] can show contextual allomorphy, iff they are linearly adjacent to the2 relevant trigger for allomorphy (here, the Root); that is, if there is no overt morpheme √M betweenARRY the [v, two.Ø] Examples like this can be seen with the English past tense, as Root-determined allomorphy schematized in (6): is okay. (6) English past tense (Embick 2010: 14)

Root-determined Root-determined allomorphy allomorphy is outlawed T is outlawed. 2 Non-cyclic heads in an outer domain can show contextual allomorphy, iﬀ they are linearly ad- Non-cyclic heads in an outer domain can show contextual allomorphy v , Tiff[past] they are linearly adjacent to the relevant trigger for allomorphyjacent to the(here, relevant the Root);2 trigger t hat is, for if allomorphy there is no (here, the Root); that is, if there is no overt morpheme overt morpheme between the two. Examplesbetween like this can the be two. √seenROOT Examples with the v English like this past can tense be, seenas with the English past tense, as schematized in (6): schematized in (6): Root-triggered allomorphy can be triggered on non-cyclic heads (e.g. T) in a later cycle in such (6) English past tense (Embick 2010: 14) examples because the category-defining cyclic head5 (here, v) happens to be null; so, allomorphy of the T head can be √ROOT-triggered in such contexts. That this is empirically necessary can be T demonstrated by the fact that certain English Roots can take special past tense Vocabulary Items 2 (e.g. –t or –Ø, if –d is the default form): v T[past] 2 (7) English Vocabulary Items for Past Tense (Embick 2010: 12) √ROOT v T[past] ↔ -t / __ {√LEAVE, √BEND, ....} T[past] ↔ -Ø / __ {√HIT, √SING, ..... } Root-triggered allomorphy can be triggered on non -cyclicT heads[past] ↔ (e.g. -d T) in a later cycle in such examples because the category-defining cyclic head (here, v) happens to be null; so, allomorphy of the T head can be √ROOT-triggered in such contexts. That this is empirically necessary can be demonstrated by the fact that certain English Roots can take special past tense Vocabulary Items (e.g. –t or –Ø, if –d is the default form):

(7) English Vocabulary Items for Past Tense (Embick 2010: 12) T[past] ↔ -t / __ {√LEAVE, √BEND, ....} T[past] ↔ -Ø / __ {√HIT, √SING, ..... } T[past] ↔ -d

Embick‘s primary focus is on locality restrictions for root-conditioned allomorphy. He proposes two conditions on contextual allomorphy: cyclicity and linear adjacency. The cyclicity condition, for Embick, maintains that outer cyclic heads cannot be sensitive to elements in the domain of inner cyclic heads; where ―cyclic‖ is equated to category-defining heads (i.e. n, v, a, ...). Embick‘s linear adjacency condition holds that for contextual allomorphy to occur, overt morphemes should not intervene between the allomorphs and the triggers for those allomorphs. One consequence of Embick‘s cyclicity restriction is that outer cyclic (category- defining) heads cannot show Root-determined allomorphy, since Roots are already within the domain of a category defining head. This is supposed to explain the difference in behavior between ―special nominals‖ (created by special, Root-specific ―n heads‖ such as –age) and gerunds in English (where the n head deriving nominals from verbs cannot be Root-specific, but must be a default form such as –ing). This is shown in (5):

(5) Root-Triggered Allomorphy in English: ―Special nominals‖ vs. Gerunds (Embick 2010: 16)

a. “Special nominals” b. Gerunds

marriage marrying n n 2 3 √MARRY [n, -age] v [n, -ing] 2 √MARRY [v, Ø] Root-determined allomorphy is okay.

Root-determined allomorphy is outlawed.

Non-cyclic heads in an outer domain can show contextual allomorphy, iff they are linearly adjacent to the relevant trigger for allomorphy (here, the Root); that is, if there is no overt morpheme between the two. Examples like this can be seen with the English past tense, as schematized in (6): Jason D. Haugen 2 THE DM FRAMEWORK (6) English past tense (Embick 2010: 14) (6) English past tense (Embick 2010: 14) T 2 v T[past] 2 √ROOT v

Root-triggered allomorphy can be triggered on non-cyclic heads (e.g. T) in a later cycle in such examplesRoot-triggered because the category allomorphy-defining can cyclic be triggered head (here, on v) non-cyclic happens to headsbe null; (e.g. so, allomorphy T) in a later cycle in such of theexamples T head can because be √R theOOT category-deﬁning-triggered in such contexts. cyclic headThat t (here,his is empiricallyv) happens necessary to be null;can be so, allomorphy of √ demonstratedthe T head by canthe fact be thatRoot certain-triggered English Roots in such can contexts.take special That past tense this Vocabulary is empirically Items necessary can be (e.g.demonstrated –t or –Ø, if –d byis the the default fact that form certain): English Roots can take special past tense Vocabulary Items

(e.g. -t or -ø, if -d is the default form): (7) English Vocabulary Items for Past Tense (Embick 2010: 12) T ↔ -t / __ {√LEAVE, √BEND, ....} (7) English[past] Vocabulary Items for Past Tense (Embick 2010: 12) T[past] ↔ -Ø / __ {√HIT√, √SING, .....√ } T[past] ↔ -t / { Leave, Bend, ....} T[past] ↔ -d √ √ T[past] ↔ -ø / { Hit, Sing, ....} T[past] ↔ -d

How does Embick’s discussion of cyclicity and linear adjacency apply to reduplication? Let us consider the case of Hiaki habitual reduplication which was introduced above (cf. 2). Hiaki has Root-triggered allomorphy for the expression of habitual aspect as well as other semantic functions (e.g. progressive aspect, to mark emphasis, etc.); we will consider here only the case of Hiaki habitual reduplication. The form of reduplication (habitual or otherwise) is not always entirely predictable based upon the morphological or phonological structure of the stem to which it applies–see Harley and Amarillas (2003); Haugen (2003); and Harley and Leyva (2009) for detailed discussion of this suppletive reduplicative allomorphy in Hiaki. Some of the forms of reduplication in Hiaki are summarized by Harley and Leyva and shown in (8):

(8) Reduplicative Allomorphs (Harley & Leyva 2009: 238) a. RedS hi.nu ‘buy’ → hi-hi.nu Red1=CV b. RedCL ˇcam.ta ‘mash’ → ˇcam-ˇcam.ta Red2=Root? or Red2= CVC? c. RedSS ˇci.toh.te ‘slip’ → ˇcito-ˇci.toh.te Red3=root d. RedG ka.pon.te ‘castrate’ → kap-pon.te <> e. RedS+G kii.mu ‘enter’ → kik-ki.mu Red4=C1VC1

The final column of (8) is my addition to Harley and Florez Leyva’s figure, which I add in order to summarize the actual form of reduplication involved in each of the allomorphs of the Hiaki √ habitual: a light vowel reduplicant (CV), a heavy syllable or Root reduplicant (CVC or Root, depending on one’s morphological analysis of the stem–on which, see below); a bisyllabic Root reduplicant; a bare mora affix; and a CVC reduplicant wherein the second (coda) consonant is a copy of the first consonant of the stem; this last pattern has been dubbed “secondary reduplication” (Escalante (1990)) or “marked heavy syllable reduplication” (Haugen (2003, 2008)). Regarding the syntax of reduplication in Hiaki, I will assume that the reduplication is triggered in Asp◦ as proposed in H&H, as was discussed above. Ignoring subject and object positions (i.e.

6 How does Embick‘s discussion of cyclicity and linear adjacency apply to reduplication? Let us consider the case of Hiaki habitual reduplication which was introduced above (cf. 2). Hiaki has Root-triggered allomorphy for the expression of habitual aspect as well as other semantic functions (e.g. progressive aspect, to mark emphasis, etc.); we will consider here only the case of Hiaki habitual reduplication. The form of reduplication (habitual or otherwise) is not always entirely predictable based upon the morphological or phonological structure of the stem to which it applies—see Harley and Amarillas (2003); Haugen (2003); and Harley and Florez Leyva (2009) for detailed discussion of this suppletive reduplicative allomorphy in Hiaki. Some of the forms of reduplication in Hiaki are summarized by Harley and Leyva in (8):

(8) Hiaki Reduplicative Allomorphs (Harley & Leyva 2009: 238) a. REDS hi.nu ‗buy‘ → hi-hi.nu RED1=CV b. REDCL čam.ta ‗mash‘ → čam-čam.ta RED2= ROOT? or RED2= CVC? c. REDSS či.toh.te ‗slip‘ → čito-či.toh.te RED3= ROOT d. REDG ka.pon.te ‗castrate‘ → kap.pon.te <> e. REDS+G kii.mu ‗enter‘ → kik-ki.mu RED4=C1VC1

The final column of (8) is my addition to Harley and Florez Leyva‘s figure, which I add in order summarize the actual form of reduplication involved in each of the allomorphs of the Hiaki habitual: a light vowel reduplicant (CV), a heavy syllable or Root reduplicant (CVC or √Root, depending on one‘s morphological analysis of the stem—on which, see below); a bisyllabic Root reduplicant; a bare mora affix; and a CVC reduplicant wherein the second (coda) consonant is a copy of the first consonant of the stem; this last pattern has been dubbed ―secondary reduplication‖ (Escalante 1990) or ―marked heavy syllable reduplication‖ (Haugen 2003,Jason 2008) D. Haugen. 2 THE DM FRAMEWORK Regarding the syntax of reduplication in Hiaki, I will assume that the reduplication is triggeredabstracting in Asp away° as propose from thed in DP H&H vs., asn wascomplement discussed above. of v and Ignoring the external subject and subject objectDP), the structure positionsfor Hiaki (i.e. habitual abstracting reduplication away from the should DP vs. look n complement something of like v and what the external is shown subject in (9): DP), the structure for Hiaki habitual reduplication should look something like what is shown in (9): (9) The Structure for Hiaki Habitual Reduplication (9) The Structure for Hiaki Habitual Reduplication Asp 3 v [Aspº[+HAB], RED] 2 √PEU [vTR, -ta] ‗butcher‘

Importantly, Hiaki seems to be unlike English in having an overt expression of the cyclic head v. Specifically,Importantly, (at least Hiaki in some seems cases) to be v in unlike Hiaki English is overtly in expressed having andifferently overt expression according to of the cyclic head transitivity:v. Specifically, i.e. v° ↔ (at -ta least in transitive in some environments cases) v in (typically Hiaki) is, while overtly v° ↔ expressed -te in intransitive differently according to environmentstransitivity: (typically i.e. v ◦ )↔. -ta in transitive environments (typically), while v ◦ ↔ -te in intransitive environmentsWith this (typically). in mind, we can propose sets of Vocabulary Items for the different reduplicationWith this forms in mind, in (8) weaccording can propose to both setsof the of DM Vocabulary approaches Items to reduplication for the different: reduplication forms readjustmentin (8) according as well to as both affixation of the. Under DM approaches the readjustment to reduplication: approach, the VIs readjustment for the as well as affixation. allomorphic reduplication patterns will be null VIs which somehow have to trigger stem Under the readjustment approach, the VIs for the allomorphic reduplication patterns will be null readjustment of some kind on the verb Root; we‘ll consider the details of how this might actVIsually which happen somehow later in havesection to 3. trigger The later stem phonological readjustment process of someis indicated kind onby the symbol verb Root; we’ll consider ―the‖ in details (10): of how this might actually happen later in section 3. The later phonological process is indicated by the symbol “.” in (10):

(10) Vocabulary Items for the Hiaki Habitual I: The Readjustment Approach √ √ Asp[HAB] ↔ ø1 / {... LIST OF s .... } . Red ∼ Root √ Asp[HAB] ↔ ø2 / {... LIST OF s .... } . Red ∼ σ1 √ Asp[HAB] ↔ ø3 / {... LIST OF s .... } . Red ∼ σGEM √ Asp[HAB] ↔ ø4 / {... LIST OF s .... } . Red ∼ <> µ √ Asp[HAB] ↔ ø5 / {... LIST OF s .... } . Red ∼ CV

Under the affixation approach, in contrast, the different patterns can be accounted for by the insertion of different Red morphemes as VIs for the Asp◦ head. This is shown in (11):

(11) Vocabulary Items for the Hiaki Habitual II: The Aﬃxation Approach √ √ Asp[HAB] ↔ Red1(∼ Root)/ {... LIST OF s .... } √ Asp[HAB] ↔ Red2(∼ σ1)/ {... LIST OF s .... } √ Asp[HAB] ↔ Red3(∼ σGEM )/ {... LIST OF s .... } √ Asp[HAB] ↔ Red4(∼ µ)/ {... LIST OF s .... } Asp[HAB] ↔ Red5(∼CV)

Each of these Red VI’s themselves would have some kind of specification for how much of the stem to copy–for details on how this might work, see section 4 below. Crucially, under either one of these DM approaches we observe Root-triggered suppletive allomorphy–i.e. the Root triggers either the insertion of a suppletive null morpheme that in turn triggers a specific (and unique) pattern of reduplication (or mora affixation), as in (10), or it triggers the insertion of a suppletive reduplicant (Red morpheme) directly into Asp◦, as in (11). Thus, the

7 (10) Vocabulary Items for the Hiaki Habitual I: The Readjustment Approach Asp[HAB] ↔ Ø1 / __ {.... LIST OF √s.... }  RED ~ √ROOT Asp[HAB] ↔ Ø2 / __ {.... LIST OF √s.... }  RED ~ σ1 Asp[HAB] ↔ Ø3 / __ {.... LIST OF √s.... }  RED ~ σGEM Asp[HAB] ↔ Ø4 / __ {.... LIST OF √s.... }  <> μ Asp[HAB] ↔ Ø5  RED ~ CV

Under the affixation approach, in contrast, the different patterns can be accounted for by the insertion of different RED morphemes as VIs for the Asp° head. This is shown in (11):

(11) Vocabulary Items for the Hiaki Habitual II: The Affixation Approach Asp[HAB] ↔ RED1 (~ √ROOT) / __ {.... LIST OF √s.... } Asp[HAB] ↔ RED2 (~ σ1) / __ {.... LIST OF √s.... } Asp[HAB] ↔ RED3 (~ σGEM) / __ {.... LIST OF √s.... } Asp[HAB] ↔ HAB4 (~ µ) / __ {.... LIST OF √s.... } Asp[HAB] ↔ RED5 (~ CV)

Each of these RED VI‘s themselves would have some kind of specification for how much of the stem to copy—for details on how this might work, see section 4 below. Crucially, under either one of these DM approaches we observe Root-triggered suppletive allomorphy—i.e. the Root triggers either the insertion of a suppletive null morpheme thatJason in turn D. triggers Haugen a specific (and unique) pattern of reduplication (or mora affixation)2 THE, as DM in FRAMEWORK (10), or it triggers the insertion of a suppletive reduplicant (RED morpheme) directly into Aspº, asovert in (11) nature. Thus, of the an overt apparent nature interveningof an apparent cyclic interveningv head cyc inlic Hiaki v head would in Hiaki seem would to seem contradict Embick’s tolinear contradict adjacency Embick‘s condition linear adjacency on Root-triggered condition on allomorphy–recall Root-triggered allomorphy that Embick’s—recall that strong claim is that Embick‘sroot-triggered strong claim allomorphy is that r onoot- non-cyclictriggered allomorphy Asp◦ should on non not-cyclic be possible Asp° should unless notv beis null. I demonstrate possiblethis graphically unless v is innull. (12): I demonstrate this graphically in (12):

(12)(12) HiakiHiaki as as a Counter a Counter-Example-Example to Embick‘s to Embick’sLinear Adjacency Linear Condition Adjacency? Condition?

Trigger Intervening for allomorphy head ??? = Øn, as per (10) [ [ [peu]√ -te]v -???] Asp° or ??? = REDn, as per (11)

Is this a real exception to Embick‘s generalization, though? And, if so, is this an empirical problemIs this afor real Embick‘s exception overall to Embick’stheory? If the generalization, –ta/-te markers, though? which seem And, to ifcorrelate so, is this rather an empirical problem robustlyfor Embick’s (although overall not exceptionlessly) theory? If the tota/-te transitivity,suffixes really in Hiaki,are instantiations which seem of v to then correlate it should rather robustly be clear that the Hiaki data present an empirical exception to Embick‘s proposal that Root- (although not exceptionlessly) to transitivity, really are instantiations of v then it should be clear triggered suppletion on external heads must be limited to null cyclic head environments. This mightthat thenot be Hiaki a major data issue, present however, an empirical if we allow exception for parameter to Embick’sized, language proposal-specific that notion Root-triggereds sup- ofpletion cyclicity on and/or external adjacency heads.1 must be limited to null cyclic head environments. This might not be a majorThis issue, discussion however, applies if we to allow the scenario for parameterized, in which the RE language-specificD allomorph is a suppletive notions VI of cyclicity and/or insertedadjacency. into1 the Asp° head as triggered by the Root, as in the affixation approach of H&H. The identicalThis issue discussion is might appliesnot be raised to the in scenariothe readjustment in which approach, the Red however,allomorph if it can is be a suppletiveclaimed VI inserted into the Asp◦ head as triggered by the Root, as in the affixation approach of H&H. The identical issue might not be raised in the readjustment approach, however, if it can be claimed that an 1 A second possibility is that –ta and -te are not really instantiations of v, but instead are part of the verb outer non-cyclic head (here, Asp◦) triggers stem- or Root-readjustment, without that outer non- ROOT itself. This possibility would have major implications for the nature of apparent ―syllable-copying‖ incyclic Hiaki headreduplication. itself being Harley triggeredand Leyva (2009) by the regard Root. CVC Such reduplication a case could in Hiaki fall as underROOT-copying Embick’s on Readjustment theActivity grounds Hypothesis:that the frequent word-final endings –ta and –te are instantiations of v, but Haugen (2003) regards CVC-reduplication as prosodically-driven syllable copying on the grounds that CVC reduplication(13) The may Readjustment only apply if the first Activity syllable of Hypothesis the base is also (Embick of the form CVC. 2010: If 101)these apparent suffixes Aare readjustment really part of ROOT rule in triggeredHiaki then the by CV/CVC the morpheme distinction Xin Hiakican effectreduplication a Root- has to or be morpheme-specific syllable-copying). change only when X and the Root/functional head are in the same PF cycle.

Embick states that, by this hypothesis, “non-cyclic heads outside of the first cyclic head can trigger Root-specific readjustment rules, but outer cyclic heads cannot” (p. 101). At first blush, the same adjacency/cyclicity problem mentioned above seems not to exist the other way (i.e. downward) in the readjustment approach–the null exponent could be able to trigger readjustment on the stem. As Embick notes, “there appear to be cases in which a readjustment rule ‘skips’ intervening, overt morphemes” (p. 98). This might at first seem to give the readjustment approach a leg up over the affixation approach, since readjustment can be triggered by an outer, non-cyclic head (such as Asp◦) even over an overt cyclic head (such as v–i.e. in Hiaki, the suffixes -ta and -te):

1A second possibility is that Hiaki -ta and -te are not really instantiations of v, but instead are part of the verb Root itself. This possibility would have major implications for the nature of apparent “syllable-copying” in Hiaki reduplication. Harley and Leyva (2009) regard CVC reduplication in Hiaki as Root-copying on the grounds that the frequent word-final endings -ta and -te are instantiations of v, but Haugen (2003) regards CVC-reduplication as prosodically-driven syllable copying on the grounds that CVC reduplication may only apply if the first syllable of the base is also of the form CVC. If these apparent suffixes are really part of Root in Hiaki then the CV/CVC distinction in Hiaki reduplication has to be syllable-copying.

8 that an outer non-cyclic head (here, Asp°) triggers stem- or Root-readjustment, without that outer non-cyclic head itself being triggered by the Root. Such a case could fall under Embick‘s Readjustment Activity Hypothesis:

(13) The Readjustment Activity Hypothesis (Embick 2010: 101) A readjustment rule triggered by the morpheme X can effect a Root- or morpheme- specific change only when X and the Root/functional head are in the same PF cycle.

Embick states that, by this hypothesis, ―non-cyclic heads outside of the first cyclic head can trigger Root-specific readjustment rules, but outer cyclic heads cannot‖ (p. 101). At first blush, the same adjacency/cyclicity problem mentioned above seems not to exist the other way (i.e. downward) in the readjustment approach—the null exponent could be able to trigger readjustment on the stem. As Embick notes, ―there appear to be cases in which a readjustment rule ‗skips‘ intervening, overt morphemes‖ (p. 98). This might at first seem to give the readjustment approach a leg up over the affixation approach, since readjustment can be triggered by an outer, non-cyclic head (such as Asp°) even over an overt cyclic head (such as v—i.e.Jason in Hiaki, D. Haugenthe suffixes –ta and -te): 2 THE DM FRAMEWORK

(14) (14)HiakiHiaki as a Non as- aCounter Non-Counter-Example-Example to Embick‘s Cyclicity/Linear to Embick’s Adjacency Cyclicity/Linear Conditions Adjacency Con- for ditionsReadjustment? for Readjustment?

[ [ [peu]√ -te]v -???] Asp°

Intervening Trigger for head stem readjustment

However, according to Embick ―it is in principle possible for phonologically- conditionedHowever, allomorphy according at outer tonodes Embick to refer “it to isa phonological in principle matrix possible associated for phonologically-conditioned with a Root. allo- A rulemorphy of this type at outer could nodesnot, however, to refer target to a certain phonological Roots to matrix the exclusion associated of others with; it a would Root. A rule of this type have couldto apply not, to any however, phonological target representation certain Roots which to the met exclusion its structural of description others; it‖ would (p.103 have, to apply to any emphasis added). Hiaki reduplication is fundamentally Root-specific—i.e. different Roots take phonological representation which met its structural description” (p.103, emphasis added). Hiaki different reduplication forms for the same semantic functions (i.e. they exhibit Root suppletion). To makereduplication this latter account is fundamentally work there would Root-specific–i.e. have to be different different kinds Roots of Asp take° heads different reduplication forms triggeringfor the different same effects semantic on Ro functionsots independently (i.e. they of the exhibit morpho Rootphonological suppletion). structure To of make those this latter account Roots.work Since there different would prosodic have forms to be of different reduplications kinds can of serve Asp ◦differentheads semantic triggering functions different in effects on Roots Hiakiindependently while, conversely, of thethose morphophonological different semantic functions structure can be of served those by Roots. the various Since different prosodic forms differentof reduplications forms of reduplication, can serve reduplicative different allomorphy semantic functionsin this language in Hiaki has to while, be to conversely,some those different extentsemantic suppletive. functions Hence, habitu can beal reduplication served by the in Hiaki various does different pose a problem forms for of reduplication,this angle after reduplicative al- all. lomorphy in this language has to be to some extent suppletive. Hence, habitual reduplication in In any event, an important empirical issue is raised by the Hiaki data for either of the Hiaki does pose a problem for this angle after all. DM approaches to reduplication: readjustment or affixational. On the one hand there is an interveningIn cyclic any event, head which an important should block empirical ROOT-conditioned issue is raisedallomorphy by the on an Hiaki external data head for either of the DM such approachesas Asp°, and, to on reduplication: the other hand, Root readjustment-allomorphy or triggered affixational. by an external On the head one handlike Asp° there is an intervening shouldcyclic not be head possible which because should that block Root occursRoot -conditionedin an earlier cycle allomorphy. on an external head such as Asp◦, and,I will on leave theother these issues hand, aside Root-allomorphy for future research, triggered turning bynow an inste externalad to the head heart like of Asp◦ should not be Embickpossible 2010‘s because discussion: that a critique Root occurs of ―globalism‖ in an earlier in favour cycle. of ―localism‖ in morphology, where weI will will also leave discuss these the issues crucial aside larger for issue future of how research, reduplication turning is to now be most instead suitably to the heart of Embick treated2010’s in DM. discussion: a critique of “globalism” in favour of “localism” in morphology, where we will

also discuss the crucial larger issue of how reduplication is to be most suitably treated in DM. 2.2. Embick (2010) on Globalism vs. Localism

The central2.2 focus Embick of Embick (2010) 2010 on is Embick‘s Globalism critique vs. of globalism Localism in favor of localism in morphology. DM, from Embick‘s perspective, entails serial derivation, with local conditions (and Therestrictions, central etc.) focus on possible of Embick allomorphy. 2010 is In Embick’s such a framework critique there of globalism is no competition in favor of localism in morphology. DM, from Embick’s perspective, entails serial derivation, with local conditions (and restrictions, etc.) on possible allomorphy. In such a framework there is no competition among complex objects (e.g. word vs. word, word vs. phrase, or phrase vs. phrase comparisons–see also Embick and Marantz (2008)). Thus, for any given syntactic or morphological input there should be only one syntactic or morphological output. Embick maintains that theories like OT, conversely, are globalist in the sense that the (morpho)- phonology requires competition between multiple potential output expressions of a given input. In globalist theories any given single input can lead to multiple (inﬁnite?) possible outputs, thus necessitating some kind of evaluation metric that assesses diﬀerent candidates for optimality in regard to output constraints (e.g. faithfulness and/or markedness, etc.). A serious problem with this kind of approach is that it predicts many kinds of unattested possibilities for allomorphy, including what Embick terms allomorphic vacillation. As Embick puts it,

9 Jason D. Haugen 2 THE DM FRAMEWORK [g]lobalist theories predict that there should be cases in which the allomorph chosen for part of the paradigm of some Root differs from the allomorph chosen in another part of the paradigm. In such a case, different allomorphs are inserted for the same Root in a way that depends on the global phonological context....Crucially, these hypothesized effects could go beyond the local types of outward-sensitive allomorphy predicted by [Embick’s theory] (Embick 2010: 156 [2b]).

To put it more succinctly, allomorphic vacillation would entail “a ‘switch’ in the selected allomorph for a particular Root, based on (phonological) properties of outer morphemes” (Embick 2010: 172, my emphasis). In general, I am sympathetic to Embick’s criticism of globalism and ﬁnd his arguments for localism (in some form) to be compelling. In particular, I agree with Embick’s insistence on local considerations for allomorph-selection in the morphology. My major concern with his particular actualization of DM is both conceptual and empirical, and pertains to what I will call Black Box Phonology. Black Box Phonology is, in essence, the idea that phonological generalizations need not be a part of the grammar per se. To clarify what is at issue, we can quote Embick himself, who in regard to his instantiation of DM states that:

...a localist theory cannot say that a pattern of allomorph selection arises because of some output property, phonological or otherwise. To the extent that there are generalizations to be made about surface forms, the localist theory can make them, but they must be derivative of another part of language in the broad sense. That is, the explanations cannot be part of the grammar in the narrow sense; instead, they are the result of diachrony, acquisition, and so on. (p. 21)

To increase this list we could also add, with Embick later in his book, “...phonetics, processing...” (p. 120), etc. Embick, in this way, thus proposes a version of DM which is “a theory of morphology without teleology” (p.8). This kind of morphological theory entails that “regular phonology” falls outside the “scope of grammar”, which in Embick’s view needs only to account for irregularity (e.g. suppletion). Consider, for example, Embick’s discussion of the English plural, which requires some lexical spec- iﬁcation for suppletive allomorph selection (15a-b):

(15) Suppletive Allomorphy: The English Plural (Embick 2010: 43) √ √ a. #[pl] ↔ -en / { Ox, Child, .... } √ √ b. #[pl] ↔ ø / { Moose, Foot, .... } c. #[pl] ↔ -s (=/z/) ....

To account for the varying allomorphs of the English plural only one allomorph needs to be speciﬁed as the default variant, which Embick (reasonably) proposes to be -s (cf. 15c). Of course, the English default plural morpheme /-s/ has three phonologically-determined allomorphs: [-s], [-z], and [-1z]. For Embick 2010 this phonologically-conditioned allomorphy is not suppletive, so there is no competition for insertion among these allomorphic variants. So far so good, but how (and, just as crucially, where) do the phonologically regular allomorphs actually get selected? On the one hand, Embick holds that “the (morpho)phonology derives from this single exponent the diﬀerent surface forms seen above” (p.43). So, as is generally assumed by most theories, the

10 Jason D. Haugen 2 THE DM FRAMEWORK (morpho)-phonology does it, which, prima facie, is quite a reasonable position to maintain. But, on the other hand, Embick also proposes that the localist theory that he presents “does not make any profound claims about the surface properties of the various phenomena that happen to exist in the languages that happen to exist. Put slightly differently, it provides a mechanical account of a system that generates sound-meaning connections; beyond placing formal conditions on what languages could exist in this way, it does not specify a theory of the outputs that it derives” (p.190, emphasis added). To return to the focus of the present paper, i.e. the treatment of reduplicative morphology in DM, my issue with Embick’s Black Box Phonology approach is that reduplication and other types of prosodic morphology really do need a theory of phonological outputs. One simply cannot do prosodic morphology without some kind of theory of (morpho)-phonology. Just like the garden- variety phonologically-conditioned allomorphy found in the default English plural /-s/, we see very clear regularities and systematicities with cross-linguistic cases of prosodically-based morphology. Consider, for example, the two allomorphs of Hiaki habitual mora affixation, which is unlike allomorphy in Hiaki habitual reduplication in that the prosodic morphological process of mora affixation creates the habitual allomorph by lengthening a segment within the actual Root itself (cf. 16). This morphological process involves word-medial consonant gemination in the usual case, but it can also involve word-medial vowel-lengthening instead in just those cases wherein the Root already contains a word-medial consonant cluster; the usual process of word-medial consonant gemination in such cases would lead to an illicit word-medial consonant cluster. Contrast (16a) and (16b):

(16) Hiaki Mora Aﬃxation (Haugen 2003) a. ma.ve.ta ‘receive’ → mav.ve.ta µ → C/ V]σ... (the default case) b. yep.sa ‘arrive’ → yeep.sa µ → V/ C]σ...

If the concatenation of a bare mora aﬃx in such cases as these is merely a mechanical process with no concern for output goals, we would hardly expect to see the apparent result wherein the realization of the bare mora seems to be precisely dependent upon the overall context of the output phonology of the word to which the process of mora augmentation actually applies.2 A more serious problem with the Black Box Phonology approach comes from reduplication itself, and involves what Inkelas and Zoll (2005) have called “base-dependence”. Base-dependence arises when the determination of the phonological form of one copy in a reduplication construction (i.e. the “reduplicant”) is dependent upon some property, morphological or phonological (prosodic), of the output form of the other copy in the construction (i.e. the reduplicant’s “base”) (cf. Inkelas and Zoll (2005): 92-7). The theory of reduplication developed by Inkelas and Zoll (2005), Morphological Doubling Theory (MDT), is a theory that does not allow “phonological copying” in reduplication and for this reason it prohibits base-dependence. See Haugen and Hicks Kennard (2011) (HHK), however, for arguments that Tawala durative reduplication necessitates base-dependence in precisely this sense. The essence of the argument presented by HHK is that Tawala durative reduplication is entirely predictable and dependent upon the output phonological form of the base. Consider the forms of the variant allomorphs of the Tawala durative presented in (17)a-c, where the reduplication

2A possible way around this particular problem might be to assert that the diﬀerent realizations of the moraic aﬃx are suppletive rather than phonologically-driven, with the phonological regularity of the pattern being an accident of diachrony or some such.

11 Jason D. Haugen 2 THE DM FRAMEWORK is indicated with underlining. Cases of non-reduplication in the durative, illustrated in (17d), is also phonologically predictable: vowel-lengthening occurs in lieu of reduplication when (and only when) a verb Root is already composed of two identical syllables at its left edge.

(17) Allomorphs of the Tawala Durative (data originally from Ezard (1997)) a. i. ge.le.ta ge.le-ge.le.ta ‘to arrive’ Red = C1V1C2V2 ii. ho.pu ho.pu-ho.pu ‘to go down’ iii. hu.ne.ya hu.ne-hu.ne-ya ‘to praise’

b. i. a.pu a.p-a.pu ‘to bake’ Red = VC ii. a.tu.na a.t-a.tu.na ‘to rain’ iii. o.to.wi o.t-o.to.wi ‘to make an appointment’

c. i. be.i.ha bi-be.i.ha ‘to search’ Red = C1V2 ii. ga.e ge-ga.e ‘to go up’ iii. to.u tu-to.u ‘to weep’

d. i. to.to.go to.o.to.go ‘be sick’ “Red” = V1 ii. gu.gu.ya gu.u-gu.ya ‘preach’ iii. ta.ta.wa ta.a-ta.wa ‘tremble’ iv. te.te te.e-te ‘cross(bridge)’ v. ki.ki ki.i.ki ‘strangle’

The varying forms of durative reduplication in Tawala depend on the output form of the verb stem, as follows. When the first two syllables of the verb stem are of the prosodic form CV.CV, the reduplicant is a CV.CV, as in geleta ‘to arrive → ge.le-ge.le.ta (17a). When the first two syllables of the verb stem are of the form V.CV, the reduplication is of the form V.C-, as in a.tu.na ‘to rain’ → a.t-a.tu.na (17b). When the first two syllables of the verb stem are of the form CV1.V2, the reduplication is of the form CV2, as in be.i.ha ‘to search’ → bi-be.i.ha (17c) and *be-be.i.ha. Crucially, non-reduplication also occurs in the Tawala durative, as in (17d), and the non- application of reduplication is also predictably dependent upon the phonological form of Root to which it applies. Specifically, when the first two syllables of the verb stem are already identical (i.e. of the form C1V1.C1V1), then vowel-lengthening occurs and the expected pattern of reduplication does not apply (i.e. to.to.go ‘be sick’ → to.o.to.go, and not *to.to-to.to.go or *to-to.to.go). Hicks Kennard (2004) argues that each of the allomorphic variants of the Tawala durative can be given a straightforward analysis based on a standard emergence of the unmarked effect (TETU, McCarthy and Prince (1994)), where an output markedness constraint, *Repeat[σ], which is proposed to be a species of the Obligatory Contour Principle, bans the surface appearance of adjacent identical syllables. HHK (2011: 24-6) show that this restriction is reduplication-specific, since other examples of morphological concatenation in the language, e.g. compounding and regular affixation, allow the marked appearance of adjacent identical syllables (cf. such examples as compounds like nu.go-go.ho.la heart-jump ‘surprised’ (Ezard 1997: 278); *nu.go.o.ho.la). Unlike the allomorphy exhibited in Hiaki habitual reduplication which was discussed above, the reduplicative allomorphy of the Tawala durative is crucially phonologically-conditioned (rather than suppletive). I think that the upshot of this is that base-dependence is a very real possibility in reduplication, and everybody’s theory needs a way to account for it. If the output phonological

12 Jason D. Haugen 3 THE READJUSTMENT APPROACH form of a stem is crucial for the deﬁnition of a pattern of reduplication, as base-dependence suggests, then Black Box Phonology cannot be an adequate approach to such phenomena.

2.2.1 A Quasi-Word-&-Paradigm Approach? A more minor potential conceptual objection to Embick 2010 is that such an approach could lead to a quasi-Word-and-Paradigm view of morphology, contra the intended goal of most practitioners of DM who more typically favor an Item-and-Arrangement approach to morphology. As long as we allow the syntax to build structures using morphosyntactic features, though, then perhaps we could just post-syntactically insert the right paradigmatic form (“Vocabulary Item”) into the relevant terminal node? Embick anticipates something along the lines of the general conceptual objection raised here:

(18) “...on the globalist view, stating distributions is not enough; what is needed is a statement within the grammar of why allomorphs appear where they do.” (p.121, original emphasis)

Embick refers to conceptual arguments of this type as “putative loss of generalization”, or PLG, which he elaborates as follows:

(19) Putative Loss of Generalization (PLG) (Embick 2010: 121 [8]) Localist theories are inadequate because in the cases in which allomorph selection optimizes the output according to some metric, the allomorph selection procedure does not explicitly state the fact that the distribution is driven by global or output properties of the phonology.

Once again, though, my claim here is that you cannot even do prosodic morphology such as reduplication without referencing the phonology. This is a conceptual issue which does have major empirical consequences. What are the possible analyses of reduplication within DM?

3 Contrasting Approaches to Reduplication within DM I: The Readjustment Approach

This section sketches and contrasts the first of the two competing extant approaches to reduplication within DM: the readjustment approach. Under a readjustment approach the reduplication process results from a readjustment operation applied to a stem as triggered by a (typically null) affix. There are two theories about how this happens: the Precedence-Based Phonology (PBP) theory developed by Raimy (2000) (§3.1), and Frampton (2009)’s theory of Distributed Reduplication (DR) (§3.2). One central theoretical mechanism which is shared as a fundamental tenet of both of these theories is the use of readjustment operations, and this immediately makes such theories potentially problematic in the first place. Readjustment rules have always been standard in DM research (cf. Halle and Marantz (1993) et seq.), although they remain conceptually problematic. Two major issues with such operations are: (i) that they invoke process-based analyses within the piece-based √ theory of DM (as when, for example, the vowel in the English Root run is said to be changed by rule in the context of the feature [+past] to yield the form ran); and (ii) such rules are difficult to contain in principle. The problematicity of this second aspect should be particularly salient in versions of the theory which invoke Black Box Phonology, as in Embick 2010.

13 Jason D. Haugen 3 THE READJUSTMENT APPROACH Not all practitioners of DM utilize readjustment operations, however. Siddiqi (2009) utilizes Root suppletion rather than readjustment operations on particular Roots, thus claiming that the output form /ôæn/ is a Vocabulary Item which competes with /ô@n/ for insertion into the syntactic √ context of run, v and [Past]. If Siddiqi 2009’s approach to DM is anywhere close to being on the right track, and if we can really eliminate readjustment rules altogether, then both of the readjustment approaches to reduplication within DM would obviously be undermined from the get-go. Nevertheless,Nevertheless, Siddiqi’s Siddiqi‘s approach approach is is not not universally universally adopted, and and in inthe the meantime meantime it is it is important toimportant consider toreadjustment consider readjustment approaches approaches as one as possibleone possible way way to accountto account for for reduplicativereduplicative morphology withinmorphology the theory within the of DM.theory We of DM will. We consider will consider the proposals the proposals of Raimy of Raimy (2000) (2000) and and Frampton (2009) inFrampton turn in (2009) sections in turn 3.1 in and sections 3.2, respectively,3.1 and 3.2, respective in lightly, of in our light discussion of our discussion of base-dependence of base- in the dependence in the Tawala durative. Tawala durative.

3.1. Raimy (2000): Precedence-Based Phonology (PBP) 3.1 Raimy (2000): Precedence-Based Phonology (PBP) Raimy (2000) proposes that reduplication occurs as a result of a readjustment operation Raimyinvolving (2000) re-linearization, proposes that where reduplication a (typically null) occurs affix as alters a result the precedence of a readjustment relationships operation involving re-linearization,between the phonological where a segments (typically of null) a given affix stem. alters Raimy‘s the precedence crucial mechanism relationships, linearization between, the phono- logicalis a phonological segments rule of a th givenat can stem.be ordered Raimy’s with respect crucial to mechanism, other phonological linearization, rules to yield is a phonological rule thatunder can- and be over ordered-application with effects. respect to other phonological rules to yield under- and over-application effects. Reduplication in PBP is derived by inserting a looping mechanism into the linear structureReduplication of a stem. in For PBP example, is derived in (20) by the inserting hypothetical a looping reduplicated mechanism form buku intobuku the is linear structure of aderived stem. via For a rule example, that places in (20) a precedence the hypothetical loop from the reduplicated final vowel of form a stringbuku backbuku to isthe derived first via a rule consonant of the stem buku (in Raimy‘s notation, # marks the beginning of a string, and % that places a precedence loop from the final vowel back to the first consonant of the stem buku (in marks the end of the string): Raimy’s notation, # marks the beginning of a string, and % marks the end of the string): (20) Full reduplication of the hypothetical phonological string: b-u-k-u (20) Reduplication of the hypothetical phonological string: b-u-k-u # → b → u → k → u → %

Linearizes to: # → b → u → k → u → b → u → k → u → %

Infinite loops are ruled out by economy—once a loop is followed it is ―satisfied‖. Inﬁnite loopsA major are issue ruled for outPBP by theory, economy–once at least as articulated a loop is in followed Raimy 2000, it is is “satisﬁed”. that it is prosody- free.A As major Frampton issue (2009) for PBP notes, theory, ―Segmental at least phonology as articulated can be extended in Raimy to 2000,[―Raimy is that it is prosody-free. AsRepresentations‖], Frampton (2009) but notes,prosodic “Segmental morphology phonology cannot be. Raimy can be doesn‘t extended even to attempt [“Raimy it. This Representations”], makes it impossible for an RR analysis of reduplication to incorporate insights of Prosodic but prosodic morphology cannot be. Raimy doesn’t even attempt it. This makes it impossible for Morphology that are central to many reduplicative processes‖ (p. 197). See also Haugen (2008: an60 RR-66) analysisfor related of discussion reduplication on the tonecessity incorporate of referring insights to p ofrosodic Prosodic structure Morphology to account thatfor are central to manyreduplication reduplicative in DM. processes” (p. 197). See also Haugen (2008: 60-66) for related discussion on the necessity of referring to prosodic structure to account for reduplication in DM. 3.1.1. An empirical problem for the PBP Theory: Reduplicative allomorphy in the Tawala 3.1.1 Andurative empirical problem for the PBP Theory: Reduplicative allomorphy in the Tawala durative Beyond the issue of prosody, PBP faces an empirical challenge in that it also seems unable to Beyondaccount thefor the issue phonological of prosody, regularity PBP of faces Tawala an durative empirical reduplication challenge without in that ad it-hoc also or seems unable to accountotherwise for stipulative the phonological mechanisms. regularity Following of TawalaEzard (1997), durative Hicks reduplication Kennard (2004), without Inkelas ad-hoc and or otherwise stipulativeZoll (2005), mechanisms. and Haugen and Following Hicks Kennard Ezard (2011), (1997), we Hickscan consid Kennarder the unmarked (2004), Inkelas pattern of and Zoll (2005), reduplication in the Tawala durative to be a full copy of the first two syllables (i.e. foot) of the and Haugen and Hicks Kennard (2011), we can consider the unmarked pattern of reduplication stem, as in ge.le-ge.le.ta ‗to arrive‘. This kind of pattern can be straightforwardly accounted for in PBP by having a readjustment operation add a jump link from the second vowel of the word back to the first consonant, in parallel to the hypothetical14 buku-buku case mentioned just above. This is demonstrated in (21):

(21) A correct prediction for the Tawala durative in PBP

# → g → e → l → e → t → a → %

Linearizes to: g-e-l-e-g-e-l-e-t-a

Nevertheless, Siddiqi‘s approach is not universally adopted, and in the meantime it is important to consider readjustment approaches as one possible way to account for reduplicative morphology within the theory of DM. We will consider the proposals of Raimy (2000) and Frampton (2009) in turn in sections 3.1 and 3.2, respectively, in light of our discussion of base- dependence in the Tawala durative.

3.1. Raimy (2000): Precedence-Based Phonology (PBP)

Raimy (2000) proposes that reduplication occurs as a result of a readjustment operation involving re-linearization, where a (typically null) affix alters the precedence relationships between the phonological segments of a given stem. Raimy‘s crucial mechanism, linearization, is a phonological rule that can be ordered with respect to other phonological rules to yield under- and over-application effects. Reduplication in PBP is derived by inserting a looping mechanism into the linear structure of a stem. For example, in (20) the hypothetical reduplicated form bukubuku is derived via a rule that places a precedence loop from the final vowel of a string back to the first consonant of the stem buku (in Raimy‘s notation, # marks the beginning of a string, and % marks the end of the string):

(20) Full reduplication of the hypothetical phonological string: b-u-k-u

# → b → u → k → u → %

Linearizes to: # → b → u → k → u → b → u → k → u → %

Infinite loops are ruled out by economy—once a loop is followed it is ―satisfied‖. A major issue for PBP theory, at least as articulated in Raimy 2000, is that it is prosody- free. As Frampton (2009) notes, ―Segmental phonology can be extended to [―Raimy Representations‖], but prosodic morphology cannot be. Raimy doesn‘t even attempt it. This makes it impossible for an RR analysis of reduplication to incorporate insights of Prosodic Morphology that are central to many reduplicative processes‖ (p. 197). See also Haugen (2008: 60-66) for related discussion on the necessity of referring to prosodic structure to account for reduplication in DM.

3.1.1. An empirical problem for the PBP Theory: Reduplicative allomorphy in the Tawala durative

Beyond the issue of prosody, PBP faces an empirical challenge in that it also seems unable to account for the phonological regularity of Tawala durative reduplication without ad-hoc or otherwiseJason stipulative D. Haugen mechanisms. Following Ezard (1997), Hicks Kennard3 THE (2004), READJUSTMENT Inkelas and APPROACH Zoll (2005), and Haugen and Hicks Kennard (2011), we can consider the unmarked pattern of reduplicationin the in Tawala the Tawala durative durative to to be be aa full full copy copy of of the the first ﬁrst two syllables two syllables (i.e. foot) (i.e. of the foot) of the stem, as in stem, asge.le in ge.le-ge.le.ta-ge.le.ta‘to ‗to arrive’. arrive‘. ThisThis kind kind of of pattern pattern can canbe straightforwardly be straightforwardly accounted accounted for for in PBP by in PBPhaving by having a a readjustment readjustment operation operation add add a jump a jumplink from link the from second the vowel second of the vowel word of the word back to back tothe the ﬁrstfirst consonant, consonant, in inparallel parallel to the to hypothetical the hypothetical buku-bukubuku case-buku mentionedcase mentionedjust above. just above. This is This is demonstrated in (21): demonstrated in (21): (21) A correct prediction for the Tawala durative in PBP (21) A correct prediction for the Tawala durative in PBP # → g → e → l → e → t → a → %

Linearizes to: g-e-l-e-g-e-l-e-t-a

So far so good, but the other allomorphs, which are phonologically-predictable variations on this pattern, will be highly problematic because the structural description for the application of different SojumpSo far far so link so good, good, specifications but but the the other other mustallomorphs, allomorphs, be based which which on are theare phonologically phonologically segmental content-predictable-predictable of the variations variations slots in on theon representation. thisConsiderthis pattern, pattern, thewill will be vowel-initial be highly highly problematic problematic and CV.V- because because initial the the structural structural cases fromdescription description (17b for and for the the c) application application above. Theof of readjustment differentSooperationdifferent far so jump good, jump adding link but link specificationsthe specifications a other jump allomorphs, link must must from be be whichbased the based second areon on thephonologically the segmental vowel segmental back content- predictablecontent to theof of the first the variations slots slots consonant in inthe onthe would wrongly representation. Consider the vowel-initial and CV.V- initial cases from (17-b and -c) above. thispredictrepresentation. pattern, forms will likebe Consider highly *a-t-u-t-u-n-a problematicthe vowel-initialand because * andb-e-i-b-e-i-h-a the CV.V structural- initial, description respectively:cases from for(17 the-b and application -c) above. of ThedifferentThe readjustment readjustment jump link operation specificationsoperation adding adding must a jumpa jumpbe basedlink link fro onfrom the mthe the segmental second second vowel vowelcontent back back of to the tothe slotsthe first first in the consonant would wrongly predict forms like *a-t-u-t-u-n-a and *b-e-i-b-e-i-h-a, respectively: representation.(22)consonantIncorrect would Consider wrongly predictions the predict vowel - forformsinitial other likeand *aCV.V cases-t-u--t -initialu of-n- thea cases and Tawala * fromb-e-i -(17b- durativee--bi- andh-a, -respectively:c) above. in PBP The readjustment operation adding a jump link from the second vowel back to the first (consonant22(22) ) IncorrectIncorrect would predictionswrongly predictions predict for for other formsother cases caseslike of*a of the-t -theu Tawala-t -Tawalau-n-a durative anddurative *b- ine- iniPBP-b PBP-e- i- h-a, respectively:

(a) ( 22 ) a.Incorrect a. # →# →predictions a →a → t → t → u for→u → othern →n → acases →a → % of % the Tawala durative in PBP

a. # → a → t → u → n → a → % LinearizesLinearizes to to *a*a-t--ut --ut --ut-un-na -a

b. (b) b. # →# → b →b → eLinearizes →e → i → i → h →h to → a →a*a → %-t -% u -t-u-n-a

b. # → b → e → i → h → a → % LinearizesLinearizes to to *b*b-e-ie--bi-be-ie--hi-ha -a

The The structural structural descriptions descriptionsLinearizes thatto that would *bwould-e- ihave-b have-e- toi- h tobe-a be added added for for these these cases cases would would need need to tobe be different different than than those those which which account account for for the the usual usual CVCV CVCV case; case; namely: namely: something something along along the the lines lines of ―addThe a jump structural link from descriptions the first consonant that wouldback to havethe first to vowel‖ be added (in the for cases these where cases the would need to be differentof ―addThe a thanjump structural thoselink from descriptions which the first account thatconsonant would for the backhave usual toto thebe CVCV addedfirst vowel‖ for case; these (in namely: casesthe cases would something where need the to along be the lines of worddifferentword is isvowel thanvowel -thoseinitial;-initial; which cf. cf. a- accountta--at-ta--ut-un -forna);-a); theand, and, usual quite quite CVCV oddly oddly case;in ilightn light namely: of of the the somethingarchitecture architecture along of of PBP thePBP lines “add a jump link from the first consonant back to the first vowel” (in the cases where the word is theory,oftheory, ―add ―add a ―addjump a jumpa link jump fromlink link from the from first the the firstconsonant first consonant consonant back to to tothe the the second first second vowel‖ vowel, vowel, (in then thethen backcases back to where tothe the first thefirst consonant‖wordvowel-initial;consonant‖ is vowel (in (in- thoseinitial;cf. those a-t-a-t-u-n-a); cases cf. cases a -wheret- wherea-t-u there-n there-a); and, are and, are quitetwo quitetwo vowels oddlyvowels oddly in ini innsequence light sequence of of theafter the after architecture the architecture the first first consonant). consonant).of PBP of PBP theory, “add a Thetheory,jumpThe oddness oddness link―add fromofa jumpof this this the latter link latter first frompossib possib consonant theility ilityfirst is isconsonantshown toshown the in insecond( 23to (23 ):the ): secondvowel, vowel, then backthen back to the to the first first consonant” (in those consonant‖cases where (in therethose cases are two where vowels there inare sequence two vowels after in sequence the first after consonant). the first consonant). The oddness of this latter Thepossibility oddness isof shownthis latter in possib (23):ility is shown in (23): ( 23(23) ) # →# → b →b → e →e → i → i → h →h → a →a → % % (23) (23 ) # → b → e → i → h → a → % LinearizesLinearizes to :to b: - bi--bi-be-ie--hi-ha - a

ThisThis case case also also raises raisesLinearizes the the issue issue to :of bof -whichi -whichb-e- ilink-h link-a from from the the initial initial consonant consonant should should be be followed followed first first, , to torule rule out out potential potential forms forms like like *b *b-e-ie--bi-bi--hi-ha.- a. This caseThe Thealso final finalraises allomorph allomorph the issue of of the whichthe Tawala Tawala link durative fromdurative the, where ,initial where a consonant sequencea sequence ofshould of two two identicalbe identical followed syllables syllables first, fails to reduplicate (as in totogo ‗be sick‘ → tootogo), would require some kind of mechanism tofails rule toout reduplicate potential forms(as in liketotogo *b -‗bee-i- sick‘b-i-h -→a. tootogo),15 would require some kind of mechanism to toidentify identifyThe the thefinal word word allomorph-initial-initial adjacent adjacentof the Tawalaidentical identical durative syllables, syllables,, where and and requirea sequencerequire some some of kind two kind ofidentical of repair repair syllables operationfailsoperation to reduplicate or or some some such, (as such, in because totogo because ‗bethe the sick‘default default → readjustment tootogo readjustment), would of of ―add require ―add a linka somelink from from kind the the of second mechanismsecond vowel vowel backtoback identify to tothe the thefirst first word consonant‖ consonant‖-initial adjacentshould should yield identical yield unattested unattested syllables, forms forms and such requiresuch as as t- someot-ot--ot- otkind--ot-ot- -ooft-og repair-go:- o: operation or some such, because the default readjustment of ―add a link from the second vowel (back24(24) Another )to Another the first incorrect incorrect consonant‖ prediction prediction should using yieldusing PBP unattestedPBP forms such as t-o-t-o-t-o-t-o-g-o:

( 24 ) # Another →# → t → t → incorrecto →o → t → t → predictiono →o → g →g → ousing →o → % PBP %

# → t → o → t → o → g → o → % ShouldShould linearize linearize to :to t:- ot-ot--ot-ot--ot-ot--ot-og-go- o

TheThe actual actual surface surfaceShould form, form, linearize tootogo, tootogo, tocan :can tbe-o be- tderived- oderived-t-o-t -viao -viag the-o the addition addition of of a selfa self-directed,-directed, reflexiv reflexive e link link added added to tothe the first first vowel, vowel, as as follows: follows: The actual surface form, tootogo, can be derived via the addition of a self-directed, reflexive (link25(25) added)# →# → t to→ t →the o →o first → t → tvowel, → o →o → gas →g follows: → o →o → % %

(25) # → t → oL →inearizeL inearizet → os → tos :tog t:→- ot -o -→ot--ot %-og -go- o

Linearizes to: t-o-o-t-o-g-o

So far so good, but the other allomorphs, which are phonologically-predictable variations on Sothis far pattern,so good, will but bethe highly other problematicallomorphs, whichbecause are the phonologically structural description-predictable for thevariations application on of thisdifferent pattern, jump will belink highly specifications problematic must because be based the on structural the segmental description content for of the the application slots in the of differentrepresentation. jump link Consider specifications the vowel must-initial be based and onCV.V the -segmental initial cases content from of(17 the-b andslots - cin) above.the representation.The readjustment Consider operation the vowel adding-initial a jump and link CV.V from- initial the second cases vowelfrom (17 back-b andto the -c )first above. Theconsonant readjustment would operation wrongly addingpredict a forms jump likelink *afro-tm-u the-t-u second-n-a and vowel *b-e -backi-b-e to-i- hthe-a ,first respectively: consonant would wrongly predict forms like *a-t-u-t-u-n-a and *b-e-i-b-e-i-h-a, respectively: (22) Incorrect predictions for other cases of the Tawala durative in PBP (22 ) Incorrect predictions for other cases of the Tawala durative in PBP a. # → a → t → u → n → a → % a. # → a → t → u → n → a → %

Linearizes to *a-t-u -t-u-n-a Linearizes to *a-t-u -t-u-n-a b. # → b → e → i → h → a → % b. # → b → e → i → h → a → %

Linearizes to *b-e-i-b-e-i-h-a Linearizes to *b-e-i-b-e-i-h-a The structural descriptions that would have to be added for these cases would need to be differentThe than structural those which descriptions account that for would the usual have CVCV to be addedcase; namely: for these something cases would along need the to lines be differentof ―add than a jump those link which from account the first for consonant the usual back CVCV to the case; first namely: vowel‖ something(in the cases along where the the lines ofword ―add isa jumpvowel link-initial; from cf. the a- firstt-a-t -consonantu-n-a); and, back quite to oddlythe first in vowel‖light of (inthe the architecture cases where of PBPthe wordtheory, is vowel ―add- initial;a jump cf.link a -fromt-a-t- uthe-n -firsta); and, consonant quite oddly to the in second light of vowel, the architecture then back toof thePBP first theory,consonant‖ ―add a (in jump those link cases from where the first there consonant are two vowelsto the second in sequence vowel, after then the back first to consonant).the first consonant‖The oddness (in ofthose this cases latter where possib thereility isare shown two vowels in (23): in sequence after the first consonant). The oddness of this latter possibility is shown in (23):

(23) # → b → e → i → h → a → % (23 ) # → b → e → i → h → a → %

Jason D. HaugenLinearizes to: b-i-b-e-i-h-a 3 THE READJUSTMENT APPROACH

This case also raisesLinearizes the issueto: b-i of-b- whiche-i-h-a link from the initial consonant should be followed first, to This case also raises the issue of which link from the initial consonant should be followed first, rule out potential forms like *b-e-i-b-i-h-a. Thisto rulecase out also potential raises the forms issue like of which*b-e-i -linkb-i-h from-a. the initial consonant should be followed first, to ruleThe out finalThe potential allomorph final allomorphforms oflike the of*b the- Tawalae-i -Tawalab-i-h durative,-a .durative , where where aa sequence of of two two identical identical syllables syllables fails to reduplicate fails toThe reduplicate (asfinal in allomorphtotogo (as in‘be totogo of sick’the ‗be Tawala→ sick‘tootogo durative→ tootogo), would, where), would require a sequence require some ofsome kindtwo kind identical of mechanismof mechanism syllables to identify the word-initialfailsto identifyto reduplicate adjacentthe word (as- initialin identical totogo adjacent ‗be syllables, sick‘ identical → tootogo and syllables, require), would and some require kind somesome of kindkind repair ofof mechanismrepair operation or some such, becauseto operationidentify the the or default wordsome- initialsuch, readjustment becauseadjacent the identical of default “add syllables, areadjustment link from and therequireof ―add second some a link vowel kind from of backthe repair second to the vowel first consonant” back to the first consonant‖ should yield unattested forms such as t-o-t-o-t-o-t-o-g-o: shouldoperation yield or some unattested such, because forms the such default as t-o-t-o-t-o-t-o-g-o: readjustment of ―add a link from the second vowel back to the first consonant‖ should yield unattested forms such as t-o-t-o-t-o-t-o-g-o: (24) Another incorrect prediction using PBP (24) Another incorrect prediction using PBP (24 ) Another incorrect prediction using PBP # → t → o → t → o → g → o → % # → t → o → t → o → g → o → %

Should linearize to: t-o-t-o-t-o-t-o-g-o Should linearize to: t-o-t-o-t-o-t-o-g-o The actual surface form, tootogo, can be derived via the addition of a self-directed, reflexive The actual surface form, tootogo, can be derived via the addition of a self-directed, reﬂexive link Thelink actual added surface to the form,first vowel, tootogo, as canfollows: be derived via the addition of a self-directed, reflexive added to the ﬁrst vowel, as follows: link added to the first vowel, as follows: (25) # → t → o → t → o → g → o → % (25)(25 ) # → t → o → t → o → g → o → % Linearizes to: t-o-o-t-o-g-o Linearizes to: t-o-o-t-o-g-o

However, merely stipulating that the durative form of some Roots readjusts through this kind of addition to the linearization of the Root would miss the phonological regularity of the pattern. Thus, while PBP was proposed to be a theory of phonology-morphology interaction within DM (contra Embick’s Black Box approach), it does not easily lend itself to a non-ad-hoc account of cases of base-dependence involving prosodic information such as syllable structure. In sum, the point here has been that the Tawala durative, which expresses reduplicative allomorphy of a completely phonologically predictable nature, cannot be given a straightforward and uniﬁed analysis within PBP as presented in Raimy 2000. We now turn to a more recent DM-based readjustment theory of reduplication, DR, where we will see that it too runs afoul of the Tawala durative reduplication data.

3.2 Frampton (2009): Distributed Reduplication (DR) Frampton’s DR is an improved DM-based theory which actually makes use of prosody, but only in certain cases (e.g. particularly when certain prosodic constituents can also serve as morphological constituents, e.g. prosodic feet which can serve as prosodic words). In DR, the stem-readjustment operation does not involve relinearization as in Raimy’s theory, but instead involves the insertion of transcription junctures into the timing tier of the stem, ultimately resulting in multiple links to the segmental material of the stem (i.e. “long-distance geminates”). Transcription can involve duplication junctures (illustrated with square brackets), or truncation junctures (illustrated with angled brackets). Thus, the morphology adds junctures into the post-syntactic, post-morphological phonological structure to yield the eﬀect of reduplication. An example of how this process works is shown in (26):

16 However, merely stipulating that the durative form of some Roots readjusts through this kind of However, merely stipulating that the durative form of some Roots readjusts through this kind of However,addition to merely the linearization stipulating of that the the Root durative would form miss of the some phonological Roots readjusts regularity through of the this pattern. kind of Thus,addition while to the PBP linearization was proposed of the to beRoot a theory would of miss phonology the phonological-morphology regularity interaction of the within pattern. DM Thus,addition while to the PBP linearization was proposed of the to beRoot a theory would of miss phonology the phonological-morphology regularity interaction of the within pattern. DM Thus,(contra while Embick‘s PBP wasBlack proposed Box approach), to be a theory it does of not phonology easily lend-morphology itself to a noninteraction-ad-hoc withinaccount DM of cases(contra of Embick‘s base-dependence Black Box involving approach), prosodic it does information not easily lendsuch itselfas syllable to a non structure-ad-hoc. account of cases(contra of Embick‘s base-dependence Black Box involving approach), prosodic it does information not easily lendsuch itselfas syllable to a non structure-ad-hoc. account of cases of Inbase sum,-dependence the point hereinvolving has been prosodic that the information Tawala durative, such as whichsyllable expresses structure reduplicative. allomorphy In s um,of a thecompletely point here phonologically has been that predictablethe Tawala nature,durative, cannot which be expresses given a reduplicative allomorphy In s um,of a thecompletely point here phonologically has been that predictablethe Tawala nature,durative, cannot which be expresses given a reduplicative allomorphystraightforward of a andcompletely unified analysisphonologically within PBPpredictable as presented nature, in cannot Raimy be 2000. given We a now turn to a morestraightforward recent DM and-based unified readjustment analysis withintheory PBPof reduplication, as presented DR,in Raimy where 2000. we will We see now that turn it too to a morestraightforward recent DM and-based unified readjustment analysis withintheory PBPof reduplication, as presented DR,in Raimy where 2000. we will We see now that turn it too to a moreruns afoul recent of DM the -Tawalabased readjustment durative reduplication theory of reduplication, data. DR, where we will see that it too runs afoul of the Tawala durative reduplication data. runs afoul of the Tawala durative reduplication data. 3.2. Frampton (2009): Distributed Reduplication (DR) 3.2. Frampton (2009): Distributed Reduplication (DR) 3.2. Frampton (2009): Distributed Reduplication (DR) Frampton‘s DR is an improved DM-based theory which actually makes use of prosody, but only inFrampton‘s certain cases DR (e.g.is an particularlyimproved DM when-based certain theory prosodic which constituents actually makes can usealso of serve prosody as , but only inFrampton‘s certain cases DR (e.g.is an particularlyimproved DM when-based certain theory prosodic which constituents actually makes can usealso of serve prosody as , but only inmorphological certain cases constituents, (e.g. particularly e.g. prosodicwhen certain feet whichprosodic can constituents serve as prosodic can also words). serve as morphologicalIn DR, constituents,the stem-readjustment e.g. prosodic operation feet which does can not serveinvolve as relinearizationprosodic words). as in Raimy‘s morphologicalIn DR, constituents,the stem-readjustment e.g. prosodic operation feet which does can not serveinvolve as relinearizationprosodic words). as in Raimy‘s theory, butIn DR,instead the involvesstem-readjustment the insertion operation of ‗transcription does not involve junctures‘ relinearization into the timing as in tier Raimy‘s of the stem,theory, ultimately but instead resulting involves in themultiple insertion links of to ‗transcription the segmental junc matures‘terial intoof the the stem timing (i.e. tier ―long of the- stem,theory, ultimately but instead resulting involves in themultiple insertion links of to ‗transcription the segmental junc matures‘terial intoof the the stem timing (i.e. tier ―long of the- stem,distance ultimately geminates‖). resulting Transcription in multiple can links involve to the duplication segmental majuncturesterial of (illustrated the stem (i.e. with ―long square- brackets),distance gemin or truncationates‖). Transcription junctures (illustrated can involve with duplication angled brackets). junctures Thus, (illustrated the morphology with square adds brackets),distance gemin or truncationates‖). Transcription junctures (illustrated can involve with duplication angled brackets). junctures Thus, (illustrated the morphology with square adds brackets),junctures into or truncation the post-syntactic, junctures post (illustrated-morphological with angled phonological brackets). structure Thus, the to morphology yield the effect adds Jasonofjunctures D. reduplication. Haugen into the An post example-syntactic, of howpost -thismorphological process works phonological3 is THE shown READJUSTMENT in structure (26): to yield the APPROACH effect ofjunctures reduplication. into the An post example-syntactic, of howpost -thismorphological process works phonological is shown in structure (26): to yield the effect (26) Distributedof reduplication. Reduplication An example of how (Frampton this process 2009: works 5, is ex.shown 3) in (26): (26) Distributed Reduplication (Frampton 2009: 5, ex. 3) (26) Distributed Reduplication (Frampton 2009: 5, ex. 3) ((a)26) Distributed Reduplication (Frampton 2009: 5, ex. 3)

(b)

(c)

The creation of long-distance geminates results in a violation of the No-Crossing Constraint (NCC),The creation as shown of long in -(distance26-b), but geminates this can beresults rectified in a laterviolation in the of derivation the No-Crossing, through Constraint what (NCC),The creation as shown of long in -(distance26-b), but geminates this can beresults rectified in a laterviolation in the of derivation the No-Crossing, through Constraint what The creationFrampton of ref long-distanceers to as ―NCC geminates Repair‖, results or NCCR in a. This violation is shown of the in ( No-Crossing26-c). Various Constraint phonological (NCC), Frampton(NCC), as refshowners to in as ( 26―NCC-b), but Repair‖, this can or beNCCR rectified. This later is shown in the inderivation (26-c). Various, through phonological what as shownrules in can (26b), apply but before this NCCR can be so rectified that they later can affect in the either derivation, or both of through the twins what in t Framptonhe long- refers rulesFrampton can apply refers before to as ―NCC NCCR Repair‖, so that theyor NCCR can affect. This either is shown or both in ( 26of -thec). Varioustwins in phonologicalthe long- to as “NCCrulesdistance can Repair”, geminate. apply before or NCCR. NCCR This so that is shown they ca inn (26c).affect either Various or both phonological of the twins rules in t canhe long apply- before distanceThe geminate. insertion of duplication junctures delimits which potential sub-portion of a stem is NCCR distance so thatThe geminate. they insertion can affect of duplication either or junctures both of the delimits twins which in the potential long-distance sub-portion geminate. of a stem is The able insertion to beThe copied ofinsertion duplication in the of reduplication duplication junctures junctures process. delimits delimitsThis which can which potentialbe either potential a sub-portion morphological sub-portion of aor of stem a a prosodic stem is ableis to constituent,able to be copied but Frampton in the reduplication stipulates th process.at prosodic This constituents can be either must a morphological be limited to ―s orub a- words‖prosodic be copiedable into thebe copied reduplication in the reduplication process. This process. can be This either can a bemorphological either a morphologicalor a prosodic or a prosodicconstituent, ofconstituent, the stem, butsuch Frampton as feet (p.11, stipulates p. 40). th Thus,at prosodic prosodic constituents constituents must can be be limited targeted to ―siffub they-words‖ can but Framptonofconstituent, the stem, stipulates butsuch Frampton as thatfeet (p.11, prosodic stipulates p. 40). constituents th Thus,at prosodic prosodic must constituents constituents be limited must tocan be “sub-words” be limited targeted to ―siff ofub thethey-words‖ stem, can such ofalso the be stem, morphological such as feet constituents (p.11, p. 40)., e.g. Thus, feet, prosodic which can constituents serve as Minimal can be targeted Words. Thisiff they accounts can as feetforalso (p.11, the be wellmorphological p.40).-known Thus, pattern prosodicconstituents of reduplication constituents, e.g. feet, in which canYidiny be can targetedwhere serve reduplication asiff Minimalthey can Wordsfully also copies. beThis morphological theaccounts first constituents,foralso the be wellmorphological e.g.-known feet, which pattern constituents can of serve reduplication, as e.g. Minimal feet, in which Yidiny Words. can where serve This reduplication accountsas Minimal for Wordsfully the well-knowncopies. This theaccounts first pattern for the well-known pattern of reduplication in Yidiny where reduplication fully copies the first of reduplication in Yidiny where reduplication fully copies the first two syllables (i.e. foot) of the stem, and segments beyond that are beyond the domain for copying:

(27) Yidiny Disyllabic Reduplication (Dixon (1977), cited in ?) a. kin.tal.pa ‘lizard sp.’ → kin.tal.kin.tal.pa *kin.ta.kin.tal.pa b. mu.la.ri ‘initiated man’ → mu.la.mu.la.ri *mu.lar.mu.la.ri

(28) a. [kin.tal].pa → kin.tal.kin.tal.pa *kin.ta.kin.tal.pa b. [mu.la].ri → mu.la.mu.la.ri *mu.lar.mu.la.ri

Frampton “proposes that landmarks in the stem that can be used to define juncture insertion sites do not include prosodic constituent boundaries, but are restricted to notions like ‘before/after the leftmost/rightmost vowel’ and ‘leftmost/rightmost edge’ ” (pp. 10-11). See Haugen (2010) for discussion of potential problems with this perspective, since it is designed to rule out “syllable copy” effects that may actually exist in some languages, including Hiaki. Frampton accounts for syllable weight effects in reduplication, e.g. light vs. heavy syllable reduplicants, with the process that he terms prosodic adjustment. With prosodic adjustment one

17 two syllables (i.e. foot) of the stem, and segments beyond that are beyond the domain for copying:

(27) Yidiny Disyllabic Reduplication (Dixon 1977, cited in McCarthy and Prince 1986) a. kin.tal.pa ‗lizard sp.‘ → kin.tal.kin.tal.pa *kin.ta.kin.tal.pa b. mu.la.ri ‗initiated man‘ → mu.la.mu.la.ri *mu.lar.mu.la.ri

(28) a. [kin.tal].pa → kin.tal.kin.tal.pa *kin.ta.kin.tal.pa b. [mu.la].ri → mu.la.mu.la.ri *mu.lar.mu.la.ri

Frampton ―proposes that landmarks in the stem that can be used to define juncture insertion sites do not include prosodic constituent boundaries, but are restricted to notions like ‗before/after the leftmost/rightmost vowel‘ and ‗leftmost/rightmost edge‘‖ (pp. 10-11). See Haugen (2010) for discussion of potential problems with this perspective, since it is designed to rule out ―syllable copy‖ effects that may actually exist in some languages, including Hiaki. Jason D. HaugenFrampton accounts for syllable weight effects in reduplication,3 THE READJUSTMENT e.g. light vs. heavy APPROACH syllable reduplicants, with the process that he terms prosodic adjustment. With prosodic edgeadjustment of a duplication one edge of juncture a duplication ( i.e. juncture “[” or ( “]” i.e. )― is[ ― shifted or ― ] ‖ to) is theshifted left to or the right left or in right order in to create a desiredorder outputto create goal, a desired e.g. output a heavy goal, syllable e.g. a heavy reduplicant syllable reduplicant as in Ilocano as inpu.sa Ilocano‘cat pu.sa→ pus‗cat‘.-pu.sa ‘cats’. This→ ispus shown.-pu.sa in ‗cats‘ (29):. This is shown in (29):

(29)(29Prosodic) Prosodic Adjustment Adjustment (Frampton (Frampton 2009: 2009:7, ex. 7) 7, ex. 7) σμ σμμ

Juncture Insertion 2 Prosodic Adjustment 9 × × × × → [× ×] × × → [× × ×] × | | | | | | | | | | | | p u s a p u s a p u s a

It is crucial to note here that, contra Embick‘s proposal that DM should be ―a theory It ismorphology crucial to without note here teleolo that,gy‖, contra such output Embick’s goals, proposal whether prosodic that DM or shouldotherwise, be crucially “a theory of morphol- ogymust without involve teleology”, ―morphology such with output teleology‖! goals, It is whether not clear, prosodic then, that or DR otherwise, as proposed crucially in must involve Frampton 2009 is readily compatible with the model of DM with Black Box Phonology as “morphologyenvisioned inwith Embiteleology”!ck 2010. It is not clear, then, that DR as proposed in Frampton 2009 is readily compatible As with discussed the model in more of detail DM in with Haugen Black (2010), Box PhonologyDR is a chimerical as envisioned theory incorporating in Embick 2010. aAs range discussed of mechanisms in more from detail both in derivational Haugen (2010), phonology DR (in is athe chimerical sense of Chomsky theory incorporatingand Halle a range of mechanisms1968) and constraint from both-based derivational approaches, and phonology it may therefore (in the vastly sense ove ofr Chomsky-generate unattested and Halle (1968)) and constraint-basedreduplication patterns. approaches, The mechanisms and it may of DR therefore include at vastly least the over-generate following: the unattested previously reduplication patterns.mentioned The juncture mechanisms insertion ofrules, DR where include junctures at least of both the duplication following: and the truncation previously types mentioned junc- turemay insertion be inserted rules, into wherea representation junctures (without of both a typology duplication of possible and interactions truncation between types maythe be inserted intotwo); a representation transcription rules; (without adjustment a typology operations; of possible conditions interactions and/or cons betweentraints on thepossible two juncture types); outputs (e.g. ―Onset Permanence‖, see Haugen 2010 for discussion and critique), with no transcriptionmention of whether rules; adjustment these are conceived operations; to be universal, conditions rankable, and/or and constraints/or violable on (a possiblela outputs (e.g. “OnsetOptimality Permanence”, Theory); cycles see Haugenof derivation; 2010 rule for schema discussion which and may critique), contain unordered with no rules mention of whether theseand/or are r conceivedanked rules; to overtly be universal, teleological rankable, goal-driven and/or rules ( violablewith output (a goals la Optimality such as ―heavy Theory); cycles of derivation;syllable‖, rule―C-finality‖, schema etc. which); and may some contain unexplained unordered Evaluation rules Metric and/or to ranked measure rules; potential overtly teleological goal-drivenoutput candidates rules (with for their output ‗optimality‘ goals suchwith respect as “heavy to their syllable”, obeisance “C-finality”, to the rule-ranking etc.); (cf. and some unex- plainedFrampton Evaluation 2009: 91 Metric-92, 143) to. measure potential output candidates for their optimality with respect to their obeisanceOn the conceptual to the rule-ranking level, I would (cf. suggest Frampton that a the 2009:ory which 91-92, can 143). account for reduplication without the use of the many ad-hoc mechanisms invoked by Frampton should be On the conceptual level, I would suggest that a theory which can account for reduplication preferred to one which necessitates them. On an empirical level, like Raimy‘s PBP, DR as withoutcurrently the configured use of the also many seems ad-hoc to be unable mechanisms to offer invokeda unified byanalysis Frampton of phonologically should be-based preferred to one whichreduplicative necessitates allomorphy them. Onin the an Tawala empirical durative. level, We like now Raimy’s turn to see PBP, why DR this as is currentlythe case. configured also seems to be unable to offer a unified analysis of phonologically-based reduplicative allomorphy in the Tawala durative. We now turn to see why this is the case.

3.2.1 An Empirical Problem for DR: Reduplicative allomorphy in the Tawala durative Inkelas and Zoll (2005) propose an account of the Tawala durative without base-dependence wherein the apparent “reduplicant” is a stem which is a sister to a semantically identical stem in a compounding construction, but where the former stem, the “Doppelgänger”(i.e. the “reduplicant”), is subject to its own truncation-inducing co-phonology. This special co-phonology reduces the Doppelgänger,but not its sister, to a foot-sized output. We can apply a similar approach in DR by attempting to derive the variant Tawala durative reduplication forms from the standard disyllabic case. In DR, following typical analyses presented by Frampton 2009, we can add a duplication juncture to the right edge of the first foot of the stem,

18 Jason D. Haugen 3 THE READJUSTMENT APPROACH thus delimiting the ﬁrst two syllables as the domain for reduplication-inducing transcription, as in (30), which abstracts away from the X-slot representation since that will not be relevant here:

(30) Stem Juncture Insertion Expected Output Actual Output a. ge.le.ta → [ge.le].ta ge.le.ge.le.ta ge.le.ge.le.ta b. a.tu.na → [a.tu].na *a.tu.a.tu.na a.ta.tu.na c. be.i.ha → [be.i].ta *be.i.be.i.ha bi.be.i.ha d. to.to.go → [to.to].go *to.to.to.to.go to.o.to.go

This approach captures the default CVCV cases like gele-geleta quite well, but with no other phonological processes being invoked it wrongly predicts incorrect forms for the other allomorphs, cf. (30b-d). What sorts of additional processes might yield the actual output results? And can these lead to a unified analysis of the four different durative allomorphs within DR? Inkelas and Zoll account for the (30b) cases by positing a rule of vowel elision: when there is a sequence of two vowels V1V2,V1 deletes in favor of V2–thus, the compounding of the truncated stem atu with the non-truncated full stem atuna would yield an intermediate stage of atu-atuna, and the Elision rule would then reduce that to the attested form atatuna. DR, which is fundamentally derivational, could easily posit a similar rule of Elision as an operation applying after transcription to yield the same result. A problem for the DR account arises, however, for the (30c) forms like beiha. Given (30c) above, the expected output form should be be.i-be.i.ha. The Inkelas and Zoll-esque Elision rule would rightfully reduce the reduplication form to the attested output bi-, but there is nothing to prevent this same elision from happening in the unreduplicated stem, beiha (which, by Elision, ought to be *bi.ha; the final reduplicated word should therefore be *bi-biha). The fundamental problem here is that the Elision rule in Tawala actually only applies to the reduplicant in this situation, it does not apply to the base. This will remain a problem for any theory which does not privilege a distinction between a base and its reduplicant, a trait shared by PBP, DR, and even MDT. The crucial insight of the unified analysis of the Tawala durative posited by Hicks Kennard (2004) is that the different forms of reduplication emerge as a result of the emergence of the unmarked (TETU), where base-reduplicant faithfulness is not as important as avoiding the violation of a markedness constraint (here, *Repeat[σ], which is violated by sequences of identical syllables); input-output faithfulness, on the other hand, is more important (i.e. is ranked higher) than this markedness constraint, so violations are allowed to occur in that environment in stems which get their identity from correspondence to the input (cf. the existence of stems like totogo and similar examples in (17d) above), in contrast to the ban on such outputs within reduplicants, which get their identity from correspondence to their base. That is, elision in the Tawala durative, and TETU effects generally, necessitate the recognition of “reduplicant” as a type of morpheme which is differentiable from, and able to undergo different morphological processes than, stems (“bases”), which get their identity through an input-output relationship rather than a surface-oriented base- reduplicant relationship. Finally, beyond this, note that the transcription of the first foot with a duplication juncture would not lead to any natural account for stems like totogo in (30d), where only if there is already a sequence of two identical syllables reduplication fails to apply at all, and vowel-lengthening occurs instead. Like the PBP account, and the MDT account as well for that matter, the DR account does not seem to be able to account for the Tawala durative in a unified manner. This puts it at a disadvantage to the Correspondence Theoretic approach provided by Hicks Kennard (2004),

19 Finally, beyond this, note that the transcription of the first foot with a duplication juncture would not lead to any natural account for stems like totogo in 30-d, where only if there Jason D. Haugen 4 THE AFFIXATION APPROACH is already a sequence of two identical syllables reduplication fails to apply at all, and vowel- 4 wholengthening accounts occurs forthe instead. data Like as standard-issue the PBP account, TETU and the with MDT no account new stipulations as well for that or mechanisms being invoked.matter, the3 DR account does not seem to be able to account for the Tawala durative in a unified manner.How wouldThis puts a Correspondenceit at a disadvantage Theoretic to the Correspondence account like Theoretic Hicks Kennards approach provided be compatible by with DM, Hicks Kennard (2004), who accounts for the data as standard-issue TETU with no new though? We turn to address this important question in the next section. stipulations or mechanisms being invoked. How would a Correspondence Theoretic account like Hicks Kennard‘s be compatible 4with ContrastingDM, though? We turn Approaches to address this important to Reduplicationquestion in the next section. within DM II: The

Affixation Approach 4. Contrasting Approaches to Reduplication within DM II: The Affixation Approach Following Marantz (1982), McCarthy and Prince (1986, 1995), and much other work from a variety ofFollowing differing Marantz frameworks, (1982), HaugenMcCarthy 2008 and Prince proposes (1986 an, 1995 affixation-based) and much other approach work from to a reduplication for DM,variety wherein of differing the reduplicativeframeworks, Haugen copy of2008 a stem proposes is taken an affixation to be an-based affixal approach morpheme to in its own right, i.e.reduplication “Red”. Haugen for DM, 2008wherein proposes the reduplicative a model ofcopy DM of wherea stem isRed takenis to a specialbe an affixal type of VI which gets its phonologicalmorpheme in contentits own right, via correspondencei.e. ―RED‖. Haugen with 2008 some proposes morphological a model of DM base, where as isRED standardly is a assumed special type of VI which gets its phonological content via correspondence with some in Correspondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1995/1999). The base itself, in contrast, gets its morphological base, as is standardly assumed in Correspondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince phonological1995/1999). The identity base itself, from in an contrast, input representation.gets its phonological identity from an input representation.The basic approach of Haugen 2008 is to derive morphological representations via syntactic derivation The via basic standard approach DM of assumptions,Haugen 2008 is while to derive letting morphological the morpho-phonological representations via expression of VI’s, whichsyntactic takes derivation place aftervia standard Vocabulary DM assumptions, Insertion occurs while let asting a resultthe morpho of Spell-Out,-phonological be worked out at the PFexpression interface of VI via‘s, input-output which takes place correspondence after Vocabulary as I innsertion Correspondence occurs as a result Theory. of Spell Put-Out, slightly differently,be worked the ideaout at isthe that PF interface Correspondence via input-output Theory correspondence needs a systematic as in Correspondence account of possible inputs to OT-tableau,Theory. Put slightly and that differently, these inputs the idea are is createdthat Corres viapondence syntactic Theory derivation, needs a whichsystematic could include localist account of possible inputs to OT-tableau, and that these inputs are created via syntactic andderivation, cyclic restrictionswhich could include on allomorph-selection localist and cyclic restrictions as proposed on allomorph in Embick-selection 2010. as Thus, Morphological Structure,proposed in which Embick in 2010. standard Thus, DMMorpholog architectureical Structure, mediates which (i.e. in standard serves asDM an architecture interface between) syn- tacticmediates structures (i.e. serves and as Phonologicalan interface between) Form, getssyntactic its ownstructures structure and Phonological from syntactic Form derivation, gets (so-called “morphosyntax”),its own structure from receives syntactic its derivation phonological (so-called make-up ―morphosyntax‖), via Vocabulary receives Insertion its once Vocabulary Itemsphonological (VIs) are make inserted-up via intoVocabulary syntactic Insertion nodes once to discharge Vocabulary syntactic Items (VIs) features are inserted (“Spell-out” into and “Late Insertion”),syntactic nodes and to thendischarge allows syntactic phonological features processes,(―Spell-out‖ including and ―Late theInsertion‖), expression and then of prosodic morphol- ogyallows like phonological mora affixation processes, and including reduplication, the expression to interact of prosodic with morphology the morphology like mora at the level of PF (so-calledaffixation “morphophonology”).and reduplication, to interact The with general the morphology picture illustrating at the level the of PF domains (so-called of the two theoretical ―morphophonology‖). The general picture illustrating the domains of the two theoretical architecturesarchitectures which which I propose I propose to integrate to integrate is provided is provided in (31): in (31):

(31)(31) MorphologyMorphology at the at Interfaces: the Interfaces: Blending DM Blending with an OT DM-based with model an of OT-based PF model of PF

Syntax M orphology Phonology

DM CORRESPONDENCE THEORY

The upshot of this blended model is that this integration of theoretical frameworks presents CorrespondenceThe upshot Theory of this with blended an overt model but delimitable is that this theory integration of possible of morphosyntactic theoretical frameworks inputs presents Correspondence(including the mechanics Theory of with allomorph an overt selection but delimitablenicely clarified theory by Embick of possible 2010), while morphosyntactic inputs (includingproviding DM the with mechanics a theory ofof allomorphoutput relations selection that include nicelys a clariﬁed ―horizontal‖ by Embick(i.e. base- 2010), while providing

3 Note also that Hicks Kennard’s constraint * also neatly serves to help explain the variation in the other 4 Repeat[σ] diﬀerent Note also reduplication that Hicks Kennard‘s types as well, constraint since each*Repeat ofσ the also diﬀerent serves to reduplication help explain the types variation could logicallyin the other result in identical adjacentdifferent syllables reduplication but eachtypes fails as well, to do since so: each e.g. *ofge the-ge.le.ta different*be reduplication-be.i.ha *a-a.pu types, etc. could logically result in identical adjacent syllables but each fails to do so: e.g. *ge-ge.le.ta *be-be.i.ha *a-a.pu, etc.

20 Jason D. Haugen 4 THE AFFIXATION APPROACH DM with a theory of output relations that includes a “horizontal” (i.e. base-reduplicant) relation- shipreduplicant) in order relationship to account in order for surface to account form-oriented for surface form morphological-oriented morphological processes processes such as reduplication (andsuch otheras reduplication prosodic (and morphology, other prosodic e.g. morphology, mora aﬃxation, e.g. mora etc.). affixation, etc.). reduplicant)OneOne area area where relationship where Haugen Haugen in order 2008 2008 to diﬀers accountdiffers from from for surface standardstandard form work work-oriented in inCorrespondence Correspondence morphological Theory processes Theory is is that the such as reduplication (and other prosodic morphology, e.g. mora affixation, etc.). receivedthat the received version version of the theoryof the theory maintains maintains that that the the Input-Output Input-Output relation relation is one is one wherein wherein the “base” the ―base‖One for reduplicationarea where Haugen is (usually 2008 only differs assumed from standardto be) the work entire in oCorrespondenceutput in correspondence Theory is forthat reduplication the received is version (usually of the only theory assumed maintains to be) that the the entire Input-Output output relation in correspondence is one wherein with an input, aswith per an the input, “Full as per of Model”the ―Full ofof McCarthyModel‖ of McCarthy and Prince and (1995):Prince (1995): the ―base‖ for reduplication is (usually only assumed to be) the entire output in correspondence (32with) The an McCarthy input, as per and the Prince ―Full (1995) of Model‖ ―Full of Model‖ McCarthy and Prince (1995): (32) The McCarthy and Prince (1995) “Full Model”

(32) The McCarthy and PrinceInput (1995) ―Full Model‖ ? Input Reduplicant ? Base

Recent workReduplicant, however, suggests that a sub-Baseset of a given output may serve as the base for

Recentreduplication, work, however,so Haugen suggests2008 presents that the a sub-setfollowing of as a the given ―Modified output Full may Model‖ serve,as where the ―B‖ base for redupli- equalsRecent a delimited work, however, sub-portion suggests of the that stem a sub delimited-set of a asgiven the baseoutput for may copying serve (the as the constraints base for cation,reduplication, so Haugen so Haugen 2008 presents 2008 presents the following the following as theas the “Modiﬁed ―Modified Full Full Model”,Model‖, where where ―B‖ “B” equals a MAXBR and DEPBR check for faithfulness between the RED morpheme and this delimited base delimitedratherequals than a sub-portion delimitedwith the entire sub of-portion stem) the stem: of the delimited stem delimited as the as the base base for for copying copying (the (the constraints MaxBR and Dep MBRAXBRcheck and D forEPBR faithfulness check for faithfulness between thebetweenRed themorpheme RED morpheme and this and delimitedthis delimited base base rather than with the(33rather entire) Thethan stem): Modified with the entire“Full Model”stem): (Haugen 2008: 80)

(33) ( 33 The) a. The modiﬁed Modified “Full “Full Model” Model” (Haugen INPUT (Haugen 2008: 2008:80) 80) ? a. INPUT ? Reduplicant [OUT]B-PUT = Surface Form

Reduplicant [OUT]B-PUT = Surface Form b. PATTA

b. PATTA

PAT [PAT]B-TA yields PAT.[PAT].TA  [pat.pat.ta]

See discussion in Haugen PAT 2009 on different [PAT] approachesB-TA yields to and PATdefin.[PAT].TAitions of the notion [pat. ―basepat.ta ] for reduplication‖, where it is argued that Shaw 2005‘s definition of the base as being some constituent,See discussion either in morphological Haugen 2009 oron prosodic,different approachesbest accounts to forand cross defin-linguisticitions of the cases notion of ―base Seereduplication.for discussion reduplication‖ Sh inaw Haugen, allowswhere forit (2009) is the argued grammar on that different Shawitself 2005to approaches define‘s definition the Base to and of for the definitionsreduplication base as being of, by thesome notion “base for constituent, either morphological or prosodic, best accounts for cross-linguistic cases of reduplication”,utilizing standard where Anchor it constraints is argued wherein that Shaw the reduplicative (2005)’s definition morpheme ofis anchored the base to as some being some con- (phonologicalreduplication. or Sh morphologaw allowsical) for constituentthe grammar of itself the output. to define Shaw‘s the Base proposal for reduplication is given in (,34 by): stituent,utilizing either standard morphological Anchor constraintsor prosodic, wherein bestthe reduplicative accounts for morpheme cross-linguistic is anchored cases to some of reduplication. Shaw allows for the grammar itself to define the Base for reduplication, by utilizing standard Anchor (34(phonological) The Constituent or morpholog Base ical)Hypothesis constituent (Shaw of 2005:the output. 167 [6]) Shaw‘s proposal is given in (34): constraints wherein the reduplicative morpheme is anchored to some (phonological or morphologi- The Base in a Reduplicant-Base correspondence relation is a constituent, i.e. cal) (34 constituent) The Constituenta. of MCat: the output. Base Hypothesis Shaw’sWord, proposal (Shaw Stem, 2005: isRoot given 167 [6]) in (34): The Baseb. PCat: in a Reduplicant -BaseProsodic correspondence Word, Foot, relation Syllable, is a constituent, Nucleus, Mora i.e. c. a.PHead: MCat: HeadFoot,Word, Stem, σ = FootHead,Root Nuc = σHead, Headµ b. PCat: Prosodic Word, Foot, Syllable, Nucleus, Mora d. CanonicalCat: Canonical Root = [CVC] c. PHead: HeadFoot, σ = FootHead, Nuc = σHead, Headµ Canonical Stem = [CVCV] d. CanonicalCat: Canonical Root = [CVC] In Haugen 2008‘s instantiation of DMCanonical, the output Stem of = Morphology[CVCV] is the input to Optimality Theoretic tableaux. In this manner base-reduplicant correspondence is worked out in accordaInnce Haugen with the 2008‘s language instantiation-specific rankingof DM, ofthe universal output of constraints Morphology and is candida the inputte to evaluationOptimality to Theoreticascertain thetableaux. optimal In output this manner, as per bstandardase-reduplicant Correspondence correspondence Theory. is T workedhus, the out in accordance with the language-specific ranking of21 universal constraints and candidate RED VI is evaluated for identity with respect to a base (cf. MAXBR and DEPBR). The advantages ofevaluation this approach to ascertain include atthe least optimal the following. output, as per standard Correspondence Theory. Thus, the RED VI is evaluated for identity with respect to a base (cf. MAXBR and DEPBR). The advantages of this approach include at least the following. Jason D. Haugen 4 THE AFFIXATION APPROACH (34) The Constituent Base Hypothesis (Shaw 2005: 167 [6])

The Base in a Reduplicant-Base correspondence relation is a consituent, i.e. a. MCat: Word, Stem, Root b. PCat: Prosodic Word, Foot, Syllable, Nucleus, Mora c. PHead: HeadFoot, σ =∼ = FootHead, Nuc=σHead, Headµ d. CanonicalCat: Canonical Root=[CVC] Canonical Stem=[CVCV] In Haugen 2008’s instantiation of DM, the output of Morphology is the input to Optimality Theoretic tableaux. In this manner base-reduplicant correspondence is worked out in accordance with the language-specific ranking of universal constraints and candidate evaluation ascertains the optimal output, as per standard Correspondence Theory. Thus, the Red VI is evaluated for identity with respect to a base (cf. MaxBR and DepBR). The advantages of this approach include at least the following. First, it must be recognized that reduplication seems, cross-linguistically, to be a special type of VI, since reduplicants often exhibit different phonological properties than those of non-reduplicative VIs. We saw this above with the restriction against identical adjacent syllables being applied to reduplication forms in the Tawala durative, but not in other cases of morphological concatenation (e.g. compounding or affixation) in Tawala. Similar remarks could also be made by drawing from a wide variety of cases of cross-linguistic TETU effects; see Kennedy (2008) for a recent review and defense of TETU effects, which are largely confined to reduplication contexts. Second, in contrast to theories which do not distinguish morphological bases from morphological reduplicants (a class which includes DR, PBP, and MDT), given Shaw’s Constituent Base Hypothesis cases of base-dependence, both morphological and phonological, should be expected in those languages which have a sufficiently highly-ranked constraint MaxBR. This seems to accord well with the facts–see Haugen and Hicks Kennard (2011) for discussion and examples. Theories without “reduplicants” and “bases”, which by definition preclude cases of base-dependence, are therefore at a disadvantage in their empirical coverage of the cross-linguistic facts, including those instantiated in the Tawala durative. Finally, in my view, an OT-style approach which involves language-specific rankings of universal faithfulness and markedness constraints, interleaved with language-specific instantiations of generalized constraints such Align and Anchor, provides actual explanations for a wide variety of important issues in phonology, including at least the following: (i) cross-linguistic typology (e.g. universal markedness constraints); (ii) diachronic change (via constraint re-ranking); and (iii) acquisition (via the language-specific setting of the constraint-ranking); see Haugen (2008) for more detailed discussion of these points and comparative evidence from reduplication and other phenomena in the Uto-Aztecan language family that suggests that diachronic changes in constraint-ranking are reflected in the synchronic grammars of the Uto-Aztecan languages. In essence, the very things that Embick defers to his “Black Box” in his version of DM, which regards phonology as being extragrammatical, actually constitute the phonology in the model presented in Haugen 2008. In this way reduplication can be accounted for in DM with minimal costs beyond what is already necessary and/or standard in Correspondence Theory: i.e. constraints such as Anchor, Align, Faithfulness, Markedness, etc. Are the theories of DM and Correspondence Theory really compatible, though?

22 Jason D. Haugen 5 A BLENDED MODEL 5 A Blended Model–Dogs and Cats Living Together?

The major drawback of the approach outlined in Haugen 2008, given the discussion of Embick 2010, would seem to be that this approach entails at least some degree of globalism, in that different possible outputs have to be evaluated with respect to their obeisance to the language- specific constraint-ranking. On the other hand, though, I think it is possible that Embick 2010 understates the issue of generating potential, yet ungrammatical, outputs within his own theory. For example, to take a very simple case like the phonologically predictable allomorphs of the English plural -s, what prevents speakers from producing outputs like *[cat-z] instead of [cat-s]? Embick’s answer would probably be that the grammar mechanically produces the input /cat-s/, so that’s what emerges as the output. An OT account, in contradistinction, could say one of two things: (i) that there is a constraint of some type enforcing voicing assimilation among adjacent stops and fricatives, thus ruling against possible candidates which would have the voiced allomorph of the plural attach to a word with a word-final voiceless consonant (which would be a kind of globalist argument); or, (ii) that if the grammar produces an input like /cat-s/, with the voice quality of the plural allomorph mechanically selected for as suppletion (or some such) as Embick claims, then the output could simply be a straightforward correspondence between the input and its output given a high- ranking FaithIO constraint. Globalism in the latter case would be involved, to be sure (non-faithful candidates like *cat-z would still have to be ruled out, after all), but globalism itself would not be the cause of the voicing assimilation. In other words, I think it is the case that, with the phonology being relegated to an extragrammatical Black Box, it is possible to stack the deck in favor of an “anti-globalist” approach by means of assuming straightforward Input-Output faithfulness where very little alternation occurs between inputs and their outputs. What is not clear to me, though, is how one would rule out the possibility of a global analysis occurring anyway even in a localist theory, where the phonology seems to need to rule out candidates which may not be faithful to their inputs. That is to say, even in a supposedly localist theory there are unfaithful, non-optimal potential output candidates that need to be disregarded because they are not fully faithful to what is derived via Vocabulary Insertion–thus, *cat-z and *cat-1z are possible outputs of an input like cat-s, and it’s not clear to me what principle would prevent a grammar from producing them in lieu of cat-s, although it is obvious that cat-s is a better (i.e. more “optimal”) output because of its complete faithfulness to the input. The cases that tip the scales toward a more globalist orientation, at least as far as I can see at present, are those involving surface form-oriented prosodic morphology as discussed above. For example, take the case of morphological mora augmentation (mora affixation) as in Hiaki (cf. 16 above). In these instances, following the original proposal of Samek-Lodovici (1992) and argumentation in Haugen 2008, the Vocabulary Item inserted to spell out the aspectual head would be a bare mora affix, which is inserted (infixed) into a stem to lengthen a segment. Which segment gets lengthened, however, is an entirely predictable matter of the “global” context, because it is dependent on the surface prosody (specifically, the syllable structure) of the stem to which it applies. If the syllable is of the form CV then gemination is induced, where the onset of the second syllable will form a coda for the first syllable: cf. ma.ve.ta ‘receive’ → mav.ve.ta ‘receive habitually’. If the initial syllable is of the form CVC, however, then gemination is impossible (an illicit consonant cluster would result, cf. *yepp.sa,*yeps.sa, etc.), so vowel-lengthening occurs instead: cf. yep.sa ‘arrive’ → yeep.sa ‘arrive habitually’. There is no sense in which the grammar

23 Jason D. Haugen 5 A BLENDED MODEL produces an “allomorph” of the moraic affix independently of the surface prosody of the stem to which the affix is infixed. This is a clear case where one morphophonological process is general and preferred, but a secondary process will apply under certain phonological conditions. This is easily accounted for in an OT-style system, but not so much in a mechanically-based system that does not take heed of the output of phonology. Disregarding such phenomena as “extra-grammatical” or as the result of mysterious Black Box phenomena is not an encouraging solution to the problem. The reconciliation of syntactically-driven word-formation processes, as provided by DM, with output-based morphology to account for prosodic morphology, as per OT, is intended to maximize the beneficial results of each approach by recognizing that each theoretical orientation is operating over separate domains of grammar. My claim is that the Red-as-an-affix approach is not inconsis- tent with Embick’s localist goals–specifically, Red is a VI that competes for insertion into syntactic terminal nodes just like other functional VIs. I support Embick’s general insistence on locality and cyclicity in morphology, and have proposed that an operative constraint on “base-delimitation” may well be adjacency: see Haugen 2008 for a distinction between the notions target and base. In the framework of Haugen 2008 the former alone, which is a morphosyntactic unit, is assumed to be in a morphological sisterhood relation (i.e. adjacent to) the Red morpheme (see also Travis (1999, 2001)). The base, on the other hand, can be a prosodically- or morphologically-defined subset of the morphosyntactic target. Here I would like to elaborate upon the general approach of Haugen 2008 with the following specific proposal for the blending of the two theoretical models at hand. Specifically, I think that the constraint-ranking as given by Correspondence Theory, which serves as the interface between Morphological Structure (itself derived via syntax, as per DM) and the “sensory-motor system” (i.e. actual vocal articulation given the morphosyntactically-driven input), can be regarded as a Filter. As such, it contains a language-specific ranking of universal markedness constraints interleaved with language-specific faithfulness constraints as well as, possibly, other language-specific morphological constraints (e.g. *Double -ing for English, cf. Ross (1972), etc.). In short, the morphosyntax derives a representation which needs morphophonological instantiation, which it receives via Spell-Out and Vocabulary Insertion. PF is the constraint ranking which takes the output of the morphosyntax (i.e. spelled-out VI’s) to produce the PF output–i.e. the “optimal” output given the input and the language-specific constraint-ranking. We do not need to propose that there is any kind of “infinite candidate evaluation”, but some kind of evaluation must occur to determine the best morphophonological output given the morphosyntactically-constrained input, which is constrained because it obeys locality, adjacency, etc. as Embick 2010 insists. In sum, in my view one minimal task of the acquirer of a given language, whether a child at L1 acquisition or an adult picking up an L2, is to set the language-specific ranking of the universal markedness constraint set, along with language-specific morphological constraints (such as figuring out which constituents can be delimited as bases for reduplication in a given language). All the while, the possible inputs to the morphophonology are themselves constrained by localist considerations being driven by the morphosyntax, in terms of allomorph-selection, etc., as per Embick’s discussion.

24 Jason D. Haugen 6 CONCLUSION 6 Conclusion

In this paper I have contrasted the two competing approaches to reduplication within the theory of DM. Using both conceptual considerations as well as empirical arguments particularly from base-dependence in Tawala durative reduplication, I have argued that the affixation approach has advantages over extant readjustment approaches. In my discussion I have tried to show, contra Embick 2010, that phonology needs to be re-integrated into the grammar of DM. I have proposed to do this by adopting a blended model wherein Morphological Structure is derived via syntactic operations, leading to localist restrictions on allomorph selection due to considerations of adjacency and cyclicity, as proposed in Embick 2010. In my model, though, the output of the morphosyntax, which serves as the input to PF, is somewhat globalist in character, as required by considerations from output-based prosodic morphology like reduplication and mora affixation. Frampton (2009) also countenances a kind of chimerical theory of reduplication within DM, wherein cyclic derivations are combined with an evaluation metric of some kind which selects one optimal output over competing non-optimal outputs given certain conditions and/or constraints. The claim here is that phenomena such as base-dependence, where the form of a reduplicative morpheme hinges on morphological and/or phonological properties of the surface form of another stem (its base), necessitate a distinction between morpheme types along the lines of “base” vs. “reduplicant”, as well as a way of inducing phonological copying of the base to instantiate the phonological form of the reduplicant. This is straightforwardly accomplished using base-reduplicant correspondence in Correspondence Theory but has proven to be problematic for other theories. Embick 2010 may have provided some compelling arguments against globalist approaches (including serial or stratal globalist approaches) in certain aspects of morphology, including allomorph- selection in particular. However, I have tried to show here that Correspondence Theory gives us important insights into the nature of the relation between the output of the morphology (which is the “input” to PF) and its ultimate surface form (i.e. the “output”) of that PF input. We can, I think, thus re-open Embick’s phonological Black Box and reveal that what lies therein are language-specific rankings of faithfulness and markedness constraints, among other things, which seem to be necessary for an adequate account of aspects of prosodic morphology such as mora affixation and reduplication.

25 Jason D. Haugen REFERENCES References

Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. Harper and Row, New York.

Dixon, R. M. W. (1977). A Grammar of Yidin. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Embick, D. (2010). Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. MIT Press, Cam- bridge.

Embick, D. and Marantz, A. (2008). Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(1):1–53.

Embick, D. and Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C., editors, The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, pages 289–324. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Escalante, F. (1990). Voice and argument structure in Yaqui. PhD thesis, University of Arizona.

Ezard, B. (1997). A Grammar of Tawala: an Austronesian Language of the Milne Bay Area, Papua New Guinea. Paciﬁc Linguistics Series C-137, Canberra.

Frampton, J. (2009). Distributed Reduplication. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inﬂection. The view from Building 20, pages 111–176.

Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1994). Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Carnie, A. and Harley, H., editors, MITWPL 21: papers on phonology and morphology, pages 275–288. MITWPL, Cambridge.

Harley, H. and Amarillas, M. (2003). Redupication multiplication in Yaqui: meaning X form. In Barragan, L. M. and Haugen, J. D., editors, Studies in Uto-Aztecan, pages 105–139. MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages #5, Cambridge.

Harley, H. and Leyva, M. F. (2009). Form and meaning in Hiaki (Yaqui) verbal reduplication. International Journal of American Linguistics, 75:233–272.

Harley, H. and Noyer, R. (1999). State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology. Glot International, 4:3–9.

Haugen, J. D. (2003). Allomorphy in Yaqui reduplication. In Barragan, L. M. and Haugen, J. D., editors, Studies in Uto-Aztecan, pages 75–104. MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages #5, Cambridge.

Haugen, J. D. (2008). Morphology at the interfaces: reduplication and noun incorporation in Uto- Aztecan. John Benjamins Publishing Company (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 117), Am- sterdam/Philadelphia.

Haugen, J. D. (2009). What is the base for reduplication? Linguistic Inquiry, 40:505–514.

Haugen, J. D. (2010). Review of John Frampton’s Distributed Reduplication. Language, 86:953–957.

26 Jason D. Haugen REFERENCES Haugen, J. D. and Harley, H. (2010). Head-marking inflection and the architecture of grammatical theory: Evidence from reduplication and compounding in Hiaki (Yaqui). Ms, Oberlin College and University of Arizona. Haugen, J. D. and Hicks Kennard, C. (2011). Base-dependence in reduplication. Morphology, 21:1–29. Hicks Kennard, C. (2004). Copy but don’t repeat: the conflict of dissimilation and reduplication in the Tawala durative. Phonology, 21:303–323. Hockett, C. (1958). Two models of grammatical description. In Joos, M., editor, Readings in Linguistics, 2nd edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Inkelas, S. and Zoll, C. (2005). Reduplication: Doubling in Morphology. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 106), Cambridge. Kennedy, R. (2008). Bugotu and Cheke Holo reduplication: in defense of the Emergence of the Unmarked. Phonology, 25:61–82. Marantz, A. (1982). Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry, 13:435–482. McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. (1986). Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachusetts- Amherst and Rutgers University. McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: optimality in prosodic morphology. In González,M., editor, Proceedings of NELS 24, pages 333–379. GLSA, Amherst. McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, J., Dickey, L., and Urbanczyk, S., editors, Papers in Optimality Theory, volume 18 of U. Mass. Occasional Papers in Linguistics, pages 249–384. [ROA]. Raimy, E. (2000). The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Ross, J. R. (1972). Doubl-ing. Linguistic Inquiry, 3:61–86. Samek-Lodovici, V. (1992). A unified analysis of cross-linguistic morphological gemination. In Proceedings of ConSOLE-1. Utrecht: The Netherlands. [ROA-146-1096]. Shaw, P. A. (2005). Non-adjacency in reduplication. In Hurch, B., editor, Studies on Reduplication, pages 161–210. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Siddiqi, D. (2009). Syntax within the word: Economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in distributed morphology. John Benjamins Publishing Company (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 138), Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Travis, L. D. (1999). A syntactician’s view of reduplication. In Smallwood, C. and Kitto, C., editors, Proceedings of AFLA VI: The Sixth Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, pages 313–331. University of Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, Toronto. Travis, L. D. (2001). The syntax of reduplication. In Kim, M. and Strauss, U., editors, NELS 31: Proceedings of the Northeast Linguistics Society, pages 455–469. GLSA, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst.