Repetitive Reduplication in Yurok and Karuk: Semantic Effects of Contact
LISA CONATHAN & ESTHER WOOD University of California, Berkeley
INTRODUCTION In this paper we discuss the morphology and semantics of verbal redupli cation in three languages: Yurok, Karuk and Meskwaki (Fox).1 These lan guages all have two distinct ways of deriving verbs with meanings that fall under the rubric of event plurality or 'pluractionality.' It is quite com mon cross-linguistically for pluractionality to be expressed by reduplica tion. In Yurok and Meskwaki, all the pluractional constructions are or can be reconstructed as prefixing reduplication - a monosyllabic type and a disyllabic type. In Karuk there is both a reduplicative pluractional and a pluractional derivational suffix -va. Garrett (2001) argues, on the basis of comparative morphology and semantics, that Yurok Repetitive reduplication is cognate with Algon quian disyllabic reduplication, which appears in Meskwaki as disyllabic reduplication, and possibly in Plains Cree as heavy syllable reduplication. (These contrast with monosyllabic reduplication and light syllable redu plication, respectively.) In this paper we question the comparison between Yurok and Algonquian, and propose instead that the meaning of Yurok disyllabic reduplication is due to contact with neighbouring Karuk. The Yurok construction is more similar in its semantics to Karuk reduplication than to reduplication constructions in Algonquian languages. We further argue that the reconstruction of two Proto-Algic verbal reduplication constructions that are the precursors to two distinct con structions in both Yurok and Meskwaki, as proposed in Garrett (2001), is not supported by the evidence available to us.
1. This work is partly supported by NSF grant BCS 0004081 to the University of Cali fornia, Berkeley. We are grateful to Aileen Figueroa of the Yurok Tribe for teaching us about her language; to Andrew Garrett for comments and suggestions for this work; and to Lucy Thomason for access to and essential explanation and discussion of the Meskwaki data. Glosses and translations of Meskwaki texts are provided by Lucy Thomason and ref erences are to manuscripts held by the National Anthropological Archives. Papers of the 34th Algonquian Conference, ed. H.C. Wolfart (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 2003), pp. 19-34. 20 LISA CONATHAN & ESTHER WOOD
Yurok and Karuk are neighbouring languages in Northwestern Cali fornia. Yurok is distantly related to Meskwaki and other Algonquian lan guages, and also to nearby Wiyot. Karuk has no close genetic relatives, but belongs to the Northern Hokan part of the proposed Hokan stock. Potential relatives of Karuk include Chimariko, Shasta, Achumawi, Atsugewi, Washo and the Yuman languages. In describing the semantics of pluractional reduplication, we will refer to the typology of pluractionality proposed by Cusic (1981):
(1) a. Event-internal repetition: a single event on a single occasion consists of repeated internal phases, e.g., bite > nibble, fly > flutter b. Event-external repetition, single occasion: an event or period of action is repeated on a single occasion, e.g., keep biting, fly back and forth c. Event-external repetition, multiple occasions: repetition on separate occasions, regularly or habitually, e.g., bite regularly, fly frequently An event-internal pluractional construes repeated action as a single event made up of several phases. Often the phases are of a different type than the overall event - for example, an event of nibbling is composed of sev eral diminutive bites that occur in succession. Event-external repetition consists of a series of events of a particular type, either on a single occa sion or on multiple occasions, in which case there is often a frequentative or habitual meaning. Event-internal repetition most often applies to 'single phase' semelfactive and achievement predicates to indicate con tinuous repetition of action (e.g., a verb meaning 'bite' might come to mean 'nibble'), and to activities to indicate "internal expansion" of action, i.e., prolongation or multiplication of internal phases (e.g., a verb mean ing 'fly' might come to mean 'flutter'). Event-external categories tend to pluralise bounded events or bounded periods of activity (cf. Cusic 1981:239). In terms of this typology, we will show that in both Yurok and Karuk, reduplication expresses event-internal repetition (type a), contrast ing with another category in each language expressing event-external rep etition (types b and c). In Meskwaki, the functions of reduplication are much harder to characterise in terms of Cusic's typology, but disyllabic reduplication clearly does not fit the profile of event-internal repetition REPETITIVE REDUPLICATION IN YUROK AND KARUK 21 and does not support the reconstruction of an event-internal meaning for disyllabic reduplication in Proto-Algic. The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: we give an account of the Yurok categories of event-internal and event-external plu ractionality, based on Garrett (2001), Wood & Garrett (2001), Wood (2001). We then show with data from published sources and unpublished Meskwaki texts that the meaning of Meskwaki disyllabic reduplication differs from that in Yurok. We describe pluractionality in Karuk, based on Blight's 1957 grammar and lexicon and Macaulay (1993). Karuk, like Yurok, distinguishes event-internal and event-external pluractionality. Additionally, new data from Chimariko (also Northern Hokan) shows that there is likely a similar event-internal pluractional construction in that language.
YUROK Repetitive reduplication in Yurok, while often monosyllabic due to vowel syncope, is reconstructed by Garrett as disyllabic (*CVCV-).3 The REPETITIVE indicates event-internal repetition. Its primary function is to pluralise events and in some cases also their internal arguments (cf. Gar rett 2001, Wood 2001). The repetitive is restricted to a relatively small class of verbs. The majority of these are semelfactives, with which it indi cates repetition of the action in a limited period of time, as in (2). More rarely it is found with some statives, indicating multiple entities with a prominent shape or spatial configuration (3), and with a few verbs it can indicate limited distribution in space (within the boundaries of a patient or theme argument, as in (4).
2. Chimariko data are from the notes of George Grekoff, located in the Survey of Cali fornia and Other Indian Languages at the University of California, Berkeley. Grekoff s material is a comprehensive collection of 19th- and 20th-century fieldwork on Chimariko, most prominently that of Dixon and Harrington. 3. The orthography used for Yurok is largely that of Robins (1958) but with the follow ing changes adopted by the Yurok Project at Berkeley: [J] is written as
menomenoot 'to keep pulling' menoot 'to pull' (2) tekwtekws 'to cut >1 thing tekws 'to cut' (or 1 thing >1 time)' hlkerhlkeroh(s-) 'to thump repeatedly' hlkeroh(s-) 'to thump' 'to be tall (>1 thing)' 'to be tall, high' noono 'op (3) no'op 'to lean (>1 thing)' 'to lean' waawa 'apah wa 'apah 'to lie (of boats)' ket 'ey ' to park, to moor' ket 'ket 'ey 'to be stuck together in (4) tekun- 'to be stuck tektekun- several places' together' 'to split in several places' pegon- 'to split (tr.)' pegpegon In addition to Repetitive reduplication, Yurok has a pluractional which marks event-external repetition. Robins, in his 1958 grammar, calls this the intensive. The basic form of the Intensive is an infix -eg-. Garrett convinc ingly argues that this evolved from monosyllabic reduplication (Pre-Yurok *Ce- < Proto-Algic *Caa). The details of the historical relationship between the -eg- infix and monosyllabic reduplication are given in Garrett (2001). The Intensive indicates event-external repetition, either on a single occasion or on multiple occasions (types b and c in Cusic's typology). Multiple-occasion repetition has a habitual or frequentative meaning, e.g.,
(5) BASE INTENSIVE chyuuk 'wen- 'to sit' chyeguuk 'wen- 'to sit often' hookwch- 'to gamble' hegookwch- 'to gamble regularly' kemol- 'to steal' kegemol- 'to be a thief laay- 'to pass' legaay- 'to pass regularly' (Robins 1958:82)
The Intensive can also denote repetition on a single occasion, meaning 'do X repeatedly' or 'keep doing X'. This meaning is common with activ ity base verbs:
4. The form of the Intensive is usually -eg- (or -rg-, if it precedes -r- in thefirst syllabl e of the root), positioned after thefirst consonan t or consonant cluster of the root. However, if the initial syllable of the root contains -e- followed by a velar, ablaut of the vowel occurs in place of the infix as follows: before /g, k/ the vowel becomes -ii-. Before /kw, w/ the vowel becomes -uu-. 5. It is not the historical development of Yurok morphology that we disagree with here, but only the details of the semantic comparison between Yurok and Algonquian, and the resulting Proto-Algic reconstruction. REPETITIVE REDUPLICATION IN YUROK AND KARUK 23
(6) BASE INTENSIVE chrwrhs- 'point' chuuwrh(s-) 'point repeatedly' swrrk'ws 'the wind gusts' swrgrrk'ws 'the wind gusts repeatedly'
(Wood & Garrett 2001:115)
In a few cases the Intensive can indicate plurality of an agent (see exam ple 8b). Minimal pairs (in elicited examples 7, 8) illustrate the difference between the event-internal repetition of the Repetitive and the event- external repetition of the Intensive.
(7) tintinoch 'to be ringing, ring >1 time' tegin 'to ring now and again' (cf. tin- 'to ring') (8) a. nikichu sya'syaahlk-o'm all kick.REP-PL 'He is kicking everyone.' b. syegaahlk-oy-ek' kick.lNT-pass-ls T was kicked by each of them, one at a time' (cf. syaahlk- 'to kick') The semantics of Yurok pluractionality may be summarised as follows:
(9) Intensive (*Ce- reduplication > -eg- infixation) Event-external, single occasion repetition Event-external, multiple occasion Distribution in space, 'everywhere' Distributed plural agents
Repetitive (*CVCV- reduplication) Event-internal repetition Multiple entities (with statives) Limited spatial distribution Collective plural objects The Intensive expresses event-external single-occasion repetition, as in (6), and event-external multiple-occasion repetition, giving a habitual or
6. Verbs which take the Intensive infix often appear in a morphologically truncated 'short form.' 24 LISA CONATHAN & ESTHER WOOD
frequentative meaning, as in (5), as well as indicating distribution in space or over multiple agents, as in (8b). The Repetitive expresses event-inter nal repetition with semelfactives, as in (2), and, occasionally, multiple entities (with statives, especially verbs of shape or spatial configuration, as in (3), as well as limited spatial distribution, as in (4), or collective plu ral objects, as in (8a)). In the next section we compare the two Yurok pluractionals with monosyllabic and disyllabic reduplication in Meskwaki. As we have already mentioned, Garrett (2001) reconstructs two Algic reduplication constructions which he proposes are the source of the two Meskwaki cat egories and Yurok Repetitive reduplication and Intensive infixation. He proposes that monosyllabic reduplication in Proto-Algic indicated event- external repetition and disyllabic reduplication indicated event-internal repetition. He also suggests that these constructions may be the source of heavy and light reduplication in Plains Cree, though noting that the morphology of reduplication in Plains Cree does not clearly match up with the Proto- Algic forms. Garrett's reconstruction of Algic reduplication (2001) is summarised in Table 1:
Proto-Algic *Caa- reduplication, *CVCV- reduplication, event-external semantics event-internal semantics Yurok *Ce reduplication > intensive repetitive reduplication infixation Meskwaki monosyllabic reduplication disyllabic reduplication Plains Cree light reduplication heavy reduplication
In the following sections we present data that challenge both the proposal that Algonquian and Yurok disyllabic reduplication are cognate, and the positing of two Algic reduplication types that indicated event-internal and event-external repetition.
MESKWAKI (FOX) The morphology of reduplication in Meskwaki is described in Dahlstrom (1997). Dahlstrom (1997:206) also briefly describes the semantics of REPETITIVE REDUPLICATION IN YUROK AND KARUK 25
monosyllabic and disyllabic reduplication types in Meskwaki. Examples of both types are seen (with reduplicants bolded) in (10a, b). (10)a. BASE nowi-wa 'he goes out' MONOSYLLABIC REDUP na--nowi--wa DISYLLABIC REDUP nowi-nowi-wa b- BASE witamaw-ewa 'he tells him' MONOSYLLABIC REDUP wa--witamaw-ewa DISYLLABIC REDUP wi-ta-wi-tamaw-e-wa Dahlstrom (1997:206) characterises the semantics of verbal reduplication as follows:
(11) MONOSYLLABIC REDUPLICATION: "continuative or habitual aspect" DISYLLABIC REDUPLICATION "iterative aspect, either an action repeated over a period of time or action distributed over a group of subjects or objects" These descriptions have certain similarities to Cusic's event-internal/ event-external contrast (e.g., habitual repetition contrasting with iteration in a single period), and they do describe common meanings of Meskwaki reduplication, but they do not seem to represent the full range of mean ings that Meskwaki reduplication can have (nor were they intended to do so - Dahlstrom's article was about the phonology and morphology of reduplication, and discussion of the semantics was peripheral). When we re-examine glossed examples of reduplication in published sources, we observe that the function of the Meskwaki categories does not support reconstructing an event-internal/event-external distinction in Proto-Algic. Specifically, disyllabic reduplication does not indicate event-internal pluractionality. This is first suggested by looking at data published on Meskwaki reduplication, which we reproduce in (12-14). The sources cited (Jones 1911, Goddard 1990,7 Dahlstrom 1997) do not explicitly address the semantics of reduplication, but the translations given indicate that the disyllabic reduplication has a wide range of mean ings, including some that involve clearly event-external repetition.
7. Goddard (1990:47) states that disyllabic reduplication denotes 'multiple or extended actions.' 26 LISA CONATHAN & ESTHER WOOD
(12) a. mayomayow" 'he kept on weeping' b. pd'kapd'kanoskdwi 'it opens and closes alternately' c. wdpawdpAmatc 'he looked at him a long time' d. ahApihApitc1 'he sat there a long while' (Jones 1911: 814-5) (13) a. keteketeminonwasa 'they would have been blessing you (pi.)' (cf. stem keteminaw- 'bless') b. ne-senesehekwiyekwe 'what cured you (pi.)' (cf. stem neseh- 'cure') c. eh=apihapinitehe 'where he (obv.) had been sitting' (cf. stem apt- 'sit') d. netesihisimekwa 'he always told me' (cf. stem esim- 'tell (thus)' e. ke-nakanawita 'one who gave a speech' (cf. stem kanawi- 'speak') f. e-sihisidi 'what he used to say to me' (cf. stem /eN-/ ~ 0 'say (thus) to') g. eh-amwahamwaki T used to eat them (anim.)' (cf. stem amw- 'eat') (Goddard 1990:47)
(14) a. wa-pawapam-ewa 'he gazes at him', 'he looks at him over and over' (cf. wapamewa 'he looks at him') b. kanakanawiwa 'he gives a (formal) speech' (cf. kanawiwa 'he speaks') c. e-mwahamwa-fihi 'the ones whom they (repeatedly) eat' (cf. amw- 'eat') d. e-sahasamaci 'that which he (repeatedly) feeds him' (cf. asam- 'feed') e. e-tihiti-yekwe 'that which you [pi.] say (repeatedly) to each other' (cf. eti- 'say to each other') REPETITIVE REDUPLICATION IN YUROK AND KARUK 27
f. ke-nakanawita 'the one who gives speeches' (cf. kanawi- 'speak') g. te-kwatakwaho-tawakiki 'the ones I (repeatedly) set traps for' (cf. takwahotaw- 'set trap for') (Dahlstrom 1997:207, 222)
The meanings of, and contrast between, the two Meskwaki redupli cations are very difficult to pin down. There is significant speaker varia tion as well as preferences (or requirements) for one or the other type of reduplication with specific verbs (Lucy Thomason, personal communica tion). For this reason we will here simply list some of the most frequent uses of disyllabic reduplication that we have found, based on the pub lished data cited in (12-14) above, and on unpublished texts housed at the National Anthropological Archives.8
(15) DISYLLABIC REDUPLICATION is used to express continuous aspect, habitual/ characteristic action, repeated action, action on or by multiple entities (commonly intransitive subjects, regardless of whether agentive or nonagentive).
Some additional examples from unpublished texts further support the generalisation that disyllabic reduplication does not indicate event-inter nal repetition. As illustrated in example (16), it is commonly used to refer to habitual repetition, which is clearly event-external (since repetition is on different occasions). Habitual or frequentative meaning is also clear in (13d, f) above, and is a possible interpretation of several forms in (14), though without a context for these forms, we cannot say whether such an interpretation is appropriate.
(16) i:na=ke:h=keye:hapa that+PRXsg=and=as. it. turns. out ke:mokemo:tem+ita n+i:p+ani. RED+steal.from+3s-ls/PPL(PRXsg)l+arrow+lNpl 'And it turns out that he is the one who kept stealing my arrows.' (Alfred Kiyana 2671.1 38B) In addition the disyllabic reduplication appears to have some uses which are not pluractional. It is often used to indicate something like a continua- tive aspect which need not involve any repetition of action since it may
8. These texts have been glossed and made available to us by Lucy Thomason. Text ref erences indicate the name of the speaker and text and line numbers. 28 LISA CONATHAN & ESTHER WOOD
include continuation of states, as in (17). (This continuative aspect read ing is also seen in (12a, c, d), (13c) and (14a, in the reading 'he gazes at him')). (17) keye:hapa='pihi ci.kiskwa.te e:h=apihapi+tehe. as.it.turns.out=HRSY at.door AOR=RED+sit+3s/PST 'As it happens, he was sitting next to a door.' (Jack Bullard 2082.3 29L) Given these differences it is not surprising to find that Meskwaki disyllabic reduplication shows none of the restrictions to particular Aktionsart types that the Yurok Repetitive has. Recall that the Yurok Repetitive is used mainly with semelfactive verbs, as well as a few stative verbs, but apparently not with activities or accomplishments. Meskwaki disyllabic reduplication does not appear to be restricted by any aspectual characteristics, as seen in (18) with an activity predicate, and (19) with an accomplishment predicate:
(18) mese=meko:='nahi owiye:h+a ahpene:ci=mekoho any creature+PRXsg always=EMPH wi.h —ayo:+wa. wi:h=menomeno+wa. FUT=use+3s-0/lND FUT=RED+drink+3s/lND 'All living things will use it all the time. They will drink it again and again.' (Alfred Kiyana 2959 11490) (19) asa:ti:h+ani e:h=asihasihto:+ci. headed.arrow+lNpl AOR=RED+make+3 s-0/CONJ 'She kept making headed arrows.' (Jack Bullard 2673 6A) In short, the semantic range of Meskwaki disyllabic reduplication is sig nificantly different from that of the Yurok Repetitive, and significantly different from Cusic's category of event-internal pluractional meaning. Yurok and Meskwaki disyllabic reduplication appear to have relatively little in common semantically, except for the fact that both have a plurac tional function. Meskwaki disyllabic reduplication does not have the semantics of event-internal repetition, as defined by Cusic. Yurok, while excluding at least one class of verbs (activities) which Cusic finds occur ring with event-internal categories, does have the semantics of single- occasion, continuous-action repetition. REPETITIVE REDUPLICATION IN YUROK AND KARUK 29
KARUK
Yurok and Karuk pluractional reduplication differ morphologically. Karuk reduplication is suffixing, while Yurok is prefixing. The Karuk reduplicant is a copy of the second element of a (historically reconstruct- ible) bipartite root (Macaulay 1993). Some examples are given in (20):
(20) ikmar 'to hit with one's 'to beat up' imyah- 'to breathe' imydhyah 'to pant' (in derivatives) ikfuy- 'to whistle' ikfuyfuy 'to whistle a tune.,'8 ikxip '(sg.) to fly' ikxipixipi 'to flutter' iftakan- 'to stick, adhere' iftakantdkan 'to be sticky' ?akxdrap 'to scratch (once) ?akxarapxdrap 'to scratch (repeatedly)' (Bright 1957, reduplicants bolded)
Pluractional reduplication in Karuk is semantically very similar to that in Yurok. Examples of this reduplication in Bright (1957:90-91, and the accompanying lexicon) indicate repetition of an action in a single period or as a single activity (as opposed to habitually). As Bright (1957:90) says: It is added especially to stems denoting activity of a very short dura tion, such as the striking of a single blow; the reduplicated derivative then indicates that a relatively long stretch of time is occupied by suc cessive repetitions of the action. The Karuk reduplication is used with semelfactives and activities (like 'fly' > 'flutter'), which is characteristic of event-internal repetition ac cording to Cusic. It applies to a slightly wider range of verbs than the Yurok Repetitive, which does not include activities. Karuk also has a derivational affix that appears to mark event-exter nal repetition. The suffix -va pluralises participants or events (Bright 1957:92-93; see also Mithun 1988:215-216). When pluralising events, it often has a single-occasion event-external meaning:
9. Compare ikfuyfuy 'to whistle a tune' to Yurok kweyur 'to whistle (once, or a signal),' kweykweyur 'to whistle a song to oneself,' kwegeyur 'to whistle more than once, e.g. repeated signal' (Proulx 1980: Audio tape accompanying Notebook 4, Berkeley Language Center Archives, tape 138). LISA CONATHAN & ESTHER WOOD 30
(21) eivruhtih '(one object) to Mvru'htih-va '(seyera objects) to be be floating' ^^ pasndpisrih 'to glue down' pasnapi 'srih-va to g ue *™W™*) ikremydhis(rih) 'to start to blow' ikremyahisrih-va to bow off and on taknah 'to hop' takndh-va 'to play hopscotch vikpad 'to weave once' vikpdO-va 'to weave around and around'
(Bright 1957:92-93)
Thus, Karuk, like Yurok and unlike Meskwaki, appears to have contrast ing event-internal and event-external pluractionality.
CHIMARIKO Chimariko, an extinct Northern Hokan language neighbouring Yurok and Karuk, also has a class of reduplicated verbs that expresses similar mean ings to Yurok and Karuk reduplication - event-internal repetition (22a), sometimes pluralisation of internal arguments (22b) and limited spatial distribution (22c).
(22) a.alo^W 'chop, smash to pieces' i ?akirkir 'scrape' (out a kettle) icxekimkim 'shake hands' winini 'shiver' isuq 'iwq 'iw-mu 'nod (in agreement)' b. axosxos 'chop off multiple objects' ulankimkim-mu 'wiggle fingers' chelili 'be freckled' lend 'be spotted, freckled' (Grekoff notes, files 001.002-001.005) The reduplicant is a suffixed heavy or light syllable. The Chimariko construction is not nearly as well-attested as that of Yurok or Karuk, and it is possible that it was not a productive derivational process when Chi mariko was recorded early in the 20th century. Most of these reduplicated
10. Given Macaulay's (1993) analysis of Karuk reduplication, it would be interesting if Chimariko reduplication could also be analysed in terms of a bipartite stem structure. We have not been able to satisfactorily analyse Chimariko verbal morphology in order to determine if this is so. REPETITIVE REDUPLICATION IN YUROK AND KARUK 31 verbs do not have non-reduplicated bases attested, but there is at least one such pair:
(23) ko- 'shout, holler (once)' koko- 'holler'
(Grekoff notes, file 001.003.005)
These data are meant to be suggestive only, and it remains to be seen if Chimariko reduplication fully matches up with event-internal pluraction ality.
CONCLUSION We have shown that Yurok disyllabic reduplication, though morphologi cally similar to a reduplication construction in Meskwaki, is semantically quite different, and we have argued that the semantics of Yurok plurac- tionals are not obviously of Proto-Algic origin. We have also shown that neighbouring Hokan languages have pluractionals which are semantically very similar to the Yurok categories, and in particular that Yurok, Karuk and possibly also Chimariko have verbal reduplication constructions with the semantics of event-internal repetition. In both Yurok and Karuk pluractional reduplication indicates contin uous, single-occasion (bounded) repetition of a semelfactive; and with statives indicates multiple entities with the shape/spatial characteristic (e.g. 'be long,' Tie'). The one difference we have found between them is that the Karuk pluractional additionally can be used with activities, indi cating ongoing repetition of subphases, often with a diminutive meaning, while the Yurok Repetitive does not occur with activity predicates. The comparison of Yurok and Karuk event-internal repetition is summarised in Table 2:
Yurok Karuk
Continuous repetition, punctual events yes yes Plural subject with statives yes yes Collective plural object yes yes Multiplied phases of activity no yes Noncontinuous repetition no no 10 Habitual/characteristic repetition no no Random spatial distribution no no Distributive plural agent no no 32 LISA CONATHAN & ESTHER WOOD
We suggest that though the pluractional verb morphology in Yurok may have its origins in Proto-Algic, the Yurok pluractional categories show definite semantic effects of contact with Hokan languages. Northwestern California is well known as an area of intensive cul tural contact. The native populations of Northwestern California (roughly defined as the territory of the Klamath and Trinity rivers, and including the Yurok, Karuk, Hupa, Chimariko, and others to varying degrees) share many sociocultural features despite diverse origins. Though there has not been extensive typological convergence among the Northwestern Califor nia languages, there is evidence of linguistic changes due to language contact, probably the result of both borrowing and convergence. Yurok and Wiyot are relatively recent immigrants to California (ca. 1100 AD and 900 AD respectively, see Moratto 1984 and references therein), and the Hokan-speaking peoples are considered quite ancient in this area. We should also note that Wiyot, the other California Algic language, has no trace of either monosyllabic or disyllabic pluractional reduplication, and that among other Hokan languages, Porno in particular has several cate gories of pluractional derivation. Some areal features shared by Yurok and Karuk that Haas (1976) identified are the presence of numeral classifiers, and diminutive conso nant symbolism. Conathan (2002) argues that the marking of inverse voice is also characteristic of Northern and Northwestern California. The type of semantic convergence that we propose, though never provable, is therefore quite plausible. This paper has consequences not only for the study of pluractionality and of language contact in Northwestern California, but also for the meth odology of historical reconstruction. When local explanations are readily apparent, especially in cases of close cultural contact, they may make more sense than proposing cognates distant in both time and space. We therefore argue that local explanations must be carefully considered alongside proposed historical reconstructions.
11. There are two examples in Bright (1957) of reduplication with verbs describing human characteristics (a woman's name formed from the verb 'to be lazy'; a derivative of 'to be lopsided' that means 'to be crazy') which could be thought of as either persistent- continuous (i.e., event-internal repetition) or habitual-characteristic (i.e., event-external repetition) uses of the Karuk disyllabic reduplication. Since we have not found other habitual uses of the Karuk reduplication our current characterisation of the Karuk category excludes habitual use. REPETITIVE REDUPLICATION IN YUROK AND KARUK 33
REFERENCES
Ahenakew, Freda, & H.C. Wolfart. 1983. Productive reduplication in Plains Cree. Actes du Quatorzieme Congres des Algonquinistes, ed. by William Cowan, 369-377. Ottawa: Carleton University. Bright, William. 1957. The Karok language. University of California Publications in Lin guistics 13. Berkeley: University of California Press. Conathan, Lisa. 2002. Pragmatic convergence: Person hierarchies in Northern California. Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Lan guages of the Americas, ed. by L. Bar-El, L. Watt & I. Wilson. UBC Working Papers in Linguistics, [in press]. Cusic, David Dowell. 1981. Verbal plurality and aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Uni versity. Dahlstrom, Amy. 1997. Fox (Mesquakie) reduplication. International Journal of Ameri can Linguistics 63:205-226. Garrett, Andrew. 2001. Reduplication and infixation in Yurok: Morphology, semantics, and diachrony. International Journal of American Linguistics 67:264-312. Grekoff, George, n.d. Notes on Chimariko. Survey of California and Other Indian Lan guages, University of California, Berkeley. Goddard, Ives. 1990. Paradigmatic relationships. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special Session on General Topics in American Indian Linguistics, ed. by David J. Costa, 39-50. Berkeley: Berkeley Lin guistics Society. Haas, Mary R. 1976. The Northern California linguistic area. Hokan studies, ed. by Marg aret Langdon & Shirley Silver, 347-359. The Hague: Mouton. Jones, William. 1911. Algonquian (Fox), ed. by Truman Michelson. Revised by Truman Michelson. Handbook of American Indian languages, ed. by Franz Boas, pp. 735- 873. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40, Part 1. Washington. Macaulay, Monica. 1993. Reduplication and the structure of the Karuk verb stem. Interna tional Journal of American Linguistics 59:64-81. Mithun, Marianne. 1988. Lexical categories and the evolution of number marking. Theo retical morphology, ed. by Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan, 211-234. New York: Academic Press. Moratto, Michael. 1984. California archaeology. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press. Proulx, Paul. 1980. Yurok audiotapes accompanyingfield notebooks. Berkeley Language Center Archives, University of California, Berkeley. Robins, R.H. 1958. The Yurok language: Grammar, texts, lexicon. University of Califor nia Publications in Linguistics 15. Berkeley: University of California Press. Thomason, Lucy. [ms]. Glosses and translations of Meskwaki texts from the collection of the National Anthropological Archives. Wood, Esther J. 2001. The semantics of pluractionality in Yurok. Paper presented at the 33rd Algonquian Conference, Berkeley. Wood, Esther J. [in progress]. The semantic typology of pluractionality. Ph.D. disserta tion, University of California, Berkeley. Wood Esther J., & Andrew Garrett. 2001. The semantics of Yurok intensive infixation. Proceedings from the Fourth Workshop on American Indigenous Languages, ed. by J. Castillo, pp. 112-126. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, 11.