This chapter presents a series of case studies. The first three—Ndebele and Kinande unintensive reduplication and Asheninca Campa intensive reduplication—were chosen because they have been extensively analyzed in very different frameworks. McCarthy and Prince (1995) claimed that derivational phonology is an inadequate framework for understanding the complexities of Asheninca Campa intensive reduplication. Inkelas and Zoll (2000) claimed that Ndebele unintensive reduplication demonstrates that apparently duplicated phonological material is not in fact the result of copying in the phonology. It is shown that both of these claims are unfounded. The chapter also includes three prominent examples from Raimy (2000) (from Tohono O’odham plural reduplication, Temiar continuative reduplication, and Chaha intensive reduplication) to let readers assess the differences with and similarities to his analysis. A fairly thorough treatment of Sanskrit verbal reduplication is also provided so readers can make a similar assessment with respect to Steriade’s (1988) well-known analysis of perfect and intensive reduplication in Sanskrit.
Keywords: Ndebele unintensive reduplication, Kinande unintensive reduplication, Asheninca Campa intensive reduplication, Tohono O’odham plural reduplication, Temiar continuative reduplication, Chaha intensive reduplication reduplication, Sanskrit verbal reduplication
MIT Press Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.