CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION - Reduplication

Criteria for the classification of reduplication types
its (former) base. Some languages exclusively have lexical reduplication, but no productive
reduplication rule. The semantic regularities of lexical reduplication have not received much
attention so far, but chapter 5.3. will go into detail on this point (cf. also Mattes and
Vollmann 2006). As Abraham points out, notwithstanding the numerous studies on
reduplication, the "reduplication-meaning heterogeneity problem" is still unresolved
(Abraham 2005: 565). One aim of this study is to provide a contribution to a better
understanding of this problem (especially 5.4.2).
2.3 Correspondence between form and function
There are multitudinous possibilities for formal as well as for functional types of
reduplication and languages make use of these options in very different ways and to very
different extents. What is interesting and sometimes puzzling is the way in which the forms
and the functions are matched. In the "ideal" 18 case of one-to-one correspondence in terms of
distinctiveness, i.e. isomorphism, one form would express exactly one meaning and one
meaning would be expressed by exactly one form. For example Lampung (ljp) has a clear
distinction between intensification by full reduplication and diminution by partial
reduplication (e.g. balak~balak 'very large' – xa~xabay 'somewhat afraid', cf. Walker 1976,
cited Rubino 2005b: 20). However, most languages do not exhibit such a clear
correspondence. Very often reduplicative forms are polysemous or even homonymous. For
example, Afrikaans has only full reduplication, but with several different functions such as
plural marking, diminutive marking, adjective derivation, etc. (cf. Botha 1984). Tagalog has
some different formal types, but nevertheless, they do not refer to one meaning each. One
type copies the first two syllables of the base, and this can mark distributive (e.g.
dala~dalawa 'by twos') as well as attenuation (ma-tali~talino 'rather intelligent') and
reciprocity (mag-kita~kita 'see one another') (cf. Schachter and Otanes 1972). 19 Bikol full
reduplication is another example of outstanding polysemy, which will be discussed in detail
in 5.4.2.
18 "... the old principle that the natural condition of a language is to preserve one form for one meaning, and
one meaning for one form" Bolinger (1977: x).
19 The examples suggest that the semantic categories of the reduplicated words depend on the semantic
categories of the simplex forms. This is analyzed in detail for Bikol, cf. IV.4.2.5.3.
10