CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION - Reduplication

Criteria for the classification of reduplication types
interrupted by additional material, for example by an infix as in Bikol b-in-a~bakal 'is buying,
UG' (for details cf. example (68)). Reduplication can be exact or non-exact. In the first case the
reduplicant is identical to the corresponding material in the base, in the latter case the
reduplicant differs in some respect from the base by exchange of a feature or a segment, as for
example in echo-words, like English party~shmarty, or Bikol harap-hasap 'rough' (for details
cf. IV.3.5), or by addition (e.g. Bikol muru~malisioso 'somewhat malicious') or deletion (e.g.
Bikol nag-ta~trabaho 'is working', for details cf. IV.4.1.2.1) of segments, etc. 16
Furthermore reduplication can be obligatorily or optionally combined with other affixes.
Obligatory emergence of reduplication in company of a certain affix is sometimes called
"automatic reduplication". For example in Ilokano (ilo) the pretense expressing prefix agin-
automatically triggers reduplication: singpet 'behave' --> agin-si~singpet 'pretend to behave'
(Rubino 2005: 18). At last, in a few languages reduplication can systematically include more
than one copy, e.g. in Mokilese (mkj) which differentiates between "duplication" for
progressive and "triplication" for continuative: roar 'give a shudder' --> roar~roar 'be
shuddering' --> roar~roar~roar 'continue to shudder' (cf. Harrison 1973: 426). Moravcsik
(1978: 304) claims that there is no reason to expect any restrictions on the possible number of
copies in reduplication. Nonetheless, the grammatical use of three copies is rare, and I am not
aware of any language that has regular "quadruplication". This fact together with the
observation that in Bikol full exact reduplication is phonologically blocked for bases with two
identical syllables (which would result in four identical syllables), I assume that in most
languages the sequence of two identical units are acceptable, while more than two cause a
"horror aequi" and are rejected.
2.2 Functional classification
As can be seen from the preceding section, reduplication can have many different
phonological appearances. But as reduplication is a morphological or lexical phenomenon,
the important question is, whether these different forms are restricted to expressing specific
meanings, or whether they can express any semantic category. The term "functional" in this
respect refers to categorial semantics. There is no reason to assume a priori that reduplication
is restricted to certain functions (cf. Moravcsik 1978: 316). And indeed, cross-linguistically
16 These features are all defined in the Graz Database on reduplication (cf. Hurch and Mattes, to appear; also
Moravcsik 1978).
8