Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:50:27.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nuuchahnulth Double Reduplication and Stratal Optimality Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

John Stonham
John Stonham*
Affiliation:
Pukyong National University, South Korea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Multiple reduplication is rare: the most often cited case is that of Salish double reduplication, which has been analyzed within the framework of Optimality Theory. For this reason, the simple and double reduplication processes found in Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) have theoretically interesting consequences for current models of morphology. This article demonstrates that Nuuchahnulth double reduplication challenges the standard, parallelist optimality theoretic account. An alternative analysis in terms of Stratal Optimality Theory is presented: the multistratal model is argued to be superior to the mono-stratal one, as the latter misses generalizations and fails to make correct predictions.

Résumé

Résumé

Le redoublement multiple est rare : le cas le plus souvent cité est celui du double redoublement dans les langues salishennes, qui a été analysé dans le cadre de la théorie de l’optimalité. Ainsi, les processus de redoublement simple et double que l’on retrouve en nuuchahnulth (nootka) ont des enjeux théoriques intéressants pour les modèles de morphologie contemporains. Cet article démontre que le double redoublement en nuuchahnulth est problématique pour l’analyse standard paralléliste de la théorie de l’optimalité. Une analyse alternative est présentée dans le cadre de la théorie de l’optimalité stratifiée : le modèle multi-stratifié est supérieur au modèle mono-stratifié en ce que ce dernier ne rend pas compte de certaines généralisations et ne produit pas de bonnes prédictions.

Type
Part II: Phonetic and Phonological Properties
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 52 , Issue 1-2: Southern Wakashan Languages , July 2007 , pp. 105 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 1999. Constraint interaction in language change. Doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester/Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2003. The acquisition of phonological opacity. In Variation within Optimality Theory: Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory, ed. Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders, and Dahl, Osten, 25–36. Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. (Expanded version available from the Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA 593.)Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. To appear. Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen. 1983. Salish double reduplications: Subjacency in morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1:317–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, Eugene. 1998. Integrity and correspondence in Manam double reduplication. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 28:59–67.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, William H. Jr., 1979. Noun and verb in Nootkan. In The Victoria Conference on Northwestern Languages: Victoria, BC, November 4-5, 1976, ed. Efrat, Barbara S., 83–155. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Provincial Museum.Google Scholar
Kim, Eun-Sook. 2003a. Patterns of reduplication in Nuu-chah-nulth. In NELS 33: Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. Kadowaki, Makoto and Kawahara, Shigeto, 127–146. Charleston, SC: BookSurge.Google Scholar
Kim, Eun-Sook. 2003b. Theoretical issues in Nuu-chah-nulth phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. Yang, I.S., 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2:85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17:351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K.P. 1982. Lexical phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K.P. 1986. The theory of lexical phonology. Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon. 2000. Multiple correspondence in reduplication. In Proceedings of the 23 rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Juge, M. and Moxley, J., 315–326. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Rose, Suzanne M. 1981. Kyuquot grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. N.d. Fieldnotes on Nootka. Ms., Philadelphia, PA. In Boas Collection of the American Philosophical Society [W2a.l8].Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward, and Swadesh, Morris. 1939. Nootka texts: Tales and ethnological narratives with grammatical notes and lexical materials. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Shaw, Patricia. 1989. The complex status of complex segments in Dakota. In Theoretical perspectives on Native American languages, ed. Gerdts, Donna and Michelson, Karin, 3–37. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Stonham, John. 1994a. All moras are not created equal. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa 21:1–25.Google Scholar
Stonham, John. 1994b. Combinatorial morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stonham, John. 1999. Aspects of Tsishaath Nootka phonetics and phonology. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Stonham, John. 2003. Southern Wakashan double reduplication. In University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 11 : Papers for ICSNL XXXVIII: The 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, ed. Brown, J.C. and Kalmar, Michele, 237–251.Google Scholar
Stonham, John. 2004. Linguistic theory and complex words: Nuuchahnulth word formation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1931. The Nootka aspect system. Master’s thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 1995. Double reduplications in parallel. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18:499–531.Google Scholar
Wojdak, Rachel. 2001. An argument for category neutrality? In WCCFL 20: Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Megerdoomian, Karine and Bar-el, Leora Anne, 621–634. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Zee, Draga. 1988. Sonority constraints on prosodie structure. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. Parsing below the segment in a constraint based framework. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar