{"id":230,"date":"2021-05-24T22:03:04","date_gmt":"2021-05-24T22:03:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lingconf.com\/afla28\/?page_id=230"},"modified":"2021-05-24T22:08:48","modified_gmt":"2021-05-24T22:08:48","slug":"sam-zukoff","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/lingconf.com\/afla28\/sam-zukoff\/","title":{"rendered":"Sam Zukoff"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Reduplication in Ponapean (and Tawala): Re-evaluating “Base-Dependence”<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Ponapean (Pohnpeian; Micronesian, Rehg & Sohl 1981) and Tawala (Western Oceanic; Ezard 1997) display intricate phonologically-driven reduplicant-shape alternations that can be accounted for in Base-Reduplicant Correspondence Theory (BRCT; McCarthy & Prince 1995; see, e.g. Kennedy 2003 and Zukoff 2020 on Ponapean; Hicks Kennard 2004 on Tawala). Both languages’ reduplication patterns have been claimed to exhibit “base-dependence” (Inkelas & Zoll 2005), in that the alternations can only be explained with reference to the surface reduplicant+base string (Zukoff 2020 on Ponapean; Haugen & Hicks Kennard 2011 on Tawala). As such, these patterns should not be analyzable in Morphological Doubling Theory (Inkelas & Zoll 2005), which predicts the absence of such patterns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this talk, I will show that, while Ponapean’s reduplicant-shape alternations do constitute base-dependence, they in fact are amenable to MDT analysis. (The same state of affairs holds for Tawala, which will be included in an appendix.) By invoking independently argued-for technology relating to prosodic constituency, the BRCT analysis can be imported into MDT in a way that preserves its base-dependent character. I conclude that MDT’s claim that it cannot capture base-dependent reduplicant-shape alternations must be abandoned, and therefore that these types of patterns actually will not help us distinguish between MDT and other theories of reduplication after all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\u2190 Back to program<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reduplication in Ponapean (and Tawala): Re-evaluating “Base-Dependence” Ponapean (Pohnpeian; Micronesian, Rehg & Sohl 1981) and Tawala (Western Oceanic; Ezard 1997) display intricate phonologically-driven reduplicant-shape alternations that can be accounted for in Base-Reduplicant Correspondence Theory (BRCT; McCarthy & Prince 1995; see, e.g. Kennedy 2003 and Zukoff 2020 on Ponapean; Hicks Kennard 2004 on Tawala). Both languages’ reduplication patterns have […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-230","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lingconf.com\/afla28\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/230","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lingconf.com\/afla28\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lingconf.com\/afla28\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lingconf.com\/afla28\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lingconf.com\/afla28\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=230"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/lingconf.com\/afla28\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/230\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":241,"href":"https:\/\/lingconf.com\/afla28\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/230\/revisions\/241"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lingconf.com\/afla28\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}