Lanaguage Research
Language Education Institute, Seoul National University
Article

A New Look at Onset Transfer in Indo-European Reduplication: Dissimilation of Consonant Clusters

Hyung-Soo Kim1,
Corresponding Author: Professor (Emeritus) Dept. of English Education Jeonju University 303 Cheonjamro, Wansan-gu, Jeonju, Jeonbuk 55069, Korea , E-mail: csjennykim@jj.ac.kr

ⓒ Copyright 2020 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Oct 31, 2019 ; Revised: Jan 06, 2020 ; Accepted: Jan 29, 2020

Published Online: Apr 30, 2020

ABSTRACT

A new typology of onset cluster reduplication is proposed in Indo-European languages on three premises: 1) Partial reduplication in Indo-European copies the onset cluster in toto; 2) The canonical form of Grassmann’s Law type of dissimilation occurs between two complex segments that are sufficiently similar; 3) Such dissimilation of complex segments typically occurs preferentially to an obstruent plus resonant (TR) cluster and to a sibilant plus obstruent (ST) cluster only as a generalization of the preferential rule. The analysis shows that, of the four logically possible rule combinations in the reduplication of TR- vs. ST-initial roots, only three actually occur in Indo-European languages. The fourth type, in which an ST cluster is reduced but a TR cluster remains, is excluded, as it violates the preferential order of dissimilation of consonant clusters. This paper also explains why Sanskrit and Old Irish reduce the ST-initial clusters differently. If the ST cluster acts as a complex segment, the more sonorant S drops, as in the Sanskrit perfect stem ta-stambh- “prop,” but if it acts as a consonant cluster, the less sonorant T drops, as in the Old Irish preterit stem se-scaind- “spring off.” This analysis offers a more coherent typology than Zukoff’s (2017), which does not properly explain the across- the-board C2-copying, a pattern predicted to occur by his permutation of constraints, yet unattested in Indo-European languages and universally non- existent.

Keywords: reduplication; onset cluster; dissimilation; factorial typology; Sanskrit; Gothic; Greek; Old Irish; Indo-Europeanv

References

1.

Beekes, R. S. P. (2011). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics (2nd ed. revised and corrected by M. de Vaan). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V .

2.

Broselow, E. (2015). The typology of position-quality interactions in loanword vowel insertion. Y. E. Hsiao & Lian-Hee Wee (Eds.) Capturing Phonological Shades Within and Across Languages (pp. 292-319). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing .

3.

Buck, C. D. (1933). Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin Chicago: The University of Chicago Press .

4.

Cairns, C. E. & Feinstein, M. H. (1982). Markedness and the theory of syllable structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(2), 193-225 .

5.

Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of sonority cycle in core syllabification. In John Kingston & Mary E. Beckman (Eds.) Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech (pp. 283-333). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .

6.

Dempsey, T. R. (2015). Verbal Reduplication in Anatolian (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles .

7.

Fleischhacker, Heidi A. (2005). Similarity in Phonology: Evidence from Reduplication and Loan Adaptation (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles .

8.

Foley, J. (1974). An extension of Grassmann's Law. In Bauer, Hartig, Krenn, Mayer, Muller and Pott (Eds.) Studien zur Generativen Transformationsgrammatik. Atheneum Verlag .

9.

Foley, J. (1977). Foundations of Theoretical Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

10.

Foley, J. (1981). Philosophy of Linguistics. Ms. Dept. of Linguistics, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver .

11.

Foley, J. (1985). Quatre principes de l'analyse morphologique Langages, 78, 57-72. Paris: Librairie Larousse .

12.

Garrett, A. & Johnson, K. (2011). Phonetic bias in sound change. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report, Berkeley, CA: Dept. of Linguistics, University of California .

13.

Gnanadesikan, A. E. (2009). The Writing Revolution: Cneiform to the Internet. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell .

14.

Greenberg, J. (1978). Some generalisations concerning initial and final consonant clusters. In J. Greenberg (Ed.) Universals of Human Languages Vol. 2: Phonology (pp. 243-279). Stanford: Stanford University Press .

15.

Kim, H. -S. (1991). Universal Phonological Processes: a theoretical analysis of dissimilation, cluster simplification, and their synergy for consonant cluster reduction in Romance and IndoEuropean languages (Doctoral dissertation). Simon Fraser University, Vancouver .

16.

Kim, H. -S. (1999). Meinhof's rule in Bantu revisited; with special reference to Chibemba. Linguistics, 7(2), 183-205. The Linguistic Association of Korea .

17.

Kim, H. -S. (2019). Wrong side reduplications in Salish and Temiar: synergy of dissimilation and cluster simplification. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology, 25(3), 439-463. The Phonology-Morphology Circle of Korea .

18.

Kiparsky, P. (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(3), 421-441 .

19.

Kiparsky, P. (1981). Remarks on the metrical structure of the syllable. In W. Dressler, O. Pfeiffer & J. Rennison (Eds.) Phonologica 1980 (pp. 245-256). Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft .

20.

Kloekhorst (2008). Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden/Boston: Brill .

21.

McCarthy, J. J. & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Papers in Optimality Theory, 10. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/10 .

22.

Meinhof, C. (1932). Introduction to the Phonology of the Bantu Languages, Trans. by N. J. van Warmelo. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer/Ernst Vohsen .

23.

Niedermann, M. (1953). Précis de Phonétique Historique du Latin, Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck .

24.

Ohala, John J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In Carrie S. Masek, Roberta A. Hendrick and Mary Frances Miller (Eds.) Papers from the Parasession on Language Behavior (pp. 178-203). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society .

25.

Scheer, Tobias & Segeral, P. (2005). What lenition and fortition tell us about Gallo-Romance muta-cum-liquida. In T. Geerts, I. V. Ginneken and H. Jakobs (Eds.) Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003: Selected Papers from 'Going Romance' 2003, Niejmegen, 20-22 November (pp. 235-268). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company .

26.

Sihler, A. L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press .

27.

Smyth, H. W. (1966). Greek Grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press .

28.

Song, Jaemog (2018). Halha Monggoleuy Meyari Jungchup (Echo reduplication in Khalkha Mongolian). Monggolhak, 52, 145-169. The Korean Association for Mongolian Studies .

29.

Steriade, D. (1988). Reduplication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere. Phonology, 5, 73-155 .

30.

Thurneyson, R. (1946). A Grammar of Old Irish. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies .

31.

Weiss, M. (2009). Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor and New York: Beech Stave Press .

32.

Whitney, W. D. (1889). Sanskrit Grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press .

33.

Wright, J. (1954). A Grammar of the Gothic Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press .

34.

Yates, A. D. & Zukoff, S. (2018). The phonology of Anatolian reduplication: synchrony and diachrony. Indo-European Linguistics, 6, 201-270. Leiden/Boston: Brill .

35.

Zukoff, S. (2017). Indo-European reduplication: synchrony, diachrony, and theory (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles .