Implications of Axininca Campa for prosodic morphology and reduplication.

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/185227
Title:
Implications of Axininca Campa for prosodic morphology and reduplication.
Author:
Spring, Cari Louise
Issue Date:
1990
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
This dissertation examines Axininca Campa within the tenets of the emerging theory of Prosodic Morphology. Axininca reduplication can only be formalized as a process where the prosodic word is built on the verbal base and duplicated. Thus Axininca shows that the prosodic word is a legitimate base of morphology, contrary to earlier views which allow only the foot as the base. The properties of the output of reduplication in Axininca show that no affix is required in formalizing Axininca reduplication; this finding refutes previous models which standardly assume that an affix is required as a formal component of reduplication. Comparing reduplication in other languages with that in Axininca reveals that copy is the only necessary component of 'reduplication'; an affix and/or prosodic base are each possible but are not obligatory. In examining the cases of reduplication formalized with and without a prosodic base, a new formalization of copy as a base dependent process is set forth. When a prosodic base is selected, copy of the base consists of copy of that prosodic constituent and all subordinate elements; the result is that the reduplicant displays quantity transfer. When no prosodic base is selected the segments of the base alone copy and the reduplicant therefore does not display quantity transfer. The model reported here predicts four sub-types of reduplication in language: (1) -affix, -prosodic base, (2) -affix, +prosodic base, (3) +affix, -prosodic base, (4) +affix, +prosodic base. Each type of reduplication in 1-4 is predicted to display specific empirical properties converging on the base and the reduplicant, thus resulting in a very testable theory. Whenever a prosodic base is selected the base of reduplication must meet prosodic requirements and at the same time the reduplicant will display base transfer; when no affix is also selected (as in 2) the reduplicant will surface as an identical copy of the prosody and segments of the base. When an affix is selected the redupilcant must conform to the prosodic specifications of the affix. When neither an affix nor base is selected all the segments of the morphological base copy.
Type:
text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Keywords:
Campa language.
Degree Name:
Ph.D.
Degree Level:
doctoral
Degree Program:
Linguistics; Graduate College
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
Archangeli, Diana B.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.titleImplications of Axininca Campa for prosodic morphology and reduplication.en_US
dc.creatorSpring, Cari Louiseen_US
dc.contributor.authorSpring, Cari Louiseen_US
dc.date.issued1990en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractThis dissertation examines Axininca Campa within the tenets of the emerging theory of Prosodic Morphology. Axininca reduplication can only be formalized as a process where the prosodic word is built on the verbal base and duplicated. Thus Axininca shows that the prosodic word is a legitimate base of morphology, contrary to earlier views which allow only the foot as the base. The properties of the output of reduplication in Axininca show that no affix is required in formalizing Axininca reduplication; this finding refutes previous models which standardly assume that an affix is required as a formal component of reduplication. Comparing reduplication in other languages with that in Axininca reveals that copy is the only necessary component of 'reduplication'; an affix and/or prosodic base are each possible but are not obligatory. In examining the cases of reduplication formalized with and without a prosodic base, a new formalization of copy as a base dependent process is set forth. When a prosodic base is selected, copy of the base consists of copy of that prosodic constituent and all subordinate elements; the result is that the reduplicant displays quantity transfer. When no prosodic base is selected the segments of the base alone copy and the reduplicant therefore does not display quantity transfer. The model reported here predicts four sub-types of reduplication in language: (1) -affix, -prosodic base, (2) -affix, +prosodic base, (3) +affix, -prosodic base, (4) +affix, +prosodic base. Each type of reduplication in 1-4 is predicted to display specific empirical properties converging on the base and the reduplicant, thus resulting in a very testable theory. Whenever a prosodic base is selected the base of reduplication must meet prosodic requirements and at the same time the reduplicant will display base transfer; when no affix is also selected (as in 2) the reduplicant will surface as an identical copy of the prosody and segments of the base. When an affix is selected the redupilcant must conform to the prosodic specifications of the affix. When neither an affix nor base is selected all the segments of the morphological base copy.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.subjectCampa language.en_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineLinguisticsen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.advisorArchangeli, Diana B.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberHammond, Michaelen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberHill, Janeen_US
dc.identifier.proquest9108427en_US
dc.identifier.oclc705007959en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.