Repetition and its Avoidance: The Case in Javanese

Abstract

It is argued that echo-words result from the tension between a requirement that penalizes a sequence of two identical stems, *REPEAT(Stem), and one that requires two identical stems, REPEAT(Stem). Based primarily on data from Javanese, I make three main points. First, at least some inputs to the Optimality Grammar must be abstract morphological specifications like PLURAL. They are phonologically incomplete outputs of the morpho-syntax. Second, morpheme realization results from an attempt to meet output targets in the form of constraints: REPEAT, 12 =a; PL=s, and so on. Such morphemes do not have underlying forms in the familiar sense (cf Hammond 1995, Russell 1995). Third, the target constraints may be out-ranked by phonological constraints of various kinds, particularly constraints against the repetition of elements, here called *REPEAT. The elements may be phonological (feature, segment) or morphological (affix, stem). These findings support the view of Pierrehumbert (1993a) that identity has broad cognitive roots. The primary data comes from Javanese, but the paper also touches on English and Turkish. 1 Section 1 gives some background on the handling of morphological data in OT. Section 2 discusses identity avoidance in morphology, sets out the basic proposal, and gives sketches of English and Turkish. Section 3 is an extended discussion of Javanese. Section 4 looks at secret languages, and section 5 sums up.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 60 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.