Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 47:2 (2024) ► pp.161–253

Iconicity of modified reduplication in five Himalayan languages

| SIL International
Although the iconicity of reduplication has been addressed by many researchers, not enough attention has been paid to the distinct character of modified reduplication in opposition to full reduplication. Modified reduplication is here defined as the juxtaposition of two similar but not identical phonological forms which differ in vowel quality (e.g. English chit-chat, Lhasa Tibetan zam zom ‘careless work’, Tshangla napanopo ‘silly’) or in initial consonant (e.g. English hotchpotch, Lhasa Tibetan ’a la ma la ‘confused, unconnected, irregular’). This paper describes the uses of modified reduplication in five languages spoken in the Himalayas: Central Tibetan (bod), Denjongke (sip, Tibetic), Lhomi (lhm, Tibetic), Tshangla (tsj, Sino-Tibetan, Bodish) and Duhumbi (cvg, Kho-Bwa). The data, which come both from published sources (Bodt 2020, Naga & Rigzin 1994, Yliniemi 2021, Nitartha online dictionary of Tibetan) and heretofore unpublished material, show that modified reduplication in the aforementioned languages is associated with four types of iconicity: (1) duality/plurality of similar but not identical sounds (e.g. Denjongke tʽaŋtʽiŋ ‘cling clang’), (2) duality/plurality of similar but not identical items (e.g. Denjongke dakdok ‘occurring as an assortment of small items of various sizes’), (3) duality/plurality of similar but not identical locations (e.g. Tibetan thar thor ‘scattered’), also suggesting motion between locations (e.g. Tibetan lang ling ‘drifting, swinging’), and (4) nonnormativity arising from the comparison of two similar but non-identical forms (e.g. Tshangla thapathopo ‘slow-witted’, zhalangzholong ‘shapeless; useless [of people]’). In four of the five languages (others than Lhomi) a~o vowel modification is strongly associated with nonnormativity.
Keywords: reduplication, iconicity, ideophones, Tibeto-Burman, Tibetic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Central Tibetan
    • 2.1Onomatopoeia
    • 2.2Plurality of items
    • 2.3Plurality of locations and movement
    • 2.4Nonnormativity
      • 2.4.1Nonnormativity with a~o modification
      • 2.4.2Nonnormativity with a~i/u/e modification
      • 2.4.3Consonant-modified MRD
    • 2.5Summary of MRD in Tibetan
  • 3.Denjongke
    • 3.1Onomatopoeia
    • 3.2Plurality of items
    • 3.3Plurality of locations and movement
    • 3.4Nonnormativity
    • 3.5MRD with consonant modification in Denjongke
    • 3.6Summary of MRD in Denjongke
  • 4.Lhomi
    • 4.1Onomatopoeia
    • 4.2Plurality of entities
    • 4.3Plurality of locations and movement
    • 4.4Nonnormativity
    • 4.5Summary of MRD in Lhomi
  • 5.Tshangla
    • 5.1Plurality of sounds
    • 5.2Plurality of items and locations, movement
    • 5.3Nonnormative
    • 5.4Summary of MRD in Tshangla
  • 6.Duhumbi
    • 6.1Plurality of items and locations
    • 6.2Nonnormative
    • 6.3Summary of MRD in Duhumbi
  • 7.Summary with crosslinguistic remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 8 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.00024.yli
References (46)
References
Abbi, Anvita. 1992. Reduplication in South Asian languages: an areal, typological and historical study. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Limited.Google Scholar
. 2018. Echo formations and expressives in South Asian languages. In Urdze, Aina (ed.), Non-prototypical reduplication, 1–34. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alsamadani, Mardheya & Samar Taibah. 2019. Types and functions of reduplication in Palembang. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 12(1). 113–142. [URL]
Anderson, Gregory D. S. & Opino Gomango. 2021. Expressives in Sora. In Nathan Badenoch & Nishaant Choksi (eds.), Expressives in the South Asian linguistic area (Brill’s Studies in South and Soutwest Asian Languages 13), 238–258. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Andvik, Erik. 2010. A grammar of Tshangla. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Armoskaite, Solveiga & Ethan Kutlu. 2015. Turkish m-reduplication: a case of similative number. Turkic Languages 181. 271–288.Google Scholar
Benczes, Réka. 2012. Just a load of hibber-gibber? Making sense of English rhyming compounds. Australian Journal of Linguistics 32(3). 299–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhutia, Pintso. 2005. Bhutia-English dictionary. 2nd edn. Gangtok: published by author.Google Scholar
Bodt, Timotheus. 2020. Expressives in Duhumbi. In Nathan Badenoch & Nishaant Choksi (eds.), Expressives in the South Asian linguistic area. (Brill’s Studies in South and Southwest Asian Languages, Volume: 13), 278–299. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabrera, C. Moreno. 2017. Continuity and change: on the iconicity of ablaut reduplication (AR). In Angelika Zirker, Matthias Bauer, Olga Fischer & Christina Ljungberg (eds.), Dimensions of iconicity (Iconicity in Language and Literature 15), 63–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Childs, George Tucker. 1994. African ideophones. In Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala (eds.), Sound symbolism, 178–204. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Das, Sarat Chandra. 1902. A Tibetan-English dictionary: with Sanskrit synonyms. Calcutta: The Bengal Secretariat Book Depot.Google Scholar
Diffloth, Gérald. 1976. Expressives in Semai. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 13 1. 249–264. [URL]
Dīngemanse, Mark. 2011. The meaning and use of ideophones in Siwu. Nijmegen: Radboud University PhD dissertation. [URL]
Doke, Clement Martyn. 1935. Bantu linguistic terminology. London: Longmans, Green. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas D. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild: with historical-comparative notes on Tangkic. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Andreas. 1999. What, if anything, is phonological iconicity? In Max Nänny & Olga Fischer (eds.), Form miming meaning: iconicity in language and literature, 124–134. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2011. Cognitive iconic grounding of reduplication in language. In Pascal Michelucci, Olga Fischer & Christina Ljungberg (eds.), Semblance and Signification (Iconicity in Language & Literature 10), 55–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Melvin C. 2001. The new Tibetan-English dictionary of modern Tibetan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gómez, Gale Goodwin & Hein van der Voort. 2014. Reduplication in South America: an introduction. In Gale Goodwin Gómez & Hein van der Voort (eds.), Reduplication in indigenous languages of South America (Brill’s Studies in the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, Vol. 7), 1–16. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Yael. 2010. Event internal pluractionality in Modern Hebrew: A semantic analysis of one verbal reduplication pattern. Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 2 (1), 119–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grollmann, Selin. 2020. A grammar of Bjokapakha (Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library Vol. 24). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamano, Shoko. 1998. The sound-symbolic system of Japanese. Cambridge Universiry Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2013. Ideophones in Japhug. Anthropological linguistics 55(3). 256–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1942. A modern English grammar on historical principles: part VI morphology. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation, 2nd ed. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit & Oksana Tkachman. 2014. Iconicity. Oxford Bibliographies. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naga, Sangye T. & Tsepak Rigzin. 1994. Tibetan quadrisyllabics, phrases and idioms. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives.Google Scholar
Rubino, Carl. 2001. Pangasinan. In Jane Garry & Carl Rubino (eds.), Encyclopedia of the world’s languages: Past and present, 539–542. New York/Dublin: H.W. Wilson Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Reduplication: Form, function and distribution. In Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on reduplication, 11–30. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Reduplication. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.) WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc.Google Scholar
Simmons, Sabrina & Zachary Estes. 2008. Individual differences in the perception of similarity and difference. Cognition 108(3). 781–795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stanford, James N. 2013. Lexicalized poetry in Sui. In Jeffrey P. Williams (ed.), The aesthetics of grammar: Sound and meaning in the languages of Mainland Southeast Asia, 151–166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 1983. Kammu phonology and morphology (Travaux de L’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 18). Malmö: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Tanzin, Ogyan. 2015. Tshangs-lha-ḥi tshig-mdzod – Tshangla dictionary. Sarnath 2015: Ogyan Chokhor-ling Foundation.Google Scholar
Thun, Nils. 1963. Reduplicative words in Engish: A study of formation of the types tick-tick, hurly-burly and shilly-shally. Uppsala.Google Scholar
Uray, Géza. 1954. Duplication, gemination and triplication in Tibetan. Acta Orientalia Hungarica IV(1). 177–244. [URL]
van de Weijer, Jeroen, Wei Weiyun, Wang Yumeng, Ren Guangyuan & Ran Yunyun. 2020. Words are constructions, too: A construction-based approach to English ablaut reduplication. Linguistics 58(6).1701–1735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vesalainen, Olavi. 2016. A grammar sketch of Lhomi (SIL International Language and Culture Documentation and Description 34). [URL]
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2005. Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yliniemi, Juha. 2021. A descriptive grammar of Denjongke. Himalayan Linguistics, 20(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2024. Iconic potential of modified repetition. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Yukawa, Yasutoshi. 2017. Lhasa Tibetan predicates (translation). In Lauren Gawne & Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages (Translation of Yukawa 1975 by Nathan W. Hill), 187–224. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter [Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs Vol. 302]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar