Cover not available
Article published In:
The Why and How of Total Reduplication: Current Issues and New Perspectives
Edited by Daniela Rossi
[Studies in Language 39:4] 2015
► pp. 905–945

Total reduplication as a productive process in German

| University of Potsdam
In this paper I discuss two types of total reduplication that prove to be productive in Contemporary German: real-X Reduplication (RXR) and Durative Reduplication (DR). The function of the former, RXR, is to restrict the meaning of a word to its prototypical content (cf. Buchbuch ‘book-book; real book, not an e-book’). Based on corpus data I address the question whether we are dealing with reduplication or with compounding here. As a result it will become apparent that the process of RXR, while showing some parallels to compounding, lacks crucial characteristics of compounding and is therefore to be seen as a case of reduplication. The latter type of total reduplication, DR, involves the doubling of a bare, inflectionless verb stem, thus encoding durativity of the denoted event or activity (cf. grummel-grummel ‘grumble-grumble, to be continuously grumbling’). Finally I sketch a path of diachronic development of the emergence of DR from ideophones.
Keywords: total reduplication, identical constituent compounding, durative, German
Published online: 3 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.4.06fre
References (58)
Adelung, Johann Christoph. 1782. Umständliches Lehrgebäude der Deutschen Sprache, zur Erläuterung der Deutschen Sprachlehre für Schulen. Leipzig: Breitkopf.Google Scholar
Baroni, Marco, Silvia Bernardini, Adriano Ferraresi & Eros Zanchetta. 2009. The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 431. 209–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bollée, Annegret. 1978. Reduplikation und Iteration in den romanischen Sprachen. Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 2151. 318–336.Google Scholar
Bzdęga, Andrzej Zdzisław. 1965. Reduplizierte Wortbildung im Deutschen. Poznań: Praca Wydana z Zasiłku Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. This volume. Ideophones and reduplication: on the interpretation of repeated talk in discourse.
. In press. Expressiveness and system integration: On the typology of ideophones, with special reference to Siwu. To appear in: Language Typology and Universals (STUF).
Donalies, Elke. 2002. Die Wortbildung des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Hans (ed.). 1960. Volkslieder aus Mecklenburg. Schwerin: Petermänken.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita. 2014. Identical constituent compounds in German. Word Structure 71. 182–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang & Irmhild Barz. 2012. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna. 2007. Zwischen Wort und Syntagma: Zur grammatischen Fundierung der Getrennt- und Zusammenschreibung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, Ray Jackendoff, Nicole Rosen & Kevin Russell. 2004. Contrastive focus reduplication in English (The salad-salad paper). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 221. 307–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Jacob & Wilhelm Grimm. 1854-1961. Deutsches Wörterbuch, 16 Bände. Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
Groß, Michael. 2000. Reduplikation im Deutschen: Ein paar systematische und ein paar unsystematische Bemerkungen. In Ernest W.B. Hess-Lüttich, & H. Walter Schmitz (eds.), Botschaften verstehen: Kommunikationstheorie und Zeichenpraxis. Festschrift für Helmut Richter, 101–116. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Günther, Hartmut. 1981. N+N: Untersuchungen zur Produktivität eines deutschen Wortbildungstyps. In Leonhard Lipka & Hartmut Günther (eds.), Wortbildung, 258–280. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Hohenhaus, Peter. 1996. Ad-hoc-Wortbildung – Terminologie, Typologie und Theorie kreativer Wortbildung im Englischen. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
. 2004. Identical constituent compounding: A corpus-based study. Folia Linguistica 381. 297–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1993. Economy and redundancy in a dualistic model of natural language. In Susanna Shore & Maria Vilkuna (eds.), SKY 1993: 1993 Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, 33–72. Helsinki: Suomen kielitieteellinen yhdistys.Google Scholar
. 2006. Speaker and hearer in neo-Gricean pragmatics. Journal of Foreign Languages 1641. 2–26.Google Scholar
. To appear a. The lexical clone: Pragmatics, prototypes, productivity. In Rita Finkbeiner & Ulrike Freywald (eds.), Exact Repetition in Grammar and Discourse. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
. To appear b. Pragmatics and the lexicon. In Yan Huang (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logo
Inkelas, Sharon & Cheryl Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kentner, Gerrit. 2013. On the emergence of reduplication in German morphophonology. Published on LingBuzz, [URL]Google Scholar
Kürschner, Sebastian. 2010. Fuge-n-kitt, voeg-en-mes, fuge-masse und fog-e-ord: Fugenelemente im Deut­schen, Niederländischen, Schwedischen und Dänischen. In Antje Dammel, Sebastian Kürschner & Damaris Nübling (eds.), Kontrastive Germanistische Linguistik,Vol. 21., 827–862. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Lewalter, Johann. 1911. Deutsches Kinderlied und Kinderspiel. Kassel: Vietor.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Lohde, Michael. 2006. Wortbildung des modernen Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Medici, Mario. 1959. Il tipo ‘caffè-caffè’. Lingua nostra 201. 84.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor’ A. 1996. Cours de morphologie générale, Vol. 3: Troisième partie: Moyens morphologiques; Quatrième partie: Syntactiques morphologiques. Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg & Carmen Scherer. 2007. Zur Semantik von V+V-Komposita im Deutschen. In Maurice Kauffer & René Métrich (eds.), Verbale Wortbildung im Spannungsfeld zwischen Wortsemantik, Syntax und Rechtschreibung, 85–95. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Reduplicative constructions. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3: Word Structure, 297–334. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mukherji, Mishka Shreya. 2014. Bengali fixed-segment reduplication in morphology and phonology. George­town University Working Papers in Linguistics 81. 77–118.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris & Renata Szczepaniak. 2009. Religion+s+freiheit, Stabilität+s+pakt und Subjekt(+s+)pro­nomen: Fugenelemente als Marker phonologischer Wortgrenzen. In Peter O. Müller (ed.), Studien zur Fremdwortbildung, 195–222. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
. 2013. Linking elements in German. Origin, change, functionalization. Morphology 231. 67–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortner, Hanspeter & Lorelies Ortner. 1984. Zur Theorie und Praxis der Kompositaforschung. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Pankow, Christiane. 2003. Zur Darstellung nonverbalen Verhaltens in deutschen und schwedischen IRC-Chats: Eine Korpusuntersuchung. Linguistik Online 151. 89–124. [URL]Google Scholar
Pauer, Susanne. 2013. Der Inflektiv – Wortbildungsphänomen der Zukunft? In Joachim Born & Wolfgang Pöckl (eds.), “Wenn die Ränder ins Zentrum drängen…”. Außenseiter in der Wortbildung(sforschung), 265–286.Google Scholar
Rehbein, Ines. 2013. Fine-Grained POS Tagging of German Tweets. In Iryna Gurevych, Chris Biemann & Torsten Zesch (ed.), Language Processing and Knowledge in the Web: Proceedings of the International Conference of the German Society for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology (GSCL) 2013 , 162–175. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.
Rehbein, Ines, Sören Schalowski & Heike Wiese. 2014. The KiezDeutsch Korpus (KiDKo) Release 1.0 , Proceedings of the 9th Language Resources and Evaluation Confe­rence (LREC) , 26-31 May 2014, Reykjavík, Iceland. 3927–3934. [URL]
Richling, Julia. 2008. Die Sprache in Foren und Newsgroups. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Rossi, Daniela. 2011. Lexical reduplication and affective contents: A pragmatic and experimental perspective. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 251. 148–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Creative uses of reduplication as legitimate instances of total reduplication: Arguments of French. Talk at the 37th Annual Conference of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS) , Leipzig, Germany, 4-6 March 2015.
Rubino, Carl. 2005. Reduplication: Form, function and distribution. In Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on Reduplication, 11–29. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scherer, Carmen. 2012. Vom Reisezentrum zum Reise Zentrum: Variation in der Schreibung von N+N-Kompo­sita. In Livio Gaeta & Barbara Schlücker (eds.), Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache. Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte, 57–81. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schindler, Wolfgang. 1991. Reduplizierende Wortbildung im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 441. 597–613.Google Scholar
Schlobinski, Peter. 2001. *knuddel – zurueckknuddel – dich ganzdollknuddel*: Inflektive und Inflektivkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 291. 192–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 2008. Total reduplication vs. echo-word formation in language contact situations. In Peter Siemund & Noemi Kintana (eds.), Language Contact and Contact Languages, 107–132. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze. 2011. Total Reduplication: The Areal Linguistics of a Potential Universal. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teuber, Oliver. 1999. fasel beschreib erwähn – Der Inflektiv als Wortform des Deutschen. In Matthias Butt & Nanna Fuhrhop (eds.), Variation und Stabilität in der Wortstruktur, 7–26. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Thompson, Hanne-Ruth. 2012. Bengali. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike. 2009. Grammatical innovation in multiethnic urban Europe: New linguistic practices among adolescents. Lingua 1191. 782–806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Kiezdeutsch: Ein neuer Dialekt entsteht. München: Beck. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Constructional pejoration in a language-contact situation: m-doublets in urban German. Talk at the 36th Annual Conference of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS) , Marburg, Germany, 5-7 March 2014. [URL]
Wiese, Heike & Nilgin Taniş Polat. To appear. Pejoration in contact: m-reduplication and other examples from urban German. In Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer & Heike Wiese (eds.), Pejoration. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logo
Wiese, Heike, Ulrike Freywald, Sören Schalowski & Katharina Mayr. 2012. Das KiezDeutsch-Korpus: Spontansprachliche Daten Jugendlicher aus urbanen Wohngebieten. Deutsche Sprache 401. 97–123.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1990. Über die Interaktion von Morphologie und Phonologie: Reduplikation im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 431. 603–624.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Wivell, Grace, Veronica Miatto, Ayla Karakaş, Kalina Kostyszyn & Lori Repetti
2024. All about ablaut: a typology of ablaut reduplicative structures. Linguistic Typology DOI logo
Freywald, Ulrike & Antje Dammel
2023. Morphologie: Das Wort. In Deutsche Sprache der Gegenwart, ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo
Frankowsky, Maximilian
2022. Extravagant expressions denoting quite normal entities. In Extravagant Morphology [Studies in Language Companion Series, 223], ► pp. 156 ff. DOI logo
Kentner, Gerrit
2022. do not repeat. In Extravagant Morphology [Studies in Language Companion Series, 223], ► pp. 182 ff. DOI logo
Kentner, Gerrit, Isabelle Franz & Winfried Menninghaus
2022. Poetics of reduplicative word formation: evidence from a rating and recall experiment. Language and Cognition 14:3 ► pp. 333 ff. DOI logo
Bross, Fabian & Katherine Fraser
2020. Contrastive focus reduplication and the modification puzzle. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.