Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная
лингвистика
и
лингводидактика
–
Foreign
Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/foreign-linguistics
Semantic properties of reduplication in English and
Karakalpak
Bakhitgul KDIRBAEVA
Nukus State Pedagogical Institute named after Ajiniyaz
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received April 2024
Received in revised form
10 May 2024
Accepted 25 May 2024
Available online
25 June 2024
Reduplication, a common phenomenon observed in many
languages like English and Karakalpak, conveys various
meanings such as plurality and intensity. Despite their
differences, both languages exhibit similar semantic sets
expressed through reduplication. This study explores the
general semantics of reduplication in these languages.
2181-
3701/© 2024 in Science LLC.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol2-iss1
This is an open-access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru
Keywords:
English reduplication,
Karakalpak reduplication,
set of concepts,
plurality,
intensity,
pejoration.
Инглиз ва Қорақалпоқ
тилларида редупликациянинг
семантик хусусиятлари
АННОТАЦИЯ
Калит сўзлар:
Инглиз тилида
редупликация,
Қорақалпоқ тилида
редупликация,
маънолар тўплами,
кўплик,
интенсивлик,
пежоратив
.
Редупликация, инглиз ва Қорақалпоқ каби кўплаб
тилларда кузатиладиган кенг тарқалган ҳодиса, кўплик ва
интенсивлик каби турли маъноларни англатади. Уларнинг
фарқларига қарамай, иккала тил ҳам редупликация орқали
ифодаланган ўхшаш семантик тўпламларни намойиш
етади. Ушбу тадқиқот ушбу тилларда редупликациянинг
умумий семантикасини ўрганади.
1
PhD student, Nukus State Pedagogical Institute named after Ajiniyaz. E-mail: baxitgul.kdirbaeva@ndpi.uz
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
1 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
203
Семантические свойства редупликации в английском
и каракалпакском языках
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
английская редупликация,
каракалпакская
редупликация,
набор значений,
множественность,
интенсивность,
пейоративность
.
Редупликация, распространенное явление, наблюдаемое
во многих языках, таких как английский и каракалпакский,
передает различные значения, такие как множественность
и интенсивность. Несмотря на свои различия, оба языка
демонстрируют
сходные
семантические
наборы,
выражаемые
посредством
редупликации.
В
этом
исследовании исследовано общая семантика редупликации
в этих языках.
SUMMARY
This study examines the phenomenon of reduplication, which is the repetition of
words or parts of words in order to create new meanings. The focus of this study is on
English and Karakalpak, two languages that, despite their differences, employ
reduplication in similar ways.
Firstly, the paper provides definitions of reduplication, as given by scholars such as
Sapir (1921) and Moravcsik (1992). It then proceeds to examine primary research on
reduplication in both English and Karakalpak. In particular, studies by Jespersen et al.
(1954), Thun (1963), Marchand (1960), Quirk et al. (1985), Merlini Barbaresi (2008),
and Mattiello (2013) are of particular note in the field of English literature. In the field of
Karakalpak research, the works of Baskakov (1952), Nazhimov (1971), Bekbergenov
(1979), and Dauletov et al. (1994) are also worthy of note. In cross-linguistic research,
the works of Sapir (1921), Moravcsik (1992), Regier (1994), Ferguson (1975), Ghomeshi
et al. (2004), Grohmann and Nevins (2004), and Sergienko (2021) are worthy of
consideration. The research primarily demonstrates how scholars have identified a range
of meanings conveyed through reduplication, including intensity, plurality, and
pejoration.
Secondly, the study examines how English reduplicatives frequently exhibit
semantic ambiguity due to their associations with vague concepts. They contribute to the
expansion of the vocabulary by offering unique and fully lexicalised phrases. The echo-
reduplication structures in English and Karakalpak languages frequently convey negative
implications, although the extent of this varies according to the context and the specific
meaning conveyed.
Thirdly, the Karakalpak reduplication is analysed. The examples illustrate how
reduplication conveys plurality (tilkim-
tilkim ‘shreds’), intensification (qıp
-
qızıl ‘very
red’), and similar concepts explored in English reduplication.
Furthermore, the study by Regier (1994) is referenced, which proposes
a “universal radial category of concepts” for reduplication, with repetition at its centre.
To illustrate, this concept can be employed to elucidate the function of reduplicated
words for birds.
Reduplication is a common linguistic phenomenon in both English and Karakalpak
languages, as well as in numerous other languages. Across languages, the meanings
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
1 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
204
expressed through reduplication are similar, despite the variety of concepts expressed
through this linguistic phenomenon. The objective of this study is to examine the
semantics of reduplication in English and Karakalpak, with a particular focus on the
common set of meanings that both languages share.
As previously stated, reduplication is a pervasive linguistic phenomenon observed
in numerous languages. Sapir (1921) notes that reduplication is "the repetition of all or
part of the radical element" (p. 79). Moravcsik (1992) provides a more detailed definition
of reduplication, stating that it is "a pattern where the double or multiple occurrence of a
sound string, syllable, morpheme, or word within a larger syntagmatic unit is in
systematic contrast with its single occurrence, with the iterated elements filling
functionally non-distinct positions" (p. 323). Consequently, reduplication can be total or
partial. The latter type can be further subdivided into subtypes that are "logically
possible" (Moravcsik, 1978, p. 304). Ghomeshi, Jackendoff, Rosen and Russell (2004)
present a more extensive range of types and subtypes, including "baby-talk"
reduplication (wa-wa), multiple partial reduplications (hap-hap-happy), deprecative
reduplication (baby-shmaby), "rhyme combinations" (hubble-bubble), "ablaut
combinations" (ping-pong), and intensive reduplication (pretty-pretty) (pp. 308-309).
Furthermore, Ghomeshi et al. (2004) present an English phenomenon known as
contrastive reduplication, exemplified in (1). The example is taken from Ghomeshi et al.
(2004, p. 308):
(1)
My car isn’t MINE –
mine; it’s my parents’.
A multitude of studies have been conducted on the features of reduplication in
English and Karakalpak, including its semantic aspects. The research on English
reduplicatives by Jespersen, Christophersen, Haislund and Schibsbye (1954), Thun
(1963), Marchand (1960), Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik (1985), Merlini
Barbaresi (2008), and Mattiello (2013) is noteworthy, as are other related studies.
Similarly, studies on reduplication in the Karakalpak language have been conducted by
various scientists, including Baskakov (1952), Nazhimov (1971), Bekbergenov (1979),
Dauletov, Dauenov and Bekbergenov (1994), among others.
Reduplication is a common means of expressing various concepts. As Sapir (1921)
notes, these include the following concepts: distribution, plurality, repetition, customary
activity, increase of size, added intensity, and continuance (p. 79). Moravchik (1978)
presents a critical analysis of the semantics of reduplication from a typological
perspective. The research indicates that reduplicative constructions frequently express
increased quantity, intensity, diminutiveness and attenuation (Moravchik, 1978, p. 325).
Regier (1994) provides a more extensive range of meanings that reduplication expresses
and attempts to explain the "cross-linguistic regularities which appear in the semantics
of reduplication" (p. 14). The study also proposes a "universal radial category of
concepts," a notion adopted from Pederson and Jurafsky (Regier, 1994, p. 1).
Consequently, Regier (1994) demonstrates the various senses of reduplication and their
interconnections, with repetition as the central sense (p. 2).
As mentioned earlier, reduplication is a common phenomenon in English. The
study of English reduplicatives can be traced back to Jespersen (1954), Thun (1963),
Marchand (1960), and Quirk et al. (1985). Thun’s monograph (1963) is recognized as the
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
1 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
205
most comprehensive study on this subject. Additionally, the works of Merlini Barbaresi
(2008) and Mattiello (2013) are worth noting in this research area.
According to Merlini Barbaresi (2008), English reduplicatives often exhibit
semantic ambiguity as their meanings can be associated with vague concepts such as
pretentiousness (
artsy-fartsy, arty-farty
‘pretentiously artistic’,
culture-vulture
‘excessively, often pretentiously interested in the arts’,
hoity-toity
‘pretentious; petulant’),
smallness (
itsy-bitsy, itty-bitty
,
teeny-weeny, teensy-weensy
,
tiny-winy
,
titty-totty
‘very
small, tiny’), indecision (
dilly-dally
‘being indecisive’,
nilly-willy
‘by compulsion; without
choice’,
shilly-shally
‘to show indecision’), confusion, carelessness and disorder (
helter-
skelter
,
higgledy-piggledy
,
hitty-missy
,
hodge-podge
,
hurly-burly
,
hurry-scurry
,
mishmash
‘confusion; in utter confusion or disorder’), trickery and secrecy (
hocus-pocus, hokey-
pokey
,
jiggery-pokery
‘jugglery, trickery’), foolishness or inferior quality (
nitwit, nit-wit
,
silly-billy
,
riff-raff
‘stupid or foolish person’), fussiness (
fuddy-duddy
‘old
-
fashioned’,
worry-wart
‘a person who tends to worry habitually and often needlessly; pessimist;
fussbudget’), among others (p. 235).
However, Mattiello (2013) claims that English reduplicatives serve to enrich the
lexicon by providing distinctive and fully lexicalized expressions. Mattiello (2013) gives
examples of these reduplicative constructions, as illustrated in (2), and points out that some
of them cover certain “semantic spaces” and lack a “commonly used synonym” (p. 142).
(2)
knick-knack
‘a trinket’
nitty-gritty
‘very detailed’
ping-pong
‘table tennis’
tussie-mussie
‘a small bouquet of flowers’
yo-yo
‘the toy’
zig-zag
‘sharp turns in alternating directions; a drunk person’.
Mattiello (2013) also notes that reduplication is primarily used for “expressive,
playful or aesthetic effects” in English (p. 141). For instance, in Yiddish English, there is the
shm-
reduplication or
schm
-reduplication, which falls under the category of expressive
morphology (Zwicky and Pullum, 1987). The
shm-
reduplication or
schm
-reduplication is
considered one of the patterns of echo-reduplication, which exists with a different pattern in
Karakalpak. In Karakalpak, echo-reduplication involves consonant replacements with
m, b, p,
and
s
, as shown in (3). Some examples in English are shown in (4).
(3)
adam-madam
or
adam-padam
‘people’
shara-bara
‘old stuff, junk’
mal-sal
‘cattle’.
(4)
art-shmart, book-shmook, marry-shmarry, table-shmable
.
While echo-reduplication patterns in both languages carry a pejorative
connotation, they differ in distribution and semantics.
Shm
-reduplication is not used in
argument positions (Grohmann and Nevins, 2004) and rarely implies plurality of the
reduplicated word (Sergienko, 2021). In contrast, echo-reduplication in Karakalpak
conveys plurality.
A pejorative connotation can be observed in other forms of reduplication. For
instance, the English word
slang-whang
‘nonsense, abusive talk’ and the Karakalpak word
mıj
-
mıj
‘chatterbox, chatty/annoying person’ exemplify the pejorative connotation.
Pejoration is the property of expressing disapproval, criticism, censure, or contempt.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
1 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
206
Regier (1994) mentions the link between the concept of “small” and the concept of
“contempt” (p. 2).
Furthermore, Regier (1994) discusses the link from “baby” to “small” (p. 6).
Reduplicatives, present in baby talk and nursery language, can be found in many
languages, including English and Karakalpak. These reduplicatives exhibit specific
semantics and function as productive linguistic tools for word-
formation. The children’s
reduplicatives contribute significantly in their language acquisition process. Moreover,
these reduplicative constructions may occasionally be observed in adult language
(Ferguson, 1975). An example of such reduplicative forms in English is the word
tummy
,
while in Karakalpak, it is exemplified by the word
babay
‘an old man, a grandfather; a
ghost (an imaginary figure invoked by parents to caution disobedient children)’.
As noted above, reduplication is a common phenomenon in the Karakalpak
language. Baskakov (1952) was one of the first to analyze words formed through
reduplication. Such words have the semantics of plurality (
tilkim
‘shred’ →
tilkim-tilkim
‘shreds’), intensification, intensity (
gone
‘old’ →
góp
-
góne
‘very old) and pejoration (
jetim
‘orphan’ →
jetim-setim
‘poor people, orphans’).
Following this, Nazhimov (1971) further explores reduplicative words in
Karakalpak, emphasizing their semantic expressions of plurality (as in (5)), iteration (as
in (6)), continuity (as in (7)), intensification (as in (8)), and others.
(5)
dáste
‘bouquet’ →
dáste
-
dáste
‘bouquets’
(6)
ayta
‘saying’ →
ayta-ayta
‘repeatedly repeating; repeatedly saying’
(7)
kúle
‘laughing’ →
kúle
-
kúle
‘continue laughing’
(8)
qızıl
‘red’ →
qıp
-
qızıl
‘very red, completely red’.
Bekbergenov (1979) explores a wide range of meanings conveyed by reduplicative
words in Karakalpak, with a primary emphasis on conveying concepts such as plurality
(
qap
‘bag’ →
qap-qap
‘bags’), duration (
qayta
‘again’ →
qayta-qayta
‘over and over again’),
and intensity (
sayız
‘shallow’ →
sap-
sayız
‘very shallow’). As shown in (9), reduplicatives
can signify the intensification or continuity of an action (9a), distribution (9b),
derogation, and pejoration (9c). Bekbergenov (1979) further supports these findings.
(9)
a.
Jılay
-
jılay
sharshaǵan qız, hesh nárseden qáwetersiz uyqılap ketti.
‘The girl, who
was tired of crying continuously (repeatedly), fell asleep peacefully’ (Т
.
К
.
Каипбергенов
.
Маман
бий
әпсанасы
. [T.K. Kaipbergenov. The Legend of Mamanbiy]).
a.
Hár biriniń qolında
bir-birden
ala tayaǵı bar eken.
‘Each person was holding
a stick in their hand’ (Т
.
К
.
Каипбергенов
.
Маман
бий
әпсанасы
. [T.K. Kaipbergenov.
The Legend of Mamanbiy]).
b.
Meniń
birew-mirew
menen jumısım joq.
‘I have no business with anyone’.
Dauletov et al. (1994) also note that intensity, plurality, and duration are
expressed in Karakalpak by reduplication.
Regier’s study (1994) also examines the concept “bird” and “insect”, noting that
many languages possess bird names (such as in English
cuckoo
) and insect names formed
from reduplication (p. 5). Regier (1994) suggests a “conceptual link from repetition to
bird”, as birds frequently produce “repetitive sounds” (p. 5). Moreover, “a link from
continuity to insect” is noted, as insects often produce “continuous sounds” (Regier,
1994, p. 5). A notable example of a reduplicative bird name in Karakalpak is ‘
tıqtıq
’ and
an insect name is ‘
shekshek
’. However, they are not synchronically reduplicative words.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
1 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
207
It is also worth noting the intensity once again, as reduplication in both languages
expresses this concept. Regier (1994) gives ‘a whole whole lot’ as an example in which
this sense appears (p. 9). Some examples in Karakalpak are given in (10).
(10)
qap-
qattı
‘very hard, very solid’
ap-
awır
‘very heavy’
ap-
ańsat
‘easy
-
peasy’
sulıw
-
sulıw
‘very beautiful’
In conclusion, reduplication is a linguistic phenomenon observed in numerous
languages, including English and Karakalpak. Despite the genetic and areal differences
between the two languages, both languages demonstrate similarities in the manner in which
they utilise reduplication to convey a range of meanings. This study considers the general
semantic features of reduplication in English and Karakalpak languages. In both languages,
reduplication can be used to express a variety of meanings, including plurality, intensity,
pejoration, and others. Further research on reduplication in English and Karakalpak could
assist in the study of the distinct meanings of reduplication employed in each language and
in the exploration of the semantics of reduplication in greater depth.
REFERENCES:
1.
Baskakov, N. A. (1952).
Karakalpakskij yazyk: Fonetika i morfologiya II
[Karakalpak language. Phonetics and morphology II]. Moscow.
2.
Bekbergenov, A. (1979).
Qaraqalpaq tilinde sózlerdiń jasalıwı
[Word-formation
in the Karakalpak language], Nukus: Karakalpakstan.
3.
Dáwletov, M., Dáwenov, E., & Bekbergenov, A. (1994).
Házirgi qaraqalpaq Ádebiy
tiliniń grammatikası. Sóz jasalıw hám morfologiya
[Grammar of the modern literary
Karakalpak language. Word-formation and morphology], Nukus: Bilim.
4.
Ferguson, C. A. (1975). Avtonomnaya detskaya rech' v shesti yazykakh
[Autonomous children's speech in six languages].
Novoe v lingvistike, (7)
, 422-440.
5.
Ghomeshi, J., Jackendoff, R., Rosen, N., & Russell, K. (2004). Contrastive focus
reduplication in English (the salad-salad paper).
Natural language & linguistic theory
,
22
,
307-357.
6.
Grohmann, K. K., & Nevins, A. I. (2004). On the syntactic expression of pejorative
mood.
Linguistic Variation Yearbook
,
4
(1), 143-179.
7.
Jespersen, O., Christophersen, P., Haislund, N., & Schibsbye, K. (1954).
A Modern
English Grammar on Historical Principles: Volume 6
(1st ed.)
. Routledge.
8.
Marchand, H. (1960).
The categories and types of present-day English word-
formation: a synchronic-diachronic approach
.
München: Beck.
9.
Mattiello, E. (2013).
Extra-grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations,
Blends, Reduplicatives and Related Phenomena
. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
10.
Merlini Barbaresi, L. (2008). Extra-grammatical morphology: English
reduplicatives. In
Douthwaite J., PezzinI D. Words in Action: Diachronic and Synchronic
Approaches to English Discourse: Studies in Honour of Ermanno Barisone
, 228-241.
11.
Moravcsik, E. A. (1978). Reduplicative constructions. In
Joseph Greenberg (ed.),
Universals of Human Language.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 297
–
334.
12.
Moravcsik, E. A. (1992). Reduplication. (Bright, W., Ed.)
International
encyclopedia of linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 323-324.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
1 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
208
13.
Nazhimov, A. (1971).
Sposoby obrazovaniya parnykh i parno-povtornykh slov v
karakalpakskom yazyke
(avtoref. dis. ... kand. filol. Nauk) [Methods of formation of pair-
words and reduplicative words in the Karakalpak language] [Dissertation abstract for the
degree of candidate of philological sciences], Nukus.
14.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985).
A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language
. London/New York: Longman.
15.
Regier, T. (1994).
A preliminary study of the semantics of reduplication
.
California: International Computer Science Institute.
16.
Sapir, E. (1921).
Language: An introduction to the study of speech.
New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Company.
17.
Sergienko, A. (2021).
M-reduplication: An areal study
(BA Thesis). HSE
University.
18.
Thun, N. (1963).
Reduplicative words in English: a study of formations of the
types tick-tick, hurly-burly and shilly-shally.
Uppsala: Carl Bloms.
19.
Zwicky, A. M., & Pullum, G. K. (1987). Plain morphology and expressive
morphology. In Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis, and Hana Filip (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society
(pp. 330-340).
Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
