Arts, Faculty of
Linguistics, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Mellesmoen, Gloria Madeleine
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
This dissertation proposes a model of the spell-out component of the grammar that accounts for the form and position of reduplicative morphemes across all twenty-three Salish languages. The model integrates components of Prosodic Morphology and Moraic Theory, Generalised Nonlinear Affixation, and Stratal Optimality Theory. Its empirical basis is a comprehensive survey of reduplication across the Salish language family, including both published and archival sources. The survey is supplemented by original fieldwork on two languages (Comox-Sliammon and Lillooet) which allows specific predictions of the model to be tested pertaining to the relevant domain(s) for reduplication, the type of phonological material present in lexical entries, and which aspects of the phonological grammar determine if, where, and how a reduplicative morpheme is realised. With respect to domain, a stratum-based model is required to account for the realisation of reduplicative morphemes, including patterns of allomorphy, variation in form and position, and systematic gaps in multiple reduplication patterns. Strata in the model developed here are defined purely on a phonological basis, without reference to morphological domains. This approach also accounts for the form of reduplicative morphemes that include either linear (segmental) or non-linear (prosodic) representations, or a combination of both. To predict the correct surface position of reduplicative morphemes, a two-step model of lexical insertion is adopted. Morphemes are linearised at the first step, prior to the insertion of phonological content; it is only at the second step that differences between linear and non-linear representations emerge. These differences, including the shape and position of suprasegmental and segmental content, are determined by the phonological grammar at the relevant stratum; the phonology determines when and if segments are reduplicated, and if they will be positioned as prefixes, suffixes, or infixes. This dissertation is the first formal phonological analysis of reduplication that considers the full range of reduplication patterns across the entire Salish language family. Aside from its theoretical contribution, it serves as a comprehensive and accurate documentary source for further theoretical and typological investigation.
The Grammar of Salish ReduplicationbyGloria Madeleine MellesmoenB.A. Linguistics and English, Simon Fraser University, 2015M.A. Linguistics, University of Toronto, 2016A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDoctor of PhilosophyinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORALSTUDIES(Linguistics)The University of British Columbia(Vancouver)April 2025© Gloria Madeleine Mellesmoen, 2025The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to theFaculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled:The Grammar of Salish Reduplicationsubmitted by Gloria Madeleine Mellesmoen in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics.Examining Committee:Henry Davis, Professor, Department of Linguistics, UBCSupervisorLisa Matthewson, Professor, Department of Linguistics, UBCSupervisory Committee MemberGunnar Hansson, Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, UBCSupervisory Committee MemberDouglas Pulleyblank, Professor, Department of Linguistics, UBCUniversity ExaminerStefan Dollinger, Professor, Department of English Language and Literatures,UBCUniversity ExaminerPeter Svenonius, Professor, Department of Language and Culture, UiT The ArcticUniversity of NorwayExternal ExamineriiAbstractThis dissertation proposes a model of the spell-out component of the grammar thataccounts for the form and position of reduplicative morphemes across all twenty-three Salish languages. The model integrates components of Prosodic Morphologyand Moraic Theory, Generalised Nonlinear Affixation, and Stratal OptimalityTheory. Its empirical basis is a comprehensive survey of reduplication across theSalish language family, including both published and archival sources. The surveyis supplemented by original fieldwork on two languages (Comox-Sliammon andLillooet) which allows specific predictions of the model to be tested pertaining tothe relevant domain(s) for reduplication, the type of phonological material presentin lexical entries, and which aspects of the phonological grammar determine if,where, and how a reduplicative morpheme is realised.With respect to domain, a stratum-based model is required to account for therealisation of reduplicative morphemes, including patterns of allomorphy, variationin form and position, and systematic gaps in multiple reduplication patterns. Stratain the model developed here are defined purely on a phonological basis, withoutreference to morphological domains. This approach also accounts for the formof reduplicative morphemes that include either linear (segmental) or non-linear(prosodic) representations, or a combination of both. To predict the correct surfaceposition of reduplicative morphemes, a two-step model of lexical insertion isadopted. Morphemes are linearised at the first step, prior to the insertion ofphonological content; it is only at the second step that differences between linearand non-linear representations emerge. These differences, including the shapeand position of suprasegmental and segmental content, are determined by thephonological grammar at the relevant stratum; the phonology determines when andiiiif segments are reduplicated, and if they will be positioned as prefixes, suffixes, orinfixes.This dissertation is the first formal phonological analysis of reduplication thatconsiders the full range of reduplication patterns across the entire Salish languagefamily. Aside from its theoretical contribution, it serves as a comprehensive andaccurate documentary source for further theoretical and typological investigation.ivLay SummaryReduplication is a word-building process where meaning is added by doublingcertain sounds. This dissertation describes types of reduplication found acrossall twenty-three Salish languages (a family of Indigenous languages spoken inthe Pacific Northwest); it is informed by a combination of linguistic fieldwork,documentation, and archival materials. Similarities and differences between typesof reduplication in closely related languages are significant for understanding howspeakers represent their languages in their “mental grammars”; for example, howthey decide what sounds like a “good” word in their language. Three main findingsinclude: (i) reduplication does not happen “all at once” when building a word(some types happen later than others); (ii) different Salish languages order types ofreduplication in different ways; and (iii) speakers generally only tolerate one typeof reduplication at a time (i.e., words with two types are only allowed if one typehappens before the other).vPrefaceThe phonological analysis presented in this dissertation is my own work, thoughcertain aspects are guided by earlier collaboration. The unpublished fieldworkdata included in this dissertation represents ongoing collaboration. Below, I detailpapers and collaborations that have informed the analysis, generalisations, and dataincluded in this dissertation.In Chapter 4, I include an analysis of PayPajˇuT@m (Comox-Sliammon) C1reduplication that is partly based on generalisations first given in the followingconference papers:• Mellesmoen, G. (2017). All the Small Things: Diminutive Reduplication asInfixation in PayPajˇuT@m. In A. Anghelescu, M. Fry, M. Huijsmans, & D.Reisinger (Eds.), Papers for the 52nd International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL 52) (pp. 151–169). Vancouver: Universityof British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.• Mellesmoen, G. (2020). A Reanalysis of CV- Reduplication in Comox-Sliammon. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Northwest LinguisticsConference (NWLC 35) (pp. 1–10). Victoria: Working Papers of theLinguistics Circle of the University of VictoriaThe analysis in this dissertation makes different theoretical claims; it replaces theseearlier papers. I have a forthcoming conference paper presenting this updatedanalysis, including the discussion of syllable structure in Chapter 3:• Mellesmoen, G. (to appear). Monomoraic syllables with non-moraic vowelsin Salish: The structure of a monomoraic syllable in Comox-Sliammonvireduplication. In Proceedings of the 41st West Coast Conference on FormalLinguistics (WCCFL) 41. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Analysis of St’a´t’imcets (Lillooet) C1 reduplication in Chapters 4–5 is informedby joint work with Henry Davis, which appeared as:• Davis, H., & Mellesmoen, G. A Newly Discovered Reduplication Patternin St’a´t’imcets and its Implications. In D. K. E. Reisinger, L. Griffin, G.Mellesmoen, S. Nederveen, J. Schillo, & B. Trotter (Eds.), Papers for the58th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL) 58 (pp.10–46). Vancouver: University of British ColumbiaWorking Papers in Linguistics.Henry Davis provided the fieldwork data and description in the first half of thepaper; I contributed the formal phonological analysis and theoretical implicationsin the second half of the paper. While the paper includes much of the same analysisI give in this dissertation, some elements have since been revised (e.g., abandoningthe “stem” as a phonological domain).For the analysis of Hul’q’umi’num’ (Halkomelem) in Chapter 5, descriptionand generalisations are informed by collaborative work with Suzanne Urbanczyk.This collaboration includes the following conference papers:• Mellesmoen, G., & Urbanczyk, S. (2020). Mora Affixation and HalkomelemImperfective Allomorphy. In D. K. E. Reisinger, H. Green, M. Huijsmans,G. Mellesmoen, & B. Trotter (Eds.), Papers for the 55th InternationalConference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 55) (pp.238–256). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers inLinguistics.• Mellesmoen, G., & Urbanczyk, S. (2021) Avoiding Multiple Reduplicationwithout INTEGRITY. In D. K. E. Reisinger & M. Huijsmans (Eds.),Proceedings of the 37th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics(WCCFL 37) (pp. 169–178). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.• Mellesmoen, G. & Urbanczyk, S. (2021). Binarity in Prosodic Morphologyand elsewhere. In R. Bennett et al. (Eds.), Supplemental proceedings of thevii2020 Annual Meeting on Phonology (AMP). Washington: Linguistic Societyof America.• Mellesmoen, G. (2024). Reduplicative morphemes and their non-reduplicative allomorphs in Stratal OT: Stem-level and word-levelreduplication in Hul’q’umi’num’. In R. Autry et al. (Eds.), Proceedingsof the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 39 (pp.346–351). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.In Chapter 5, I present a critique of this earlier work based on independent research.Elements of the formal analysis (applied to St’a´t’imcets) will be publishing in anupcoming conference paper:• Mellesmoen, G. (to appear). Limited by number of morphemes, notcopied segments multiple reduplication and triplication in St’a´t’imcets. InProceedings of the 2024 Annual Meeting on Phonology (AMP). Washington:Linguistic Society of America.In Chapter 5, discussion of an ungrammatical combination of plural C1C2 andimperfective C1 builds on an observation made in the following paper:• Huijsmans, M., & Mellesmoen, G. (2021). How to distribute events:PayPajˇuT@m pluractionals. International Journal of American Linguistics(IJAL) 87(3), 339–368.The data for this section and conclusions about the semantics associated with thiscombination are informed by continued collaboration with Marianne Huijsmans.The phonological description and analysis are my own.Analysis of certain cross-Salish patterns in Chapter 6 comes from more in-depth analyses developed in the following papers:• Mellesmoen, G. (2021). Syllables and reduplication in Bella Coola(Nuxalk). In D. K. E. Reisinger, L. G. Hannah Green, M. Huijsmans,G. Mellesmoen, & B. Trotter (Eds.), Papers for the 56th InternationalConference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 56) (pp.226–243). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers inLinguisticsviii• Mellesmoen, G. (2022). DIG reconstruction and the secret life of Proto-Salish diminutives: An amphichronic analysis of diminutives in UpperChehalis. In D. K. E. Reisinger, L. Griffin, G. Mellesmoen, S. Nederveen, B.Oliver, & B. Trotter (Eds.), Papers for the 57th International Conference onSalish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 57) (pp. 67–86). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in LinguisticsEach of the above papers is cited where relevant throughout the dissertation;otherwise, the content of the dissertation represents original research that has notappeared elsewhere.Fieldwork for this dissertation on PayPajˇuT@m (Comox-Sliammon) andSecwempemctsı´n (Shuswap) was conducted as part of the PayPajˇuT@m Laband Secwempemctsı´n Working Groups at UBC. Fieldwork data from these twolanguages was elicited by me, either independently or in collaboration withanother lab member. Some examples in Chapter 5 were elicited by MarianneHuijsmans on my behalf; I use footnotes to identify the relevant examples. Allfieldwork data on St’a´t’imcets comes from elicitation conducted by Henry Davis.This research was conducted with approval from the UBC Research EthicsBoard, under the titles Dictionary Project (H15-01026) and BC FNL GrammarProject (H20-02664-A002), both with Henry Davis as principal investigator.Generative AI was not used for any aspect of this dissertation.ixTable of ContentsAbstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiLay Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viTable of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xList of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxixList of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxvAcknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxxviDedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxxix1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Focus and Goals of this Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1.1 Reduplication and Non-Concatenative Morphology . . . . 21.1.2 Main Contributions and Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.1.2.1 Architecture of the Grammar . . . . . . . . . . 51.1.2.2 Main Theoretical Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.1.2.3 Contributions to Description and Documentation 71.2 Structure of this Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.3 Salish Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.3.1 Endonyms vs. Exonyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10x1.3.2 Geographical Distribution and Language Classification . . 121.3.3 Language Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141.4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161.4.1 Fieldwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161.4.2 Published and Archival Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181.4.3 Methodological Considerations for Reduplication . . . . . 181.4.3.1 Eliciting Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191.4.3.2 Phonologically Regular and Active Patterns . . 201.4.3.3 Productivity and Reduplication . . . . . . . . . 221.4.4 Transcription and Glossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231.4.4.1 Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241.4.4.2 Suprasegmental Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 251.4.4.3 Modifications to Glossing and Translations . . . 251.4.4.4 Unreduplicated Forms for Comparison . . . . . 261.5 Sources and Documentation of Salish Reduplication . . . . . . . . 261.5.1 Central Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271.5.1.1 Lushootseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281.5.1.2 Twana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291.5.1.3 Nooksack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301.5.1.4 Straits (Northern Straits and Klallam) . . . . . . 301.5.1.5 Halkomelem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311.5.1.6 Squamish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331.5.1.7 Comox-Sliammon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331.5.1.8 Sechelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341.5.1.9 Pentlatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341.5.1.10 Summary: Central Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . 341.5.2 Tsamosan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351.5.2.1 Upper Chehalis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351.5.2.2 Cowlitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361.5.2.3 Lower Chehalis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361.5.2.4 Quinault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361.5.2.5 Summary: Tsamosan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371.5.3 Tillamook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37xi1.5.4 Interior Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371.5.4.1 Lillooet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381.5.4.2 Thompson River Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391.5.4.3 Shuswap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401.5.4.4 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel . . . . . . . 401.5.4.5 Moses Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411.5.4.6 Coeur d’Alene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411.5.4.7 Okanagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421.5.4.8 Summary: Interior Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . 421.5.5 Bella Coola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 Survey of Reduplication in Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442.1 Examples and Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442.2 Terminology and Glossing Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452.2.1 Morpheme Breaks and Glossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462.2.2 What Counts as Reduplication? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482.2.2.1 Reduplicative Morphemes . . . . . . . . . . . . 492.2.2.2 Phonological Criteria for ReduplicativeMorphemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502.2.3 Defining Core Reduplication Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . 522.2.3.1 Core Reduplication Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . 522.2.3.2 Peripheral Reduplication Patterns . . . . . . . . 532.2.4 Labels for Reduplication Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552.2.4.1 Form-Based Primary Classification . . . . . . . 562.2.4.2 Meaning-Based Secondary Classification . . . . 582.2.5 Additional Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602.2.5.1 Pivots: Edge vs. Prominence Alignment . . . . 602.2.5.2 Non-Reduplicated Segments: Fixed vs. Epenthetic 612.2.6 Classifying Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642.3 Core Reduplication Patterns across Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652.4 C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672.4.1 Position of C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682.4.2 Vowels in C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69xii2.4.3 Meanings Associated with C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . 702.4.3.1 Plural C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 712.4.3.2 Property-Denoting C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . 722.4.3.3 Distribution of C1C2 Reduplicative Morphemes 752.4.4 Summary: C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772.5 C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772.5.1 Position of C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772.5.2 Vowels in C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792.5.3 Meanings Associated with C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . 802.5.3.1 Diminutive C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . 812.5.3.2 Aspectual C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 822.5.3.3 Plural C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832.5.3.4 Person-Linked C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . 842.5.3.5 Distinguishing Types of C1 Reduplication . . . 852.5.3.6 Distribution of C1 Reduplicative Morphemes . . 872.5.4 Summary: C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892.6 C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902.6.1 Position of C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902.6.2 Vowels in C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922.6.3 Meanings Associated with C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . 932.6.4 “Triplication” (C22 Reduplication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952.6.5 Summary: C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962.7 V1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972.7.1 Central Salish V1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972.7.2 Interior Salish V1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982.7.3 Tsamosan V1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992.7.4 Summary: V1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002.8 Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012.9 Generalisations and Gaps in Salish Reduplication . . . . . . . . . 1022.9.1 Generalisations about Core Types of Reduplication . . . . 1022.9.2 Generalisations about Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1032.9.3 Generalisations about Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042.9.4 Generalisations about Syntactic Distribution . . . . . . . . 104xiii3 Phonological Theory and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1063.1 Salish Reduplication and Phonological Theory . . . . . . . . . . . 1073.2 The Mora, Nucleus, and the Salish Syllable . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093.2.1 Moraic and Non-Moraic Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103.2.2 Moraic and Non-Moraic Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103.2.3 Two Types of Monomoraic Syllables in Salish . . . . . . . 1113.3 Prosodic Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123.3.1 Background: Prosodic Morphology Hypothesis . . . . . . 1123.3.2 Modifications: The Mora as a Prosodic Unit . . . . . . . . 1143.4 Generalized Nonlinear Affixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1153.4.1 Underlying Forms/Affixes in GNLA . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173.5 Architecture of the Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1183.5.1 Spans and Linearisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1193.5.1.1 Domain: w-span . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1193.5.1.2 Linearisation: Prefix Feature . . . . . . . . . . 1213.5.2 Stratification: Phonological Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1233.5.2.1 Stratal OT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1233.5.2.2 Stratification and the Grammar . . . . . . . . . 1253.5.2.3 Level Diacritics: Classifying Morphemes byStratum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1273.5.2.4 Summarising Constraint Rankings . . . . . . . 1293.6 Predictions of the Phonological Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1314 Single Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1334.1 Case Study I: Comox-Sliammon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1344.1.1 Comox-Sliammon Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1344.1.2 Preview of Comox-Sliammon Reduplication . . . . . . . 1364.1.3 Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1364.1.3.1 Level 1 C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . 1374.1.3.2 Level 1 C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 1554.1.3.3 Summary of Level 1 Reduplication . . . . . . . 1624.1.4 Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1634.1.4.1 Level 2 C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . 164xiv4.1.4.2 Level 2 C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 1714.1.4.3 Summary of Level 2 Grammar . . . . . . . . . 1744.1.5 Level 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1764.1.5.1 Level 3 C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . 1774.1.5.2 Level 3 V1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . 1804.1.5.3 Summary of Level 3 Grammar . . . . . . . . . 1874.1.6 Summary of Reduplication in Comox-Sliammon . . . . . 1894.2 Case Study II: Lillooet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1934.2.1 Lillooet Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1944.2.2 Preview of Lillooet Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1944.2.3 Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1954.2.3.1 Level 1 C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . 1954.2.3.2 Level 1 C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 2004.2.3.3 Summary of Level 1 Grammar . . . . . . . . . 2074.2.4 Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2084.2.4.1 Level 2 C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . 2084.2.4.2 Level 2 C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . 2214.2.4.3 Glottalisation and C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . 2374.2.4.4 Summary of Level 2 Grammar . . . . . . . . . 2524.2.5 C22 Reduplication (Triplication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2554.2.5.1 Form of C22 Reduplication (Triplication) . . . . 2554.2.5.2 Input for C22 Reduplication (Triplication) . . . 2574.2.5.3 C22 Reduplication (Triplication) at a Later Stratum2584.2.6 Summary of Reduplication in Lillooet . . . . . . . . . . . 2594.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2645 Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2655.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2655.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2665.3 Case Study I: Halkomelem (Allomorphy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2675.3.1 Single Reduplication in Halkomelem . . . . . . . . . . . 2685.3.1.1 Level 1: Imperfective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2695.3.1.2 Level 2: Diminutive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276xv5.3.1.3 Level 2: Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2795.3.2 Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2815.3.2.1 Attested: Diminutive Imperfective . . . . . . . 2815.3.2.2 Attested: Plural Imperfective . . . . . . . . . . 2825.3.2.3 Unattested: Diminutive Plural . . . . . . . . . . 2845.3.3 Restrictions on Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . 2855.3.3.1 Multiple Reduplication is Limited byMorphological Affiliation . . . . . . . . . . . . 2865.3.3.2 Alternate Approach: Multiple Reduplication isLimited by Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2915.3.3.3 Summary of Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . 2945.4 Case Study II: Lillooet (Multiple Reduplication Gaps) . . . . . . . 2955.4.1 Predictions for Multiple Reduplication in Lillooet . . . . . 2955.4.2 Multiple Reduplication in Lillooet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2975.4.2.1 Attested: Level 1 C1C2 and Level 2 C1Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2975.4.2.2 Attested: Level 1 C1C2 and Level 2 C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2995.4.2.3 Attested: Level 1 C1 and Level 2 C1 Reduplication3005.4.2.4 Attested: Level 1 C1 and Level 2 C2 Reduplication3015.4.2.5 Ungrammatical: Level 1 C1C2 and Level 1 C1Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3015.4.2.6 Ungrammatical: Level 2 C1 and Level 2 C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3035.4.3 Summary: Multiple Reduplication in Lillooet . . . . . . . 3045.4.4 Analysis: Multiple Reduplication in Lillooet . . . . . . . 3055.4.5 Evaluating Alternative Approaches: Multiple Reduplication 3085.4.6 Evaluating Alternative Approaches: Triplication . . . . . 3105.4.7 Summary: Morpheme vs. Segment Restrictions . . . . . . 3115.5 Case Study III: Comox-Sliammon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3125.5.1 Predictions for Multiple Reduplication in Comox-Sliammon 3125.5.2 Combinations Excluded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3145.5.3 L1-L1 Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315xvi5.5.3.1 Attested (Allomorphy): Level 1 C1 and Level 1C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3155.5.3.2 Attested (Allomorphy): Level 1 C1 and Level 1C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3165.5.4 L1-L2 Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3175.5.4.1 Attested: Level 1 C1 and Level 2 C1C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3175.5.5 L1-L3 Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3185.5.5.1 Attested: Level 1 C1 and Level 3 V1 Reduplication3185.5.6 L2-L2 Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3205.5.6.1 Ungrammatical: Level 2 C1 and Level 2 C1C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3205.5.7 L2-L3 Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3225.5.7.1 Attested: Level 2 C1C2 and Level 3 V1Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3225.5.7.2 Attested: Level 2 C1 and Level 3 C2 Reduplication3235.5.7.3 Attested: Level 2 C1 and Level 3 V1 Reduplication3235.5.8 L3-L3 Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3245.5.8.1 Ungrammatical: Level 3 C2 and Level 3 V1Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3245.5.9 L1-L2-L3 Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3255.5.9.1 Attested: Level 1 C1, Level 2 C1, and Level 3V1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3255.5.10 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3265.5.10.1 Diminutive and Plural Properties . . . . . . . . 3265.5.10.2 Double C1 Diminutive Plurals at Level 1 . . . . 3295.5.10.3 Diminutive Plurals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3315.5.11 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3325.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3346 A Model of Reduplication: Cross-Salish Variation and Implicationsfor Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3356.1 Architecture of the Grammar: Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336xvii6.2 Step 1: Structure Defines Span (Syntax) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3386.3 Step 2: Lexical Insertion, Step I (Morphosyntax) . . . . . . . . . 3396.4 Step 3: Linearisation (Morphology) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3396.4.1 Feature-Based Linearisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3396.4.2 Cross-Salish Variation: [prefix] vs. [suffix] . . . . . . . . 3406.5 Step 4: Lexical Insertion, Step II (Morphophonology) . . . . . . . 3446.5.1 Allomorphy and Lexical Insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3446.5.2 Lexical Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3456.5.2.1 Suprasegmental: Prosodic Units . . . . . . . . . 3456.5.2.2 Suprasegmental: Features . . . . . . . . . . . . 3526.5.2.3 Segmental: Fixed Segments . . . . . . . . . . . 3536.5.3 Cross-Salish Variation: Underlying Forms . . . . . . . . . 3546.5.3.1 Surface Bimoraic Syllable: Lushootseed,Tsamosan, Bella Coola . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3556.5.3.2 Single Fixed Segmental Allomorphs: MontanaSalish-Spokane-Kalispel and Moses ColumbiaRepetitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3566.5.3.3 “Onset” Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3586.5.3.4 Segmental (Consonant-Only): Inchoative inSouthern Interior Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3636.5.3.5 Summary: Lexical Entries for ReduplicativeMorphemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3646.6 Step 5: Phonological Derivation (Phonology) . . . . . . . . . . . 3656.6.1 Stratified Word-Level Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3656.6.1.1 Phonologically-Defined Levels . . . . . . . . . 3666.6.1.2 Reduplication is Fission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3666.6.1.3 Different Constraint Rankings at Each Strata . . 3666.6.1.4 Number of Segments Associated withReduplicative Morphemes . . . . . . . . . . . . 3676.6.1.5 Linearisation in the Phonological Derivation:Prefix Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3686.6.1.6 Restrictions on Multiple Reduplication . . . . . 3696.6.2 Cross-Salish Variation - Word-Level Grammar . . . . . . 370xviii6.6.2.1 Cross-Salish Variation: Summary of Case Studies 3716.6.2.2 Cross-Salish Variation: Extending the Analysis . 3766.6.2.3 Cross-Salish Variation: Morpheme to LevelMappings and Number of Relevant Levels . . . 3836.7 Step 6: Post-Reduplication Phonological Processes and PhoneticImplementation (Phonology/Phonetics) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3906.7.1 Post-Reduplication Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3916.7.1.1 Post-Lexical Phonology: Schwa Deletion inLillooet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3926.7.1.2 Word-Level Post-Reduplication Phonology:Compensatory Lengthening in Bella Coola andUpriver Halkomelem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3926.7.2 Phonetic Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3956.8 Implications of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3966.8.1 Modularity and the Interface between Morphology andPhonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3966.8.2 Non-Concatenative Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3976.8.2.1 Linearisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3986.8.2.2 Allomorph Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4026.8.3 Phonological, not Morphological Domains . . . . . . . . 4036.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406A Survey of Reduplication Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441A.1 Survey Methods, Sources, and Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . 441A.2 Interior Salish Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444A.2.1 Coeur d’Alene Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444A.2.1.1 Coeur d’Alene Sources and Transcription . . . . 444A.2.1.2 Coeur d’Alene C1C2 Plural/PluractionalReduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445A.2.1.3 Coeur d’Alene C1C2 Property-DenotingReduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447xixA.2.1.4 Coeur d’Alene Diminutive C1 Reduplication . . 448A.2.1.5 Coeur d’Alene Change-of-State C2 Reduplication 449A.2.1.6 Coeur d’Alene V1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . 450A.2.1.7 Other Reduplication in Coeur d’Alene . . . . . 451A.2.2 Moses Columbia Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452A.2.2.1 Moses Columbia Sources and Transcription . . 452A.2.2.2 Moses Columbia Plural/Pluractional C1C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452A.2.2.3 Moses Columbia Property-Denoting C1C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453A.2.2.4 Moses Columbia Diminutive C1 Reduplication . 454A.2.2.5 Moses Columbia Repetitive C1 Reduplication . 455A.2.2.6 Moses Columbia Change-of-State C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456A.2.2.7 Repetition in Moses Columbia . . . . . . . . . 457A.2.3 Okanagan Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459A.2.3.1 Okanagan Sources and Transcription . . . . . . 459A.2.3.2 Okanagan C1C2 Plural/Pluractional Reduplication 459A.2.3.3 Okanagan C1C2 Property-Denoting Reduplication 460A.2.3.4 Okanagan Diminutive C1 Reduplication . . . . 461A.2.3.5 Okanagan Change-of-State C2 Reduplication . . 463A.2.3.6 Okanagan V1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 464A.2.3.7 Other Reduplication in Okanagan . . . . . . . . 464A.2.4 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Reduplication . . . . . 466A.2.4.1 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Sources andTranscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466A.2.4.2 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Plural/PluractionalC1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467A.2.4.3 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel DiminutiveC1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468A.2.4.4 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Repetitive C1Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470xxA.2.4.5 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Change-of-State C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472A.2.4.6 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel V1Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473A.2.4.7 Repetition in Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel 475A.2.5 Lillooet Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477A.2.5.1 Lillooet Sources and Transcription . . . . . . . 477A.2.5.2 Lillooet Plural/Pluractional C1C2 Reduplication 477A.2.5.3 Lillooet Property-Denoting C1C2 Reduplication 479A.2.5.4 Lillooet Diminutive C1 Reduplication . . . . . . 480A.2.5.5 Lillooet Pluractional C1 Reduplication . . . . . 482A.2.5.6 Lillooet Plural (Initial) C1 Reduplication . . . . 483A.2.5.7 Lillooet Change-of-State C2 Reduplication . . . 484A.2.5.8 Other Reduplication in Lillooet . . . . . . . . . 486A.2.6 Shuswap Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487A.2.6.1 Shuswap Sources and Transcription . . . . . . . 487A.2.6.2 Shuswap Plural/Pluractional C1C2 Reduplication 487A.2.6.3 Shuswap Property-Denoting C1C2 Reduplication 489A.2.6.4 Shuswap Diminutive C1 Reduplication . . . . . 490A.2.6.5 Shuswap First Person C1 Reduplication . . . . . 491A.2.6.6 Shuswap Change-of-State C2 Reduplication . . 492A.2.6.7 Other Reduplication in Shuswap . . . . . . . . 493A.2.7 Thompson River Salish Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 494A.2.7.1 Thompson River Salish Sources and Transcription 494A.2.7.2 Thompson River Salish Plural/PluractionalC1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494A.2.7.3 Thompson River Salish Property-DenotingC1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496A.2.7.4 Thompson River Salish Diminutive C1Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497A.2.7.5 Thompson River Salish Affective C1Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499xxiA.2.7.6 Thompson River Salish Change-of-State C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500A.3 Central Salish Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502A.3.1 Comox-Sliammon Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502A.3.1.1 Comox-Sliammon Sources and Transcription . . 502A.3.1.2 Comox-Sliammon Plural/Pluractional C1C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502A.3.1.3 Comox-Sliammon Property-Denoting C1C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504A.3.1.4 Comox-Sliammon Diminutive C1 Reduplication 505A.3.1.5 Comox-Sliammon Plural C1 Reduplication . . . 508A.3.1.6 Comox-Sliammon Progressive C1 Reduplication 509A.3.1.7 Comox-Sliammon Change-of-State C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511A.3.1.8 Comox-Sliammon V1 Reduplication . . . . . . 511A.3.2 Halkomelem Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514A.3.2.1 Halkomelem Sources and Transcription . . . . . 514A.3.2.2 Halkomelem Plural/Pluractional C1C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514A.3.2.3 Halkomelem Property-Denoting C1C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517A.3.2.4 Halkomelem Imperfective C1 Reduplication . . 518A.3.2.5 Halkomelem Diminutive C1 Reduplication . . . 521A.3.2.6 Other Reduplication in Halkomelem . . . . . . 524A.3.3 Lushootseed Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525A.3.3.1 Lushootseed Sources and Transcription . . . . . 525A.3.3.2 Lushootseed Plural/Pluractional C1C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525A.3.3.3 Lushootseed Diminutive C1 Reduplication . . . 527A.3.3.4 Lushootseed Plural C1 Reduplication . . . . . . 530A.3.3.5 Lushootseed C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . 530A.3.3.6 Lushootseed V1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . 532A.3.4 Nooksack Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534xxiiA.3.4.1 Nooksack Sources and Transcription . . . . . . 534A.3.4.2 Nooksack Plural/Pluractional C1C2 Reduplication 534A.3.4.3 Nooksack Property-Denoting C1C2 Reduplication 536A.3.4.4 Nooksack Diminutive C1 Reduplication . . . . 536A.3.4.5 Other Reduplication in Nooksack . . . . . . . . 537A.3.5 Northern Straits and Klallam Reduplication . . . . . . . . 539A.3.5.1 Northern Straits and Klallam Sources andTranscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539A.3.5.2 Northern Straits and Klallam Plural/PluractionalC1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539A.3.5.3 Northern Straits and Klallam Property-DenotingC1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542A.3.5.4 Northern Straits and Klallam Diminutive C1Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543A.3.5.5 Northern Straits and Klallam Imperfective C1Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546A.3.5.6 Other Reduplication in Northern Straits andKlallam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548A.3.6 Pentlatch Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549A.3.6.1 Pentlatch Sources and Transcription . . . . . . 549A.3.6.2 Pentlatch C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . 549A.3.6.3 Pentlatch C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 550A.3.7 Sechelt Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553A.3.7.1 Sechelt Sources and Transcription . . . . . . . 553A.3.7.2 Sechelt Plural/Pluractional C1C2 Reduplication 553A.3.7.3 Sechelt Property-Denoting C1C2 Reduplication 555A.3.7.4 Sechelt Diminutive C1 Reduplication . . . . . . 556A.3.7.5 Sechelt Imperfective C1Reduplication . . . . . 559A.3.7.6 Sechelt Plural C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . 560A.3.7.7 Sechelt Change-of-State C2 Reduplication . . . 561A.3.8 Squamish Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563A.3.8.1 Squamish Sources and Transcription . . . . . . 563A.3.8.2 Squamish Plural/Pluractional C1C2 Reduplication 563xxiiiA.3.8.3 Squamish Property-Denoting C1C2 Reduplication 565A.3.8.4 Squamish Progressive C1 Reduplication . . . . 566A.3.8.5 Squamish Diminutive C1 Reduplication . . . . 566A.3.9 Twana Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568A.3.9.1 Twana Sources and Transcription . . . . . . . . 568A.3.9.2 Twana Plural C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . 568A.3.9.3 Twana Diminutive C1 Reduplication . . . . . . 570A.3.9.4 Twana Diminutive V1 Reduplication . . . . . . 571A.3.9.5 Other Reduplication in Twana . . . . . . . . . . 572A.4 Tsamosan Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573A.4.1 Cowlitz Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573A.4.1.1 Cowlitz Sources and Transcription . . . . . . . 573A.4.1.2 Cowlitz Pluractional C1C2 Reduplication . . . . 573A.4.1.3 Other Reduplication in Cowlitz . . . . . . . . . 574A.4.2 Lower Chehalis Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576A.4.2.1 Lower Chehalis Sources and Transcription . . . 576A.4.2.2 Lower Chehalis C1C2 Pluractional Reduplication 576A.4.2.3 Other Reduplication in Lower Chehalis . . . . . 577A.4.3 Quinault Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579A.4.3.1 Quinault Sources and Transcription . . . . . . . 579A.4.3.2 Quinault Pluractional C1C2 Reduplication . . . 579A.4.3.3 Quinault V1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 580A.4.3.4 Other Reduplication in Quinault . . . . . . . . 581A.4.4 Upper Chehalis Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582A.4.4.1 Upper Chehalis Sources and Transcription . . . 582A.4.4.2 Upper Chehalis Pluractional C1C2 Reduplication 582A.4.4.3 Upper Chehalis Change-of-State (“Slow”) C2Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584A.4.4.4 Upper Chehalis Superlative C2 Reduplication . 584A.5 Tillamook Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586A.5.0.1 Tillamook Sources and Transcription . . . . . . 586A.5.1 Tillamook Plural/Pluractional C1C2 Reduplication . . . . 586A.5.2 Tillamook Diminutive C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . 587xxivA.5.3 Tillamook Pluractional and Continuative C1 Reduplication 588A.5.4 Tillamook Change-of-State C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . 589A.6 Bella Coola Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591A.6.1 Bella Coola Sources and Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . 591A.6.2 Bella Coola Plural C1C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . 591A.6.3 Bella Coola Diminutive C1C2 and C1 Reduplication . . . 593A.6.3.1 Bella Coola Diminutive C1 Reduplication . . . 595A.6.3.2 Bella Coola Diminutive C1C2 Reduplication . . 596A.6.4 Phonological Patterns Shared between Different Types ofReduplication in Bella Coola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597B Survey of Multiple Reduplication Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598B.1 Interior Salish Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600B.1.1 Coeur d’Alene Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 600B.1.1.1 Diminutive Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600B.1.1.2 Diminutive and Property-Denoting . . . . . . . 601B.1.1.3 Plural Change of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601B.1.1.4 Diminutive Change of State . . . . . . . . . . . 602B.1.2 Moses Columbia Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . 604B.1.2.1 Diminutive Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604B.1.2.2 Plural Change of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604B.1.2.3 Diminutive Change of State . . . . . . . . . . . 605B.1.3 Okanagan Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607B.1.3.1 Diminutive Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607B.1.3.2 Diminutive and Property-Denoting . . . . . . . 608B.1.3.3 Plural Change of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608B.1.3.4 Diminutive Change of State . . . . . . . . . . . 609B.1.4 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Multiple Reduplication 610B.1.4.1 Diminutive Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610B.1.4.2 Diminutive Repetitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611B.1.4.3 Diminutive Change of State . . . . . . . . . . . 611B.1.4.4 Diminutive, Plural, and Change of State . . . . 612B.1.5 Lillooet Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613xxvB.1.5.1 Diminutive Plurals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613B.1.5.2 Diminutive and Property-Denoting . . . . . . . 614B.1.5.3 Plural Change of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615B.1.5.4 Diminutive and Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616B.1.5.5 Change of State and Initial . . . . . . . . . . . 616B.1.5.6 Triplication + Change-of-State . . . . . . . . . 617B.1.6 Shuswap Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618B.1.6.1 Diminutive Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618B.1.6.2 Diminutive and Property-Denoting . . . . . . . 619B.1.6.3 First Person and Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620B.1.6.4 First Person Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621B.1.6.5 Comparatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621B.1.7 Thompson River Salish Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . 622B.1.7.1 Diminutive Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622B.1.7.2 Diminutive and Property-Denoting . . . . . . . 623B.1.7.3 Plural Change of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624B.1.7.4 Diminutive Change of State . . . . . . . . . . . 625B.1.7.5 Plural and Property-Denoting . . . . . . . . . . 626B.1.7.6 Affective Change of State . . . . . . . . . . . . 627B.1.7.7 Affective Diminutive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627B.1.7.8 Plural, Diminutive, and Change of State . . . . 628B.1.7.9 Diminutive, Plural, and Property-Denoting . . . 629B.1.7.10 Affective, Diminutive, and Property-Denoting . 629B.2 Central Salish Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630B.2.1 Comox-Sliammon Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . 630B.2.1.1 Diminutive and Property-Denoting . . . . . . . 630B.2.1.2 C1 Plural and Property-Denoting . . . . . . . . 631B.2.1.3 Diminutive and C1 Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . 632B.2.1.4 Diminutive and C1C2 Plural . . . . . . . . . . . 632B.2.1.5 Diminutive and V1 Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . 633B.2.1.6 C1C1 Plural and V1 Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . 634B.2.1.7 Progressive Change of State . . . . . . . . . . . 635B.2.1.8 Progressive and V1 Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . 636xxviB.2.1.9 Diminutive, Progressive, and V1 Plural . . . . . 636B.2.1.10 Diminutive, V1 Plural, and C1C2 Plural . . . . . 637B.2.2 Halkomelem Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . 638B.2.2.1 Diminutive Imperfective . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638B.2.2.2 Plural Imperfective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639B.2.3 Lushootseed Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . 641B.2.3.1 Diminutive and C1C2 Plural . . . . . . . . . . . 641B.2.3.2 Diminutive and V1 Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . 643B.2.3.3 C1C1 Plural and C2 Reduplication . . . . . . . 643B.2.4 Sechelt Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644B.2.4.1 Diminutive and C1C2 Plural . . . . . . . . . . . 644B.2.4.2 Imperfective Change of State . . . . . . . . . . 645B.2.4.3 C1 Plural and Change of State . . . . . . . . . . 645B.2.4.4 C1C2 Plural and Change of State . . . . . . . . 646B.2.5 Northern Straits and Klallam Multiple Reduplication . . . 647B.2.5.1 Diminutive and Property-Denoting . . . . . . . 647B.2.5.2 Imperfective Diminutives . . . . . . . . . . . . 648B.2.6 Twana Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649B.2.6.1 Double Diminutive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649B.3 Tillamook Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651B.3.1 Plural Change of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651B.3.2 Plural + Unclear C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651C Index of Constraints and Summary of Rankings . . . . . . . . . . . 653C.1 Index of Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653C.2 Summary of Linear Rankings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660D Sources for Salish Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662D.1 Bella Coola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663D.2 Coeur d’Alene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664D.3 Comox-Sliammon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664D.4 Cowlitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666D.5 Halkomelem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666xxviiD.6 Lillooet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668D.7 Lower Chehalis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669D.8 Lushootseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669D.9 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671D.10 Moses Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672D.11 Nooksack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673D.12 Okanagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673D.13 Pentlatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674D.14 Quinault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674D.15 Sechelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674D.16 Shuswap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675D.17 Squamish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675D.18 Straits (Northern Straits and Klallam) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 676D.19 Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678D.20 Tillamook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679D.21 Twana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679D.22 Upper Chehalis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680E NAPA to IPA Conversion Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681F Fission and Alternate Analyses of V1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . 686xxviiiList of TablesTable 1.1 Salish Exonyms and Endonyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Table 1.2 Salish Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Table 2.1 Summary: Core Reduplication in Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Table 2.2 Core Reduplication Patterns in Salish Languages . . . . . . . . 67Table 2.3 C1C2 Reduplication in Salish Languages by Branch . . . . . . 75Table 2.4 C1C2 Reduplication in Salish Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Table 2.5 Number of Languages with C1 Reduplication by Branch . . . . 87Table 2.6 Types of C1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Table 2.7 C1 Reduplication: Form-to-Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Table 2.8 C2 Reduplication in Salish Languages by Branch . . . . . . . . 96Table 2.9 V1 Reduplication in Salish Languages by Branch . . . . . . . . 100Table 2.10 Meanings of V1 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Table 2.11 Multiple Reduplication in Salish Languages by Branch . . . . 101Table 3.1 Example Summary of Constraint Rankings at a Stratum . . . . 130Table 4.1 Preview of Comox-Sliammon Reduplicative Affixes . . . . . . 136Table 4.2 Level 1 Reduplicative Affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137Table 4.3 Preliminary Level 1 Grammar: Diminutive . . . . . . . . . . . 152Table 4.4 Level 1 Reduplicative Affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155Table 4.5 Preliminary Level 1 Ranking from Section 4.1.3.1.2 . . . . . . 159Table 4.6 Comox-Sliammon Level 1 Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163Table 4.7 Affix Constraints at Level 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163Table 4.8 Level 2 Reduplicative Affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164xxixTable 4.9 Number of Underlying and Surface Moras (C@SC Base) . . . . 170Table 4.10 Comox-Sliammon Level 2 Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171Table 4.11 Affix Constraints at Level 1 vs. Level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176Table 4.12 Level 3 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176Table 4.13 Comox-Sliammon Level 3 Grammar (Preliminary) . . . . . . . 180Table 4.14 Place Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183Table 4.15 Comox-Sliammon Level 3 Grammar (Updated) . . . . . . . . 186Table 4.16 Comox-Sliammon Affix Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189Table 4.17 Constraints Motivating Parsing and Filling . . . . . . . . . . . 190Table 4.18 Constraints Motivating Fission and Epenthesis . . . . . . . . . 191Table 4.19 Constraints Related to Consonant Features . . . . . . . . . . . 191Table 4.20 Constraints Related to Alignment and Position . . . . . . . . . 192Table 4.21 Allomorph Selection and Vowel/Syllable Constraints . . . . . . 193Table 4.22 Lexical Entries in Comox-Sliammon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193Table 4.23 Preview of Lillooet Reduplicative Affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . 195Table 4.24 Level 1 Reduplicative Affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195Table 4.25 Lillooet Level 1 Grammar (Preliminary) . . . . . . . . . . . . 200Table 4.26 Lillooet Level 1 Grammar (Updated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207Table 4.27 Lillooet Affix Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207Table 4.28 Level 2 Reduplicative Affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208Table 4.29 Stress Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214Table 4.30 Stress and Reduplication: qaxwxwa´wì ‘break down’ . . . . . . 214Table 4.31 Stress and Reduplication: nl@Ĳp@Ĳpa´naP ‘get completely buried’ . 215Table 4.32 Lillooet Level 2 Grammar (Preliminary) . . . . . . . . . . . . 221Table 4.33 Lillooet Level 2 Grammar (Preliminary - Second Version) . . . 228Table 4.34 Lillooet Level 2 Grammar (Preliminary - Version 3) . . . . . . 237Table 4.35 Level 2 Affix Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254Table 4.36 Constraints Motivating Parsing and Filling . . . . . . . . . . . 260Table 4.37 Fission and Epenthesis Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260Table 4.38 Position of Fissioned Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261Table 4.39 Building Prosodic Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262Table 4.40 Constraints Dealing with Lexical Stress and Phonotactics . . . 262Table 4.41 Glottalisation and [c.g.] Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263xxxTable 4.42 Lexical Entries in Lillooet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263Table 5.1 Phonologically Conditioned Allomorphs of the Imperfective(Halkomelem) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272Table 5.2 INTS Violations for Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292Table 5.3 INTS Violations for Diminutive Plural Imperfective (Unattested) 292Table 5.4 INTS Violations for Plural Imperfective . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293Table 5.5 Inventory of Lillooet Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296Table 5.6 Predictions for Possible Lillooet Multiple Reduplication . . . . 296Table 5.7 Multiple Reduplication with C1C2 (Level 1) and C1 (Level 2) . 299Table 5.8 Lillooet Multiple Reduplication Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . 305Table 5.9 Inventory of Comox-Sliammon Reduplication . . . . . . . . . 312Table 5.10 Predictions for Comox-Sliammon Multiple Reduplication . . . 313Table 5.11 Excluded Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314Table 5.12 Box - Predicted Derivation (Ungrammatical Output) . . . . . . 331Table 5.13 Comox-Sliammon System: Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333Table 5.14 Comox-Sliammon Multiple Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 333Table 6.1 Mora in Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346Table 6.2 Syllable in Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348Table 6.3 Syllable with Nucleus and Mora in Case Studies . . . . . . . . 350Table 6.4 Summary: Foot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352Table 6.5 Underlying Forms in Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, andHalkomelem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355Table 6.6 Prosodic and Segmental Content in Lexical Entries . . . . . . . 365Table 6.7 Epenthesis vs. Fission: Constraint Rankings . . . . . . . . . . 367Table 6.8 Ranking of Prefix Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369Table 6.9 Reduplicative Morphemes in Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, andHalkomelem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371Table 6.10 Levels in Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, and Halkomelem . . . . 372Table 6.11 Levels in Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, and Halkomelem . . . . 373Table 6.12 Lengthening vs. Reduplicating Grammars . . . . . . . . . . . 378Table 6.13 Mora Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382xxxiTable 6.14 Number of Reduplication Relevant Strata . . . . . . . . . . . . 384Table 6.15 Reduplication in Thompson River Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . 389Table 6.16 Levels in Thompson River Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390Table 6.17 Post-Reduplication Compensatory Lengthening . . . . . . . . 395Table A.1 Reduplication in Coeur d’Alene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444Table A.2 Reduplication in Moses Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452Table A.3 Reduplication in Okanagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459Table A.4 Reduplication in Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel . . . . . . 466Table A.5 Reduplication in Lillooet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477Table A.6 Reduplication in Shuswap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487Table A.7 Reduplication in Thompson River Salish . . . . . . . . . . . . 494Table A.8 Reduplication in Comox-Sliammon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502Table A.9 Reduplication in Halkomelem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514Table A.10 Reduplication in Lushootseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525Table A.11 Reduplication in Nooksack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534Table A.12 Reduplication in Northern Straits and Klallam . . . . . . . . . 539Table A.13 Reduplication in Pentlatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549Table A.14 Reduplication in Sechelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553Table A.15 Reduplication in Squamish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563Table A.16 Reduplication in Twana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568Table A.17 Reduplication in Cowlitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573Table A.18 Reduplication in Lower Chehalis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576Table A.19 Reduplication in Quinault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579Table A.20 Reduplication in Upper Chehalis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582Table A.21 Reduplication in Tillamook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586Table A.22 Reduplication in Bella Coola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591Table B.1 Multiple Reduplication in Salish Languages by Branch . . . . 598Table B.2 Multiple Reduplication in Coeur d’Alene . . . . . . . . . . . . 600Table B.3 Multiple Reduplication in Moses Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . 604Table B.4 Multiple Reduplication in Okanagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607Table B.5 Multiple Reduplication in Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel . 610xxxiiTable B.6 Multiple Reduplication in Lillooet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613Table B.7 Multiple Reduplication in Shuswap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618Table B.8 Multiple Reduplication in Thompson River Salish . . . . . . . 622Table B.9 Multiple Reduplication in Comox-Sliammon . . . . . . . . . . 630Table B.10 Multiple Reduplication in Halkomelem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638Table B.11 Multiple Reduplication in Lushootseed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641Table B.12 Multiple Reduplication in Sechelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644Table B.13 Multiple Reduplication in Northern Straits and Klallam . . . . 647Table B.14 Multiple Reduplication in Twana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649Table B.15 Multiple Reduplication in Tillamook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651Table C.1 Sections for Constraint Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653Table C.2 Constraint Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654Table D.1 Sources for Bella Coola Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663Table D.2 Sources for Coeur d’Alene Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . 664Table D.3 Sources for Comox-Sliammon Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . 664Table D.4 Sources for Cowlitz Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666Table D.5 Sources for Halkomelem Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666Table D.6 Sources for Lillooet Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668Table D.7 Sources for Lower Chehalis Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 669Table D.8 Sources for Lushootseed Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669Table D.9 Sources for Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Reduplication . 671Table D.10 Sources for Moses Columbia Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . 672Table D.11 Sources for Nooksack Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673Table D.12 Sources for Okanagan Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673Table D.13 Sources for Pentlatch Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674Table D.14 Sources for Quinault Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674Table D.15 Sources for Sechelt Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674Table D.16 Sources for Shuswap Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675Table D.17 Sources for Squamish Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675Table D.18 Sources for Northern Straits and Klallam Reduplication . . . . 676Table D.19 Sources for Thompson Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678xxxiiiTable D.20 Sources for Tillamook Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679Table D.21 Sources for Twana Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679Table D.22 Sources for Upper Chehalis Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . 680Table E.1 NAPA Conversion Chart: Obstruents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681Table E.2 NAPA Conversion Chart: Sonorant Consonants . . . . . . . . 683Table F.1 Defining Reduplication - Inchoatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689Table F.2 Defining Reduplication - Link Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 690xxxivList of FiguresFigure 1.1 Architecture of the Grammar (PF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Figure 1.2 Salish Languages (Green) (Suttles, n.d.) . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Figure 1.3 Salish Branches (Orange) and Languages (Pink) . . . . . . . 13Figure 1.4 Central Salish Languages (Dark Pink), and Dialects (Light Pink) 28Figure 1.5 Tsamosan (Dark Pink) and Dialects (Light Pink) . . . . . . . 35Figure 1.6 Interior Salish Languages (Dark Pink) and Dialects (Light Pink) 38Figure 6.1 Architecture of the PF Component of the Grammar . . . . . . 336Figure 6.2 Example Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338Figure 6.3 Example Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340xxxvAcknowledgmentsFirst and foremost, I want to express my gratitude and respect to the knowledgekeepers, language teachers, communities, and linguists whose commitment toSalish languages has resulted in a rich documentary record. It would not bepossible to discuss reduplication in all twenty-three Salish languages if not fortheir contributions to the field. However, the true heart of this dissertation is themajor empirical contributions of the speakers of PayPajˇuT@m (Betty Wilson, ElsiePaul, the late Freddie Louie, the late Joanne Francis, the late Karen Galligos, thelate Marion Harry, the late Maggie Wilson, Phyllis Dominic, Margaret Vivier,and Jerry Francis), St’a´t’imcets (Carl Alexander - Qwa7ya´n’ak, through his workwith Henry Davis), and Secwepemctsı´n (Garlene Dodson). Their contributionshave filled gaps in previous documentation, which I hope will be valuable for theircommunities, future language learners, and linguists alike. I would also like tothank the members of PayPajˇuT@m-speaking communities who have shared theirknowledge with me, including Betty Wilson, Gail Blaney, Jacqueline Mathieu,Koosen Pielle, and Hoss Timothy.I could not have undertaken this dissertation without the mentorship of HenryDavis. I am greatly indebted to him for introducing me to the Salish languagefamily, conducting fieldwork on St’a´t’imcets for my dissertation, and getting mestarted on my own fieldwork with speakers of PayPajˇuT@m and Secwepemctsı´n.Henry challenged me to go beyond a phonological analysis and consider non-concatenative morphology with respect to the larger architecture of the grammar.His generosity with time and his (very honest but thoughtful) feedback is whatenabled me to write the best possible version of this dissertation. He has alwaysxxxviseen the best in me and my work; I not have asked for a better supervisor.1I am very grateful to my committee for the helpful feedback, discussions,and encouragement. I appreciate the time and care Lisa Matthewson put intoreading every draft I sent her: she played a huge role in the „200 pages on thesemantics of reduplication that did not end up in my dissertation. I left everymeeting with her feeling excited about semantics and fieldwork. I also want tothank Gunnar Hansson for providing the phonology expertise with respect to myanalysis: he pointed out many of the potential problems that ended up having themost interesting solutions (including a particularly challenging problem with myanalysis of multiple reduplication).I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Peter Svenonius, my externalexaminer, for his insightful comments and questions on this work. I also appreciatethe thought-provoking questions that Douglas Pulleyblank and Stefan Dollingerasked as my university examiners. The questions raised at my defence give medirections to pursue in future work. Thank you to Bruce Miller for chairing mydefence.Much of my understanding of reduplication in specific languages has beenshaped by conversation with others through Salish Working Group and theInternational Conference on Salish Languages. In particular, I thank the followingpeople for sharing insight into particular languages at various points, includingMat Andreatta, Donna Gerdts, Marianne Ignace, John Lyon, and Susan Blake. Ialso thank past and present members of the PayPajˇuT@m Lab (Marianne, Daniel,Henry, Bailey, Laura, Bruno, Kaining, Roger, and Jillian) and Secwepemctsı´nWorking Group (Sander, Bruce, Julia, Mitchi, Henry, Celina, and Hannah) formany helpful conversations.I have been very lucky to have incredible mentors during my graduate studies.I am extremely grateful to Suzanne Urbanczyk, Amanda Cardoso, and MarianneHuijsmans, who I consider dear friends, co-authors, and role models. I am alsothankful for the support and thoughtful professional advice that Molly Babel,1Marion Caldecott, who first introduced me to phonology, thanks Henry in her MA thesisacknowledgments for being on her committee despite his “abhorrence of phonology”. I would liketo provide a very necessary update after 26 years: I have decided to bestow Henry with the title of“Honorary (albeit reluctant) Expert on Salish Phonology”.xxxviiAnne-Michelle Tessier, Carla Hudson Kam, and Patti Janssen have shared withme. I would also be remiss not to mention the incredible classmates that I havehad, who are too numerous to list here, with special mention to those in AMT’sLab (Kaili, Alex, Sijia, and Gazelle), who never fail to make me laugh, as well asmy cohort (Khia, Daniel, Roger, and Bruno), who were there on the very first dayof this journey.I greatly appreciate the emotional support and endless distractions provided byMichael Schwan and Shannon Arsenault when I needed it the most. I also wantto thank my family for their encouragement and support. Thank you to my mom,dad, Fred, Torie, Dennis, Felicity, Hadley, Anne, and Papa. In particular, I wouldlike to thank to my mom and Fred for always being happy to do ferry pick up anddrop off for PayPajˇuT@m Lab field trips.Finally, I want to acknowledge the funding that has supported the fieldworkundertaken for this dissertation: this work was made possible by a SSHRC grantawarded to Henry Davis (435-2020-1293) and several grants from the JacobsResearch Fund.xxxviiiDedicationThis dissertation is dedicated to the late Freddie Louie, late Joanne Francis, andlate Karen Galligos. I am so grateful to have known them. They taught me somuch about PayPajˇuT@m. Their kindness and laughter during elicitation sessions issomething I will always cherish.xxxixChapter 1IntroductionNon-concatenative morphology, including reduplication, offers insight intothe interface between morphology and phonology, including the architectureof the grammar and division of labour between different components. In thisdissertation, I propose a model of reduplication that integrates components ofProsodic Morphology and Moraic Theory (McCarthy & Prince, 1986; Hayes1989), Generalised Nonlinear Affixation (Bermu´dez-Otero, 2012; Zimmermann,2017), and Stratal Optimality Theory (Kiparsky 2015; Bermu´dez-Otero 2017).Each component of the model developed here is motivated through case studiesof individual Salish languages (Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, and Halkomelem);predictions of the model are further considered in the context of the Salish languagefamily as a whole.1 Salish languages provide the ideal conditions for a typologicalexamination and phonological analysis of reduplicative patterns within and acrosslanguages; they have a number of productive types of reduplication that applyacross different lexical categories (see, e.g., Jelinek & Demers, 1997), as well asparticipating in multiple reduplication (see, e.g., Broselow, 1983). The data in thisdissertation come from fieldwork, published sources, and archival materials.In this introductory chapter, I first introduce the goals of the dissertation,including my main claims and contributions (Section 1.1), as well as outlining1When referring to the languages, I use exonyms, which are traditionally used in diachronic andcomparative treatments of the language family, rather than endonyms; this decision is motivated inSection 1.3.1.1the structure of the dissertation (Section 1.2). This is followed by an overviewof the Salish language family (Section 1.3), which covers language names, majorbranches, and dialects. Section 1.4 provides an overview of my methodology,including discussion of different types of data, as well as methodological decisionsrelated to transcription and glossing. Section 1.5 concludes this chapter with asummary of the state of documentation for each Salish language, highlightingexisting descriptions and analyses that contain either examples or description ofreduplication.1.1 Focus and Goals of this Dissertation1.1.1 Reduplication and Non-Concatenative MorphologyMorphology can be concatenative or non-concatenative; concatenative morphemes“involve linear affixation of material to a base which remains relativelyunperturbed”, while non-concatenative morphemes “involve morphologicalmaterial from both the base and affix interleaved” (Kastner & Tucker, 2019, p.1).The primary focus of this dissertation is on a specific type of non-concatenativemorphology: reduplication. Descriptively, reduplication is the repetition ofphonological material; repeated segments are used to mark the meaning associatedwith a reduplicative morpheme. While reduplication is the most common termfor this type of non-concatenative morphology, other terms are sometimes usedin the literature, such as “copying” or “doubling”.2 However, given the range ofallomorphy associated with certain reduplicative morphemes, such as aspectualmarking in Halkomelem (see Section 5.3) or vowel lengthening in Upper Chehalis(see Section 6.6.2.2.1), it is not possible to talk about reduplication in Salishwithout considering other non-concatenative processes, such as metathesis andablaut. Non-concatenative processes other than reduplication are thereforeincluded where relevant.While the use of reduplication is relatively peripheral to the grammar of some2Hess (1967) labels reduplicative morphemes in Lushootseed as “chameleon morphemes”, whichis a name chosen to characterise their flexibility of form and dependence on their environment toinform the choice of segmental content. This is an apt label because reduplication differs from otheraffixes with segmental content, which have stable or “fixed” forms across words.2European languages, being used for example in colloquial English only to marka particular kind of contrastive focus (Ghomeshi, Jackendoff, Rosen, & Russell,2004), it is attested more robustly in the grammar of many other languages. In fact,reduplication is widespread geographically: 278 of 368 languages surveyed in theWorld Atlas of Linguistic Structures (WALS) use reduplication, including both fulland partial patterns (Rubino, 2013). Full reduplication refers to the doubling of afull word, root, or stem; partial reduplication refers to doubling a smaller portion ofphonological word, such as a consonant or a syllable. The focus of my dissertationis partial reduplication.3In languages where reduplication is prominent, there may be multiplereduplicative processes, which take different forms and serve different functions.These can be combined to create words with multiple reduplication. I investigateboth single and multiple reduplication patterns in this dissertation.Reduplication raises significant questions for theories of morphophonology.While the meaning of a given reduplicative morpheme may be the same acrosswords, its phonological form is dependent on the identity and form of othermorphemes in the word. This means that reduplication provides insight into theorder in which morphemes are added, because the segments targeted for copyingmust already be present at the point in the derivation when reduplication occurs.Furthermore, there are phonological restrictions on the number and types ofreduplicative morphemes that can co-occur within a word in multiple reduplication(see, e.g., Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2021a; Zimmermann, 2021b).Reduplication in Salish languages has been central to argumentation inphonological theory. However, most phonological analyses of reduplication inSalish only focus on a single type of reduplication in a single language (e.g.,C1 diminutive in Shuswap in Bell 1983 and Lushootseed in Mellesmoen &Urbanczyk, 2024), or on well-attested combinations (e.g., diminutive C1 andplural C1C2 reduplication across multiple languages in Broselow 1983), withoutconsidering the full inventory of reduplicative morphemes in a language. This3One of the terms for reduplication used in Salish linguistics is “total reduplication” (see, e.g.,Kuipers 1967 or Van Eijk 1997); despite the label, this type of reduplication is an example of partialreduplication, not full reduplication. See discussion of C1C2 (= “total”) reduplication in Chapter 2(Section 2.4).3leaves a number of questions unanswered, such as those pertaining to how andwhether the analysis of one reduplicative morpheme is compatible with the others,or with the phonological grammar as a whole; exceptions that include detaileddiscussions of reduplication in a single language with formal phonological analysisare found in B. Carlson (1989) for Spokane, Jimmie (1994) for Thompson RiverSalish, Urbanczyk (2001) and Kirkham (1992) for Lushootseed, and Crawford(2015) for Klallam.This dissertation addresses a gap in the description and formal analysis ofSalish reduplication by proposing a theoretical approach informed by a survey ofreduplication in all 23 Salish languages based on published and archival sources;the survey is supplemented by fieldwork on two languages (Comox-Sliammon andLillooet), which allows specific predictions of the model to be tested.1.1.2 Main Contributions and ClaimsThe primary goal of this dissertation is to propose a model of the spell-outcomponent of the grammar that can account for the form and position ofreduplicative morphemes across Salish, with a specific focus on the phonologicalderivation. In particular, I provide a formal analysis that answers the followingquestions:• What is/are the relevant domain(s) for reduplication?• What type of phonological material is present in the lexical entries ofreduplicative morphemes?• What aspects of the phonological grammar determine how, where, and if areduplicative morpheme is realised?With respect to the domain, I argue that a stratum-based model of phonologyis required to account for the morphophonological grammar of reduplication,including attested patterns of allomorphy, variation in the form and position ofreduplicative morphemes, and systematic gaps in multiple reduplication patterns.I propose a modified version of Stratal Optimality Theory where strata are definedpurely on a phonological basis, without resorting to morphological domains; this4represents a departure from previous work in Stratal Phonology (Kiparsky, 2015;Bermu´dez-Otero, 2017), as well as other frameworks in the tradition of LexicalPhonology (Mohanan, 1982; Kiparsky, 1985).1.1.2.1 Architecture of the GrammarFigure 1.1 shows the architecture of grammar proposed in this dissertation.Syntaxspell-out of w-spanLexical Insertion, Step ILinearisationLexical Insertion, Step IIStratum 1...Stratum nSyntax Morphology PhonologyFigure 1.1: Architecture of the Grammar (PF)1.1.2.1.1 MorphosyntaxThe only morphosyntactic domain relevant for reduplicative morphemes in Salishis the morphological word, which corresponds to a w-span. Following Svenonius(2016), a w-span is a sequence of heads in a head-complement relationship withthe feature [w] marking the highest head in the span that corresponds to a word.Lexical insertion takes place in two steps, following Svenonius and Bye (2012) andSvenonius (2012). The first step of lexical insertion, called L-Match, follows thespell-out of a w-span; syntactic heads are matched with morphosyntactic featurebundles.I assume that lexical entries contain features for linearisation, following workon clitics by Huijsmans (2023a) and H. Davis and Huijsmans (2024). Reduplicativemorphemes contain either a [prefix] or [suffix] feature, which provides instructionsfor linearisation in the morphological component of the grammar. Linearisation5acts on morphosyntactic feature bundles prior to the insertion of phonologicalcontent.1.1.2.1.2 MorphophonologyPhonological content is inserted at the second stage of lexical insertion, calledInsert. For the phonology of non-concatenative morphemes, I adopt the modelof Generalised Nonlinear Affixation, which assumes that non-concatenativemorphology involves the affixation of non-linear phonological content, whichcan include floating elements of prosodic structure or features (Bermu´dez-Otero,2012). I adapt the prosodic hierarchy proposed by Zec (1988), which assumesmoraic theory (Hyman, 1985; Hayes, 1989); the mora and the nucleus are crucialwith respect to Salish reduplication.I show that reduplication can be triggered by linear (segmental) affixes, as wellas non-linear (prosodic) affixes. The phonological content supplied at the secondstep of lexical insertion can therefore include both segmental and suprasegmentalcontent. All affixes are linearised in the same way by the morphology (prior to thesecond stage of lexical insertion), it is only following the second stage of lexicalinsertion that differences between non-linear and linear representations emerge.Differences in the realisation of suprasegmental and segmental content aredetermined by the phonological grammar at the relevant stratum; the phonologydetermines when and if segments are reduplicated, and further if the reduplicativemorpheme will be prefixed, infixed, or suffixed. A consequence of the model inFigure 1.1 is that linear order is determined across different components of thegrammar (syntax, morphology, phonology).The derivation of a phonological word takes place across a number of orderedstrata, which each have their own grammar (i.e., constraint ranking). While thephonological derivation of a given word involves evaluation at each stratum, affixesare lexically specified for a level; this specification determines when the affix isparsed into prosodic structure.Given that the only relevant morphosyntactic unit is the w-span that determineswhich morphemes will be present in the input to the phonology at the first stratum(Level 1), evidence for strata is phonological in nature. Morpheme-to-stratummapping determines the shape and position of a reduplicative morpheme6(determined by the constraint ranking), whether it is parsed into the phonologicalword early or late in the derivation, and whether it may participate in multiplereduplication (given restrictions on multiple reduplication at the same stratum).1.1.2.2 Main Theoretical ClaimsThe main theoretical claims of this dissertation include the following:1. Domain:(a) Phonological and morphosyntactic domains beneath the level of theword are not isomorphic.(b) The smallest morphosyntactic domain relevant for the phonology is theword; there is no evidence for a stem.(c) Strata are phonologically defined.2. Lexical Entries:(a) Underlying forms of reduplicative morphemes can contain linear andnon-linear phonological content.(b) Concatenative and non-concatenative morphemes are not inherentlydifferent; they are treated the same with respect to linearisation andallomorphy prior to being parsed into the phonological word.3. Grammar:(a) The form and position of reduplication depends on the constraintrankings across different strata.(b) Only one prosodic affix can be parsed into the word per stratum.1.1.2.3 Contributions to Description and DocumentationA second goal of this dissertation is to serve as a reference for and overview ofSalish reduplication, contributing to the documentation and description of thephenomenon. The survey in Chapter 2 and the data provided in Appendix A(types of reduplication) and Appendix B (attested combinations of reduplicative7morphemes) present an overview of Salish reduplication in an accessible formatthat can be used as the empirical basis for further theoretical and typologicalinvestigation. Chapters 4 and 5 include fieldwork data, crucially includingnegative judgments where relevant, from my own fieldwork (Comox-Sliammonand Shuswap), as well as by Henry Davis (Lillooet).1.2 Structure of this DissertationThis dissertation combines a survey of reduplicative patterns across all 23 Salishlanguages with more in-depth examination and analysis of three specific languagesthrough case studies.In the remainder of this chapter, I provide background information aboutthe Salish language family (Section 1.3), including language names, majorbranches, and dialects. I also provide an overview of my methodology (Section1.4), including discussion of sources, transcription, and glossing. The chapterconcludes by reviewing the available documentation for each Salish language(Section 1.5), highlighting existing descriptions and analyses that contain eitherexamples or description of reduplication.Chapters 2 and 3 establish the foundation for the dissertation. In Chapter 2,I provide a set of phonological criteria used to identify reduplicative morphemesand define key terminology used to classify and describe reduplication in Salish(Section 2.2). I define reduplication as fission, which is a 1:2(+) mapping betweeninput and output segments. The rest of Chapter 2 describes all the reduplicationpatterns found in Salish (Sections 2.3–2.9), which establishes the range ofempirical variation that any phonological analysis must capture.Key assumptions about phonological theory needed for the analysis ofSalish reduplication are introduced in Chapter 3, including those pertaining toprosodic structure (Section 3.2), reduplicative affixes (Sections 3.3–3.4), andthe architecture of the grammar (Section 3.5). In this chapter, I explain howunderlying representations of non-concatenative morphemes are “defective” inways that require some kind of phonological repair (see, e.g., Zimmermann, 2017).I also propose a new version of stratum-based phonological derivation where thestrata (levels) are divorced from morphosyntactic domains.8Chapters 4 and 5 constitute the empirical and analytical core of thedissertation; they further develop and test predictions of the theoretical approachto reduplication proposed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 presents detailed case studies ofComox-Sliammon (Section 4.1) and Lillooet (Section 4.2) that consider the fullinventory of reduplicative morphemes in each language. An analysis is proposedthat can account for all productive or phonologically regular patterns and iscompatible with the overall phonological grammar needed for each language; itsempirical predictions are tested on the two languages.Chapter 5 considers multiple reduplication patterns, where reduplicativemorphemes co-occur in the same word. A theory of multiple reduplication,restricting the number of reduplicative morphemes that may occur at a givenphonological level, is first proposed following a case study of Halkomelem(Section 5.3), based on secondary sources. Predictions of the one-per-levelrestriction on multiple reduplication are then tested through case studies ofLillooet (Section 5.4) and Comox-Sliammon (Section 5.5), which include negativedata; negative data is crucial because my analysis in this chapter predicts thatcombinations of two prosodic affixes at the same stratum are impossible, whichcannot be conclusively determined based on positive data alone.Chapters 6 concludes the dissertation by returning to the cross-Salish variationlaid out in Chapter 2; this chapter asks how well the model of reduplication builtover Chapters 3–5 captures and predicts variation across the Salish languagefamily. The main theoretical claims and predictions are evaluated and discussed.Supplementary material to the dissertation can be found in the appendices.Appendix A provides examples of reduplication for all 23 Salish languages,while Appendix B provides examples of multiple reduplication. Appendix Cis a list of phonological constraints with definitions. Appendices A and B canbe read as companions to Chapters 2 and 6. Appendix C contains referencematerial to accompany Chapters 3–6. Appendix D is a finders’ guide to existingdescriptions and analyses of core patterns, organised by language; it is asupplementary bibliography of Salish reduplication that readers can consult forfurther information about a particular type of reduplication or language. AppendixE provides a conversion between phonetic alphabets. Appendix F discussesalternate analyses of V1 (vowel) reduplication.91.3 Salish LanguagesThis section provides an overview of the Salish language family. Endonymsand exonyms are discussed in Section 1.3.1. The geographical distribution andlinguistic grouping of languages are introduced in Section 1.3.2. Current languagestatus is discussed in Section 1.3.3.1.3.1 Endonyms vs. ExonymsGiven that the scope of this dissertation covers the whole Salish language familyand that the choice of names used for a single language may vary (e.g., Sliammon,Comox, Comox-Sliammon, and PayPajˇuT@m are all used to describe the samelanguage), I first establish a standardized set of labels to allow for comparisonacross different languages and dialects.Potential labels include exonyms, which are traditionally used in diachronicand comparative treatments of the language family, and endonyms, which areused by the speech communities. I have chosen to adopt the exonyms forpractical reasons. First, endonyms often come from specific communities,which may not represent the language as a whole. For example, the endonymused by speakers of the Mainland dialect of Comox-Sliammon is PayPajˇuT@m,(literally: “speaking well”). However, [T] in the Mainland dialect correspondsto [s] in the Island dialect, which means the endonym is PayPajˇus@m in theIsland dialect; neither endonym PayPajˇuT@m can reflect pronunciation in bothvarieties.4 Halkomelem is another language where endonyms are insufficient forcross-language comparisons: there is no single endonym for the language becauseeach dialect has a different pronunciation and orthography (i.e., Hul’q’umi’num’for the Island dialect, h@ ’n ’q@mi ’n@ ’m for the Downriver dialect, and hal ’qemeylemfor the Upriver dialect). I choose therefore to use exonyms as they are best suitedfor cross-family comparisons between languages, rather than specific dialects.Table 1.1 shows how exonyms used in this dissertation correspond toendonyms. Dialects are only listed where different endonyms are used.4There are no L1 speakers of the Island dialect. However, there are language learners in theK’o´moks community, which traditionally spoke this variety.10Table 1.1: Salish Exonyms and EndonymsExonym EndonymBella Coola NuxalkTillamook hutye´yuCentral SalishComox-SliammonMainland Comox PayPajˇuT@mIsland Comox PayPajˇus@mHalkomelemIsland Halkomelem Hul’q’umi’num’Downriver Halkomelem h@ ’n ’q@mi ’n@ ’mUpriver Halkomelem hal ’qemeylemKlallam n@xws ’ňa ’y@mu´c@nLushootseed d@xwl@sˇucid, xwl@l@sˇucidNooksack Lhechalosem, LhechelesemNorthern StraitsSooke T’sou-keSaanich SENC´OTENSongish LekwungenSamish Xws7a´meshqenLummi Xwlemi’ ChosenPentlatch pentl’achSechelt she shashishalhemSquamish Skwxwu´7mesh snı´chimTwana tuwaduqTsamosanCowlitz s ’ňpu´lmixqLower Chehalis ì@ ’wa´’lm@sˇQuinault Kw ı´nayìUpper Chehalis ’Qwa ’ya´yiì ’qInterior SalishCoeur d’Alene snchitsu’umshtsnLillooet St’a´t’imcetsMontana Salish-Spokane-KalispelMontana Salish Se´lisˇ(aka Flathead)Kalispel Q’lispe´Spokane Npoqı´nisˇcnMoses Columbia nxaPamxcı´nOkanagan nsyilxcnShuswap Secwepemctsı´nThompson River Salish nìePkepmxcı´n111.3.2 Geographical Distribution and Language ClassificationThere are 23 Salish languages; they are spoken in the Pacific Northwest of NorthAmerica. The geographical distribution of the family includes coastal BritishColumbia, the southern interior of British Columbia (up to the southern Caribooregion), Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon. For general surveys of thefamily see Czaykowska-Higgins and Kinkade (1998), H. Davis (2019), andWatanabe (2024). A map is given in Figure 1.2.5,6Figure 1.2: Salish Languages (Green) (Suttles, n.d.)Salish languages are spoken in two main cultural areas (Czaykowska-Higgins &Kinkade, 1998, p.1): a Plateau culture area (e.g., Walker, 1998), which includesthe Interior Salish languages, and a Northwest Coast culture area (e.g., Suttles,1990), which includes the Central Salish and Tsamosan languages, as well as BellaCoola and Tillamook.Salish languages have been grouped and classified in different ways. Thelanguage groupings shown in Figure 1.3 follow H. Davis (2019), who dividesSalish languages into three major groups: Interior Salish, Coast Salish, and5The orientation of this map reflects Salish conceptions of geography, which referencedownriver/towards the coast in opposition to upriver/away from the coast, rather than north andsouth.6Tillamook is not correctly marked: it should be coloured green because it is a Salish language.12Bella Coola (consisting of a single language). Interior Salish further divides intoNorthern and Southern branches; Coast Salish divides into three: Tsamosan,Central Salish, and Tillamook (consisting of a single language); and Tsamosandivides into two branches: Maritime and Inland.SalishBella CoolaCoast SalishCentralSalishTwanaSecheltStraitsKlallamNorthernStraitsNooksackPentlatchSquamishHalkomelemComox-SliammonLushootseedTillamookTsamosanInlandUpperChehalisCowlitzMaritimeQuinaultLowerChehalisInteriorSalishSouthernInteriorMontanaSalish-Spokane-KalispelOkanaganMosesColumbiaCoeurd’AleneNorthernInteriorLillooetThompsonRiverSalishShuswapFigure 1.3: Salish Branches (Orange) and Languages (Pink)The divisions shown in Figure 1.3 differ slightly from other classifications. BothCzaykowska-Higgins and Kinkade (1998) and Kroeber (1999) divide Salishinto five co-equal groups: Interior Salish, Central Salish, Tsamosan, Tillamook,and Bella Coola. In contrast, Kuipers (2002) divides Salish into two: InteriorSalish and Coast Salish (which includes Bella Coola). While there is debate withrespect to the existence and composition of an umbrella Coast Salish grouping,13all classifications converge on Interior Salish (7 languages), Central Salish (10languages), and Tsamosan (4 languages) as established branches. Tillamook hasmore in common with Central Salish than with Interior Salish (Czaykowska-Higgins & Kinkade, 1998, p.4); Bella Coola shares traits with both Central andInterior Salish (Kroeber, 1999, p.6).I adopt a five-way division between Interior Salish, Central Salish, Tsamosan,Bella Coola, and Tillamook for my survey of Salish reduplication. These divisionsrepresent the largest groupings that are informative for synchronic and typologicalwork; this is not a complete diachronic classification.1.3.3 Language StatusLanguages, linguistic groupings, and estimated age of remaining first languagespeakers as of 2018 are given in Table 1.2, which is adapted from H. Davis (2019,pp.452–453).77Numbers reported here include revised estimates from Henry Davis (p.c.).14Table 1.2: Salish LanguagesBranch Language Estimated L1 Speaker Agein 2018 (Dialect)Bella Coola 80+Central Comox-Sliammon 65+ (Mainland)Salish Pentlatch N/ASechelt 90+Squamish 90+Halkomelem 75+ (Island), 90+ (Upriver)Nooksack N/ATwana N/ALushootseed 90+? (Northern)Northern Straits 80+ (Saanich), 80+? (Samish)Klallam N/AInterior Moses Columbia 90+Salish Coeur D’Alene 90+Shuswap 70+ (Western), 80+? (Eastern)Montana Salish- 90+ (Spokane), 75+ (Kalispel),Spokane-Kalispel 80+ (Montana Salish/Flathead)Okanagan 60+ (Northern/Lakes),70+ (Southern/Colville)Thompson River Salish 70+ (Lytton/Canyon),70+ (Nicola Valley)Lillooet 70+ (Upper/Fountain/Fraser River),65+ (Lower/Mount Currie)Tsamosan Upper Chehalis N/ACowlitz N/ALower Chehalis N/AQuinault N/ATillamook N/AAll Salish languages are at a critical point with respect to language status. Manylanguages do not currently have speakers who learned the language from birth;of those who did, most were over 65 years of age in 2018. The current statusof Salish languages in Canada is a direct result of the residential school system,which disrupted the transmission of language and culture (see, e.g., Truth &15Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015; First Peoples’ Cultural Council,2018). However, despite the challenges associated with a small, aging populationof first language speakers, language revitalisation and documentation activities areongoing across different language communities. These activities include creatingdictionaries and grammars, university degree programs, immersion programs, andpedagogical materials in the languages.1.4 MethodologyData in this dissertation come from fieldwork, archival materials, and publishedsources. I discuss fieldwork elicitation and other methodological aspects inSection 1.4.1. Limitations and considerations relevant to using published andarchival materials are covered in Section 1.4.2. Issues pertaining to productivityand phonological regularity are addressed in Section 1.4.3. The section concludeswith a discussion of transcription and orthographic considerations in Section 1.4.4.1.4.1 FieldworkGiven that there are still L1 speakers of about half a dozen Salish languages,the investigation of Salish reduplication is not limited to previous documentation:empirical predictions may be tested explicitly in elicitation where it is possible towork with L1 speakers.8 Elicitation not only allows for systematic documentationof reduplicative patterns, but also crucially includes negative evidence. Fieldworkdata may thus be used to confirm that gaps are systematic (ungrammatical), ratherthan accidental. It may also provide information about productivity, discussedfurther in Section 1.4.3, as well as insight into whether attested restrictions on thedistribution of reduplicative morphemes are phonological, as opposed to lexical,syntactic, or semantic.Fieldwork in this dissertation consists of elicitation with language consultantsfrom Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, and Shuswap. Elicited data from Comox-Sliammon comes from fieldwork I have conducted from 2016 onwards.9 I8H. Davis (2019) states that fieldwork with L1 speakers is practically possible for 6/23 languages.9This work is in collaboration with the PayPajˇuT@m Lab, which includes Marianne Huijsmans,Daniel Reisinger, Henry Davis, Bailey Trotter, and Laura Griffin16also provide some Shuswap examples from my fieldwork conducted from 2020onwards.10 Fieldwork for Lillooet was conducted by Henry Davis.Elicitation took place over many different sessions and combined a range ofcommon fieldwork methods, including translations from the target language andfrom English of individual words or sentences, describing pictures or storyboards,elicitation production tasks with specific contexts, forced choice/matching, andacceptability judgments. Key negative data comes from elicitation where speakerswere given potential reduplicated forms and asked if they were acceptable. If theform was acceptable, the speaker was asked to provide a (volunteered) translationto confirm its acceptability and meaning.The type of elicitation varies between different languages and with differentspeakers. Elicitation for Comox-Sliammon was conducted exclusively in personuntil 2020, with a mix of in person and online sessions (conducted via Zoom)from 2020 onward. Elicitation for Shuswap was mostly online, with one in-personsession. Elicitation that Henry Davis conducted for Lillooet was predominantly inperson, with a handful of online sessions.I provide speaker initials alongside elicited data; initials also distinguishfieldwork data from published or archival materials, which are indicated with acitation to a source and page number. Examples and grammaticality judgmentsgiven throughout this dissertation come from the following consultants:• PayPajˇuT@m (Comox-Sliammon)– BW: Betty Wilson– EP: Elsie Paul– FL: Freddie Louie (:)– JF: Joanne Francis (:)– KG: Karen Galligos (:)– MH: Marion Harry (:)– PD: Phyllis Dominic10This work is in collaboration with the Secwepemctsı´n Working Group, which includes SanderNederveen, Bruce Oliver, Julia Schillo, Henry Davis, and Michelle Kamigaki-Baron.17– MV: Margaret Vivier– MW: Maggie Wilson (:)– WJF: Jerry Francis• St’a´t’imcets (Lillooet)– CA: Carl Alexander• Secwepemctsı´n (Shuswap):– GD: Garlene Dodson1.4.2 Published and Archival SourcesAside from original fieldwork, this dissertation uses extensive examples anddescription from both published and archival materials. The published sources aregrammars, dictionaries, published texts, and papers (or dissertations and theses).Archival materials include field notes, unpublished papers, as well as texts orword-lists.11Archival materials offer documentation for languages with little publishedmaterial. With archival materials, source interpretability is often contingent on thereader’s familiarity with a language, the Salish language family, and the sourcedata itself (e.g., whether a fieldworker was consistent in their transcription anddescription of various patterns). One of the goals of this dissertation is to providea synthesis of data for all 23 Salish languages that is presented in a manner thatis accessible and consistent, such that it can be used by theorists, typologists, andthose generally interested in learning about reduplication in Salish.1.4.3 Methodological Considerations for ReduplicationThere are a number of methodological issues that must be considered whendealing with reduplication. In particular, there are a number of different judgmentsa speaker might make when faced with a reduplicated word they have never11Materials were accessed from the University of Washington archives, BC Archives, the UBCLibrary, and the UBC Department of Linguistics. Other materials are freely available online inarchives with digital collections, such as the California Language Archive.18heard before. Reduplication and fieldwork are discussed in Section 1.4.3.1.Considerations that arise while conducting fieldwork are also relevant whendeciding which examples of reduplication to include and exclude from publishedand archival sources. I define phonologically regular and active patterns in Section1.4.3.2; issues related to productivity are discussed in Section 1.4.3.3.1.4.3.1 Eliciting ReduplicationEliciting reduplication in Salish languages poses a methodological challenge; thisis summarised by H. Davis and Mellesmoen (2023, p.17):“Eliciting reduplicated forms is tricky, because judgments are neverstraightforward unless the form is in common circulation in thelanguage. For less common / unattested forms, at least the followinglevels of acceptability must be distinguished: (i) the speaker knowsand uses the form readily with the expected meaning; (ii) the speakerhas heard the form and can ascribe it the expected meaning, butdoesn’t use it; (iii) the speaker has never heard the form but can stillidentify its expected meaning; and (iv) the speaker has never heardthe form and doesn’t know what it would mean.”For some lexical items, there is a general preference for using a non-reduplicative strategy instead of reduplication. For example, a periphrastic phrasewith an independent word meaning “small” or “a little bit” is often offeredbefore reduplication when speakers are prompted to produce a diminutive form.12Examples from Shuswap are given in (1). The consultant first volunteered thesentence in (1a) with ’kwoyı´Ps@ ‘small/little bit’, and then accepted the suggestedform with diminutive reduplication in (1b); she confirmed that (1b) could be usedto mean the same thing and in the same context as the original sentence.12A preference for periphrastic diminutives alone is not reflective of language loss: periphrasticdiminutives are also found in languages with diminutive affixes, such as Greek (Vassilaki, 2017).19(1) a. G@=s-Qw@s„Qwe´s-tDET=NMLZ-PDEN„sunny-CHARmăPąı´x. w-@n-smeltăINCHą-CTR-3ERGG@=s-wu´xwtDET=NMLZ-snow’kwoyı´Ps@small’ňuxwEXCL‘The sun was able to melt the snow a little bit.’ (GD, vf, Shuswap)b. G@=s-Qw@s„Qwe´s-tDET=NMLZ-PDEN„sunny-CHARmăPąix. w-@nwe´ăwą@ ’n-smeltăINCHą-NTRăDIMą-3ERGG@=s-wu´xwtDET=NMLZ-snow‘The sun was able to melt the snow a little bit.’ (GD, sf, Shuswap)A combination of volunteered and suggested forms are used throughout thedissertation. I mark volunteered forms as vf and suggested forms as sf, as inthe examples above. Any suggested form that I include must (i) be accepted bythe speaker as a possible form, and (ii) must be either accepted within a specificcontext, accepted with an explicit suggested translation, or given a translation bythe speaker (marked as vt).Given that not all types of reduplication are volunteered equally often, speakerjudgments provide essential negative data; without these judgments, it would notbe possible to know if gaps reflect forms that are not possible for phonologicalreasons, or if they instead reflect facts related to speaker preference or particularlexical items.1.4.3.2 Phonologically Regular and Active PatternsAs my goal is to present a phonological analysis of Salish reduplication, my focusis on patterns where reduplication is both phonologically active and regular, evenwhere the pattern may not be fully productive. I use the term phonologicallyregular to describe patterns that can be identified with a consistent form acrossmultiple lexical items (i.e., can be grouped with reduplication found elsewhere inthe language); the term phonologically active is used when alternations betweenreduplicated and non-reduplicated forms of the same lexical item are attested.Though the unreduplicated form of a word is typically the base for aphonologically active process, there are cases where the simplest attested formof the word is a reduplicated one; however, even in these cases, sometimes20reduplication can be “undone” under particular circumstances, which means itis phonologically active. For example, in Shuswap, reduplication is used whencounting people or animals (e.g., Anderson, 1999). The word s@se´le ‘two’ haslexical reduplication, as shown in (2a); while it may undergo further reduplicationwhen counting animals, as shown in (2b), this lexicalised reduplication is removedwhen counting people, as shown in (2c).(2) a. s@„se´leRED„two‘two’b. s@„se´ăsąleRED„twoăREDą‘two animals’c. t ’k-se´leLOC-two‘two persons’(Kuipers, 1974a, pp.55–56, Shuswap)I also consider reduplication to be phonologically active in words withouta non-reduplicated counterpart if there is evidence that the grammar treatsa seemingly lexicalised type of reduplication like any other productive type.Examples of phonologically active reduplication with no unreduplicatedcounterpart include any pattern where active (reduplication-specific) allomorphyis found, as well as any situation where seemingly lexicalised reduplication showsreduplication-specific phonological behaviour (e.g., blocking the addition of aproductive type of reduplication due to limitations on multiple reduplication).An example of the first type is provided in (3): despite the fact that the roottul never occurs without diminutive C1 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon (i.e.,titul ‘small’), the reduplication is phonologically active, because it displays theexact same pattern of phonologically conditioned allomorphy as other regularlyreduplicated diminutives in the language, namely a prefixed Ci- reduplicant withmonosyllabic bases and an infixed -C- reduplicant with polysyllabic ones (seeSection 4.1.3.1.1 for further description and analysis).21(3) a. ti„tulDIM„small‘small’b. tuătąl-ussmallăDIMą-head‘small head’ (KG, vf, Comox-Sliammon)I use the term “lexicalised reduplication” to refer to patterns that are notphonologically active nor regular; the term “lexically-specified” (or ”lexicalreduplication”) is used to describe patterns where a type of reduplication is partof the lexical entry for a given word or root, but is both phonologically active andregular. The lexical item is stored with some amount of prosodic structure thattriggers reduplication as an active and regular phonological process.1.4.3.3 Productivity and ReduplicationPhonologically regular and active reduplication encompasses patterns that varygreatly with respect to productivity. Productivity refers to whether a given typeof reduplication can be freely added to new words, provided the reduplicativemorpheme and the rest of the word are phonologically and semanticallycompatible. It is important to note that the total number of examples across thewhole lexicon is not necessarily a useful indicator of productivity. For example,Kroeber (1988, pp.142–143) comments on the “low frequency in both discourseand the dictionary” of a reduplicative pattern marking a change-of-state inComox-Sliammon, noting that it was deemed “marginal and no longer productive”by Harris (1981) and Hage`ge (1981). However, Kroeber (1988, p.143) furtherobserves that this type of reduplication only occurs with adjectives; my fieldworkconfirms that this type of reduplication is frequently offered and accepted withadjectival roots, which suggests that it is productive within its limited domain.In general, therefore, productivity must be estimated relative to the particularsyntactic or semantic domains where a reduplicative morpheme applies: thesemay be quite restricted.Estimations of productivity based on attested forms are also limited by thescope and genre of the documentation. For example, most of the reduplicated22forms in Nooksack given in Galloway (1984b, 1993b) come from the work ofPaul Fetzer, who recorded “several thousand examples of plurals, about 100diminutives, and about 100 diminutive plurals” (Galloway, 1993b, p.104). Fetzernotes that the consultant, George Swanaset, showed some reluctance whenasked about diminutives and would only provide reduplicated diminutives whenspeaking about non-living items (unless in the context of a story). His preferredstrategy for forming diminutives involved periphrastic expressions (using the wordfor ‘small’), or using a non-reduplicative affix (meaning ‘baby’). This exampleis relevant for the challenges for eliciting reduplication introduced in Section1.4.3.1. Frequency of reduplication in documentation cannot be taken as evidencefor productivity. If speakers prefer periphrastic expressions to reduplication,productive reduplication processes may be underrepresented. However, targetedelicitation may lead one to overestimate the frequency of the reduplicative pattern.Given that I rely on existing documentation for languages other than Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, and Shuswap, it is not possible to comment on the productivityof every type of reduplication in Salish. However, where possible, I cite discussionsof productivity for specific patterns from the literature and include examples withloanwords where possible; if a loanword is attested with reduplication, this meansthat the pattern was phonologically active, if not productive, at some point betweenwhen the word was borrowed and when the form was recorded.1.4.4 Transcription and GlossingSome researchers on Salish languages use transcription systems that are opaqueto those unfamiliar with the fieldworker and their work. I have adapted examplesgiven in these lesser known transcription systems, as well as examples given inpractical orthographies, to the Northern Americanist Phonetic Alphabet (NAPA),as typically employed in the Salish literature. For example, J. Davis (1970b,p.29) uses [ ’ç] for what would be transcribed as [tT’] in the International PhoneticAlphabet (IPA), while Galloway (1990, p.1) uses [T’]; I use [’tT] for this sound,following the NAPA conventions developed in the Salish comparative literature.231.4.4.1 SegmentsThe NAPA representations I adopt do not always match the surface realisationof a sound. I follow Kroeber (1999) in using “s” and “c” for the alveolo-palatalsounds [sˇ] and [cˇ] in five of the Interior Salish languages (Lillooet, ThompsonRiver Salish, Shuswap, Moses Columbia, and Okanagan); while his motivation forthis is “orthographic simplicity”, given a lack of contrast with alveolar [c] and [s](Kroeber, 1999, p.xxix), it also allows for clearer cross-Salish comparisons andidentification of cognates (H. Davis, p.c.). For example, “s” ([sˇ]) in Interior Salishlanguages corresponds to “s” ([s]) in Central Salish, which both come from Proto-Salish *s, whereas [sˇ] in Central Salish corresponds to [x] in most of Interior Salish(and to *x in Proto-Salish).Furthermore, I abstract away from surface variation and phonetic conditioningof vowels for languages where I am familiar with the transcription systemor where the original source provides underlying or intermediate forms. Therepresentations I give for Comox-Sliammon and Lillooet, where I provideexamples from fieldwork, are intermediate phonological representations that areprior to phonetic implementation. However, given that there is considerablevariability in transcription systems with respect to vowel quality and archivalsources may use different conventions, I leave vowels as-is for languages I am lessfamiliar with, such as Quinault, unless the vowel can be identified as an epentheticnon-moraic vowel ([@]). See Chapter 3 (Section 3.2.2) for the non-moraic statusof [@] in Salish; identifying non-moraic vowels is relevant for the phonologicalanalysis of Salish reduplication given in Chapters 4–6.Instances of epenthetic [@] may not be transcribed in published or archivalsources. Both optional and obligatory schwas may be missing, so when vowelsare omitted in the source materials, it is sometimes unclear when [@] should beposited. For example, Doak (2023) gives tcˇe´ ’nm ‘take hold of’ in Coeur d’Alene:it is unclear whether the / ’nm/ cluster should have a vowel (schwa) or a sonorantconsonant as its nucleus (i.e., [tcˇe ’n@m] or [tcˇe ’nm"]). In cases of uncertainty, Ido not include vowels that are absent in the source material. However, I includeregularly epenthetic [@] in my transcriptions wherever possible, and the samegoes for [@] due to reduction of a full (moraic) vowel; these are highly relevant24for reduplication, because the surface distribution of [@] is sensitive to prosodicstructure and sonority.13 Therefore, if I can be confident in the position of [@]based on the phonology of a language or transcription in a corroborating source, Iadd [@].1.4.4.2 Suprasegmental ElementsI include both glottalisation and primary stress where present in the originalsources, except I omit stress on monosyllabic words and where it falls in a fixedposition (i.e., in Comox-Sliammon). Secondary stress is rarely marked in sourcematerials; its status is unclear and so I omit it.For fieldwork data, glottalisation is marked when it was recorded in elicitation.It should be noted, however, that there is speaker variation and glottalisation isfalling out of use in Comox-Sliammon and is absent in places it would be expectedbased on older documentation (see discussion of Comox-Sliammon glottalisationin Watanabe, 1994a; Caldecott & Mellesmoen, 2018). Glottalisation is more robustin Interior Salish languages (e.g., glottalisation is frequent in the data from Lillooetelicited by Henry Davis).1.4.4.3 Modifications to Glossing and TranslationsWhere I can be confident, I make minor adaptations to glosses and morphemebreaks for consistency and clarity. For example, I replace the label “progressive”in Downriver Halkomelem examples from Suttles (2004) with “imperfective” toreflect its semantic contribution. For places where only a partial translation isgiven, I only make changes where the correspondence between reduplication andmeaning is straightforward. For example, I leave (dim.) in tite´st ‘approaching it(dim.)’, as given in Suttles (2004, p.173), because there are a number of differentinterpretations possible for a diminutive verb (e.g., small event, low intensity, smallparticipant), but I give q@qı´l@m ‘eyes’ in lieu of ‘eye (pl.)’, as given in Suttles (2004,13The inclusion of [@] is a question of debate in the descriptive literature. For example, Kuipers(1974a) and Nater (1984) do not assume underlying schwas in their descriptions of Shuswap andBella Coola, respectively, and only represent epenthetic or derived schwas in limited circumstances.In contrast, L. C. Thompson and Thompson (1992) include schwas in proposed underlying forms forThompson River Salish. My assumptions about underlying vowels are given in Chapter 3 (Section3.2).25p.216), because this translation can be ascertained from this gloss.Another place where I have modified glosses from original sources is in thetranslation of third person pronouns, which are gender neutral in Salish; it istherefore more accurate to translate example words and sentences using the genderneutral pronoun ‘they’. Where this might contribute to ambiguity between singularand plural in discussion of pluractionality, the clarification “sg.” is be included. Itshould be noted that many of the examples I provide from my fieldwork do includetranslations with ‘he’ or ‘she’. I keep most of these with the original translation, asthey were generally elicited with a specific referent who the consultant knows orelicited with a storyboard about specific characters.1.4.4.4 Unreduplicated Forms for ComparisonWherever possible, when I present examples of reduplication, I present anunreduplicated word based on the same root for comparison; these comparisonforms are introduced with “cf.”. Where possible, the unreduplicated forms givenfor comparison come from the same source as the example. If the unreduplicatedform was not provided in the original and a suitable form could not be locatedelsewhere in the source, a comparison form was located in the primary dictionaryor grammar for the language. Where no form could be located, only a presumedroot is given. No comparison form is provided for unreduplicated words, includingthose with lexicalised reduplication that is not phonologically active.1.5 Sources and Documentation of Salish ReduplicationGeneral sources and work specifically on reduplication for each Salish language arediscussed in this section. For each language, I identify the primary documentationthat exists for the language as a whole, as well as subsequent work that providesan analysis or reinterpretation of reduplication on the basis of either primary orsecondary data. I cover Central Salish in Section 1.5.1, Tsamosan in Section 1.5.2,Tillamook in Section 1.5.3, Interior Salish in Section 1.5.4, and Bella Coola inSection 1.5.5.This is not a comprehensive overview of all existing materials, particularlytexts and pedagogical materials. Grammatical descriptions and dissertations26for each language include more comprehensive overviews of existing materials.Some general bibliographies for or including Salish languages include Pilling(1893), Butler (1941), Wolff (1947), Adler (1961), Loriot (1964), Martin (1975),A. Mattina (1989), and in particular Van Eijk (2008), which incorporates previousbibliographies.14 Many papers including examples of reduplication in Salish canbe found in the archive of the International Conference on Salish and NeighbouringLanguages (ICSNL).15Papers which draw on multiple sources to discuss reduplication in a cross-Salish context include Haeberlin (1918), Reichard (1959), B. Carlson andThompson (1982), Van Eijk (1990b), Bessell (1993b), Demers and Jelinek (1996),Jelinek and Demers (1997), Anderson (1997), Haag (1998), Van Eijk (1998a),Van Eijk (1998b), Urbanczyk (2004b), Urbanczyk (2005), Yu (2007), Urbanczyk(2019), Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2021c), and Mellesmoen (2024a).1.5.1 Central SalishThere are ten Central Salish languages, as shown in Figure 1.5. It should be notedthat Figure 1.5 omits the follow major groupings for reasons of space: NorthGeorgia languages (Comox-Sliammon, Pentlatch, and Sechelt), South Georgialanguages (Nooksack, Halkomelem, Squamish, Northern Straits, and Klallam),and Puget languages (Lushootseed and Twana).14A list of early linguists studying Salish languages, which can be used for seeking furthermaterials, can be found in Kinkade (1971).15The ICSNL archive can be found here: https://lingpapers.sites.olt.ubc.ca/.27CentralSalishComox-SliammonIslandComoxMainlandComoxSecheltStraitsKlallamNorthernStraitsSaanichSooke SongishSemiahmooSamishLummiTwanaPentlatchSquamishHalkomelemMusqueamUpriverHalkomelemIslandHalkomelemNooksackLushootseedNorthernLushootseedSouthernLushootseedFigure 1.4: Central Salish Languages (Dark Pink), and Dialects (Light Pink)1.5.1.1 LushootseedLushootseed is the language with the most thorough documentation and descriptionof reduplication in Salish. Papers containing primary data include Hess (1966),Van Eijk and Hess (1986), Bates (1986), and Bates (1990). The main resources forLushootseed are the grammatical descriptions in Hess (1967), Hess (1995), Hess(1998), and Hess (2006), as well as a dictionary (Bates, Hess, & Hilbert, 1994).Earlier documentation with examples of reduplication include a Lushootseeddictionary (Gibbs, 1877), which has been reproduced with analysis and28commentary in Zahir (2009). Other primary documentation includes sketches ofthe phonology and morphology based on field notes and/or recordings in Ransom(1945), Tweddell (1950), and Snyder (1968).The most extensive phonological treatment of reduplication in any CentralSalish language is Urbanczyk (2001), which uses Lushootseed data from Bateset al. (1994). Other works that draw data from Hess (1967), Bates (1986), or Bateset al. (1994) for data include Broselow (1983), Kirkham (1991), Kirkham (1992),Kim (1992), Urbanczyk (1996a), Urbanczyk (1996b), Park (1999), Alderete et al.(1999), Urbanczyk (1999), Urbanczyk (2000), Struijke (2000), Lonsdale (2001),Fitzpatrick and Nevins (2003), Fitzpatrick (2006), Urbanczyk (2006), Mellesmoenand Urbanczyk (2021b), and Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2024).Many other phonological analyses of Lushootseed draw upon sources whichare themselves based on secondary data. For example, Park (2000) cites Broselow(1983) and Urbanczyk (2001) as sources. Samuels (2010) uses data fromFitzpatrick (2006). Benua (1997), Frampton (2009), Zimmermann (2021a), andZimmermann (2021b) draw on various papers written by Urbanczyk, which arementioned above. Data in S. Davis (1988) comes via McCarthy and Broselow(1983). Fidelholtz (1978) also covers plural and diminutive reduplication inLushootseed, though the source of data is unclear.The Metcalf recordings (part of the Burke Museum’s Special Collections atthe University of Washington) are another primary data source (see, e.g., Hilbert,1974); Kye (2023) presents a grammatical sketch of Lushootseed based on theserecordings. Van Eijk (2008) also notes that unpublished materials of Haeberlin’sare present in the University of Washington Libraries.1.5.1.2 TwanaDrachman (1969) is a comprehensive dissertation on Twana phonology basedon fieldwork with Louise Pulsifer, said to be the last fluent L1 speaker ofthe language, including description and analysis of reduplication; SkokomishIndian Tribe (2020) is a dictionary of Twana compiled from the recordingsand documentation made by Drachman. Kim (2017a) and Kim (2017b) arephonological analyses of reduplication that are based on secondary data from29Drachman (1969).N. Thompson (1979) is another dictionary of the language that draws onarchival sources. N. Thompson (1985) is a dissertation on Twana baby talk, whichincludes discussion of reduplication.1.5.1.3 NooksackGalloway (1984b, 1993b) explores reduplication in Nooksack, including numerousexamples; his description of Nooksack is drawn from fieldwork undertaken byPamela Amoss, Barbara Efrat, Laurence Thompson, and Paul Fetzer. A briefsketch of the phonology of the language can be found in Amoss (1961).1.5.1.4 Straits (Northern Straits and Klallam)Given similarities in the reduplicative systems of the two Straits languages(Northern Straits and Klallam), I group them together under the label of Straitsthroughout most of this dissertation. The choice to group them together ismotivated by the fact that there is no clean distinction between the reduplicationsystems of Northern Straits and Klallam; in fact, reduplication patterns distinguishthe Saanich dialect of Northern Straits from the other Northern Straits dialectsand Klallam (see discussion in Section A.3.5.2 of the appendix). I note whethereach Straits example comes from Klallam or from a dialect of Northern Straits. Ihighlight places where the specific language or dialect is relevant to the discussion.The description of the Samish dialect of Northern Straits in Galloway (1986,1990) relies mostly on data from George Gibbs (e.g., Gibbs, 1863), but alsoincludes some primary fieldwork with Lena Daniels.Reduplication in the Sooke dialect of Northern Straits is included in descriptionof the dialect based on primary fieldwork data (Efrat, 1969).Patterns of reduplication in the Songish dialect of Northern Straits are includedas part of a description of the phonology and morphology of the dialect in Raffo(1972), as well as in a paper on aspect (Raffo, 1970). M. Mitchell (1975) is an MAthesis based on primary data that also includes a brief discussion of reduplicationin Songish.Reduplication in the Lummi dialect of Northern Straits is mentioned in Demers30(1974), Demers and Jelinek (1984), Demers and Jelinek (1996), and Jelinek andDemers (1997). Demers and Jelinek conducted fieldwork with L1 speakers of thelanguage.There is a grammar and dictionary for Klallam (Montler, 2012, 2015) based onprimary fieldwork. L. C. Thompson and Thompson (1968, 1971) also conductedfieldwork on Klallam, and further made use of recordings made by Leon Metcalf.Reduplicated diminutives and plurals in Klallam were also recorded by LeoFrachtenberg, his fieldnotes are available through the American PhilosophicalSociety. Additional discussion of Klallam including primary data can be found inMontler (1989).There is a grammar and dictionary for the Saanich dialect of Northern Straits(Montler, 1986, 2018), which draws on primary fieldwork. Additional discussionof Saanich reduplication including primary data can be found in Montler (1988)and Montler (1989). Aspectual reduplication in the Saanich variety of NorthernStraits is discussed in Turner (2005), Turner (2006), Turner (2007), Kiyota (2008),Leonard and Turner (2010), and Turner (2011); all of these are based on primaryfieldwork. Reduplication in Saanich is also mentioned in Leonard (2009) andLeonard (2019), which uses a combination of data from Montler and originalfieldwork.Primary data from Montler (e.g., Montler, 1986) is used to inform analysesof Saanich reduplication in Stonham (1994), Kurisu (2001), S. Davis and Ueda(2006), Stonham (2007), and Kirchner (2010). Svenonius and Bye (2012) basetheir analysis of Saanich reduplication on secondary data in S. Davis and Ueda(2006). Zimmermann and Trommer (2013) and Mellesmoen (2023) each draw onmultiple secondary sources. Primary data from Montler (2012) is used to informan analysis of Klallam reduplication in Crawford (2015).1.5.1.5 HalkomelemThere are three major dialects of Halkomelem: Downriver Halkomelem, UpriverHalkomelem, and Island Halkomelem. Examples are identified by dialect anddialect differences are discussed where relevant.31Suttles (2004) is the primary source for Downriver Halkomelem (Musqueam).Shaw (2008) draws on Suttles (2004), as well as additional materials with anunclear source. The discussion of Halkomelem in Inkelas (2014) cites Shaw (2008)as a data source. Suttles (2004) is the data source for Shaw (2004) and H. Davis(2024). The data source for Shaw (2002) is not clear.Galloway (1993a, 2009) are the primary sources for Upriver Halkomelem.16Additional discussion of reduplication can be found in Galloway (1973), Galloway(1984a), and Galloway (1991). J. Thompson (2005a, 2009) discusses pluralreduplication in Upriver Halkomelem using data from primary fieldwork. Kurisu(2001) and Wiltschko (2005, 2008) use data from Galloway (1980, 1993a). Thesource of data in Wiltschko and Steriopolo (2007) is not clear. Urbanczyk (1998),Monahan (2002), Brown (2004), Zimmermann (2009), Zimmermann (2013),and Zimmermann and Trommer (2013) all use data from Galloway (1993a).The source of Upriver Halkomelem data for Marinakis (2004), which mentionsreduplication, is unclear.The primary data source for Island Halkomelem is the dictionary (Hukari &Peter, 1995). Reduplication is discussed across various papers drawing on primarydata, including Hukari (1976, 1977, 1978, 1981a, 1981b, 1984). Diminutivereduplication is also briefly mentioned in Gerdts and Peter (2021). Other primarydocumentation for Island Halkomelem can be found in Leslie (1979) and Jones(1976).Bianco (1996) uses Hukari and Peter (1995) as a corpus, but also conductedfieldwork to check stress placement; while reduplication is not a focus, theattention to vowels, prosodic structure, and sonority in her dissertation ishighly relevant. Hukari and Peter (1995) is also the source for a numberof papers discussing reduplication including Urbanczyk (2004a), Urbanczyk(2010), Urbanczyk (2011), Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2020), Mellesmoenand Urbanczyk (2021b), Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2021a), and Mellesmoen(2024b).16I cite Galloway (1977) at various points throughout the dissertation, which is an earlier versionof Galloway (1993a).321.5.1.6 SquamishKuipers (1967) is a grammar of Squamish based on primary fieldwork; it is used asa source of data for Demers and Horn (1978), S. Davis (1984), Dyck (2004), and Lıˇand Ponsford (2018). There is also a dictionary available for Squamish (SquamishNation Education Department, 2011).Work explicitly discussing reduplication with data from primary fieldworkincludes Bar-el and Watt (1998), Bar-el (2000), Bar-el and Watt (2001), Bar-el(2006), Bar-el (2008), and Jacobs (2012). Downing (2008) cites Bar-el (2000) asa data source.1.5.1.7 Comox-SliammonEarly documentation of Comox-Sliammon includes Sapir (1915), which focuseson noun reduplication.17 Wilbur (1973) uses data from Sapir (1915).Harris (1981) and Hage`ge (1981) are grammatical sketches of the Island dialectbased on primary fieldwork; both include discussion of reduplicative patterns.Fieldwork with speakers of the Mainland dialect informed the work of J. Davis(1970b), J. Davis (1970a), J. Davis (1971), and J. Davis (2019), which all discussreduplication.18 Kroeber (1988) also includes fieldwork data on change-of-statereduplication in Comox-Sliammon.The main documentation for the Mainland dialect of the language includes agrammar (Watanabe, 2003) and a dissertation on the phonology of the language(Blake, 2000). Reduplication is also discussed in Blake (1992), Watanabe (1994a),Watanabe (1994b), Watanabe (1997), and Watanabe (2010). Czaykowska-Higgins(2006) draws on Urbanczyk (2005) for secondary data, which in turn comes fromWatanabe (1994a).Further discussion of reduplication patterns based on primary data collectioncan be found in Mellesmoen (2017), Mellesmoen (2018a), Huijsmans,Mellesmoen, and Urbanczyk (2018), Mellesmoen and Huijsmans (2019c),Mellesmoen, Davis, and Matthewson (2020), Huijsmans and Mellesmoen (2021),Huijsmans (2023b), Reisinger (2024), Huijsmans and McCarthy (2024), and17See Reisinger and Griffin (2022) for further discussion of early documentation and materials forComox-Sliammon.18John Davis has archived his recordings and field notes through the California Language Archive.33Mellesmoen (in press). Mellesmoen (2021a) and Mellesmoen (2018b) usea combination of primary data and secondary data from multiple sources;Mellesmoen (2020) uses Watanabe (2003) as a data source.The description and documentation of Comox-Sliammon used in thisdissertation is largely informed by original fieldwork on the Mainland dialect (asdetailed in Section 1.4.1).1.5.1.8 SecheltThe discussion of Sechelt reduplication in this dissertation is based on thegrammatical description in Beaumont (1985) and data drawn from the singlemajor dictionary of the language (Beaumont, 2011). The dictionary contains veryextensive exemplification of reduplication, which has facilitated identification ofpreviously undescribed reduplication patterns. Some examples and discussion ofreduplication can also be found in Hill-Tout (1904).1.5.1.9 PentlatchThere is very little documentation of Pentlatch.19 Data used for this dissertationoriginally come from Boas (1886); I also use Kinkade’s retranscriptions and noteson the Boas material, which are available through the archives at the Universityof Washington. This documentation is also used as a secondary source by Pulhug(2023), which discusses reduplication.1.5.1.10 Summary: Central SalishAside from Pentlatch, Twana, and Nooksack, reduplication is relatively well-described for at least one dialect of each Central Salish language. Conclusionsbased on Central Salish languages are therefore based on a relatively large corpusof data.19For discussion of the available sources and language context, see Andreatta, Recalma, QualicumFirst Nation, and Urbanczyk (2023).341.5.2 TsamosanThere are four Tsamosan languages, as shown in Figure 1.5. The Tsamosanlanguages can be divided into Maritime and Inland languages. None have beenused as first languages since the 1960s.TsamosanInlandUpperChehalisSatsopTeninoOakvilleCowlitzMaritime QuinaultLowerChehalisFigure 1.5: Tsamosan (Dark Pink) and Dialects (Light Pink)Reduplication across Tsamosan languages is briefly discussed in Kinkade (1993);data comes from a mix of sources.1.5.2.1 Upper ChehalisKinkade (1995, p.347) notes that Franz Boas amassed a large body of texts andfield notes between 1927 and 1935, while his own work commenced in 1960. Thereare a grammatical description and a dictionary of Upper Chehalis (Kinkade, 1963,1991). Reduplication is included in a sketch of the phonology and morphology ofthe language (Kinkade, 1963), as well as in Kinkade (1975, 1985, 1995).Mellesmoen (2022) is an analysis considering reduplication in Upper Chehalisusing data from Kinkade (1991).351.5.2.2 CowlitzThere is very little documentation of Cowlitz. I refer exclusively to Kinkade (2004)in my survey, which is informed by fieldwork conducted by M. Dale Kinkade in1967; Kinkade (2004) also draws on earlier documentation by John Harrington,who was interested in the phonetics and lexicon than the grammar (Kinkade, 1993,p.176).201.5.2.3 Lower ChehalisDocumentation of Lower Chehalis is sparse and therefore very little is knownabout processes of reduplication in the language. Robertson (2014) notes that theearliest documentation consists of brief word-lists (Curtis, 1907–1930; Hale, 1846;Scouler, 1841; Swan, 1857).Reduplication is briefly discussed in Snow (1969), which includes datafrom primary fieldwork. Robertson (2014) is an overview of Lower Chehalismorphosyntax based on Snow (1969) and notes on the morphology from M.Dale Kinkade, as well as unpublished materials collected by Franz Boas, MyronEells, John Harrington, Leon Metcalf and members of the Lower Chehalis speechcommunity.1.5.2.4 QuinaultThere is very little existing documentation for Quinault. The only explicitdiscussion of reduplication in Quinault is found in the work of Ruth Modrow; sheconducted fieldwork and produced a full dictionary including a brief description ofthe grammar and phonology (Modrow, 1971), as well as some teaching materials(e.g., Modrow, 1969); however, there are some issues with transcription in thesesources. Kinkade (1993, p.176) states that the best documentation of Quinault is inthe form of unpublished field notes by J. Gibson (1964), which include examplesof reduplication.20See Kinkade (2004, pp.xii–xiv) for an overview of existing Cowlitz documentation.361.5.2.5 Summary: TsamosanThe amount and quality of available documentation for the Tsamosan languages isquite sparse; there are also very few explicit descriptions of reduplicative patternscompared to other branches of the family. Upper Chehalis has the most extensivedocumentation.1.5.3 TillamookTillamook is geographically separated from the rest of Salish by Chinookan andAthabaskan languages, though it bears similarity to Central Salish languages(Kinkade, 1990, p.10).Tillamook is one of the languages where documentation of reduplicationis limited; this is because Tillamook ceased being spoken as a first languageearlier than most other Salish languages. An overview of the Tillamook language,including reduplication, can be found in Edel (1939), which draws on field notesfrom primary fieldwork conducted by Boas (1890). A combined vocabularyincluding work by Boas, Edel, and Melville can be accessed through the AmericanPhilosophical Society (Edel, 1935).Egesdal and Thompson (1996, 1998) also draw on the unpublished field notesof Laurence C. Thompson and M. Terry Thompson in a discussion of Tillamookinflectional morphology, which includes brief discussion of reduplication.Reduplication is also discussed in L. C. Thompson and Thompson (1985). Kimand Gardiner (2016) draw on Edel (1939).1.5.4 Interior SalishThere are seven Interior languages, as shown in Figure 1.6. The Interior Salishlanguages split into two sub-branches: Northern Interior Salish and SouthernInterior Salish languages. The Northern Interior branch includes Shuswap,Lillooet, and Thompson River Salish. The Southern Interior branch includesOkanagan, Moses Columbia, Montana Salish-Kalispel-Spokane, and Coeurd’Alene.37InteriorSalishSouthernInteriorMontanaSalish-Spokane-KalispelSpokaneKalispelMontana/FlatheadOkanaganNorthern/LakesSouthern/ColvilleCoeurd’AleneMosesColumbiaNorthernInteriorLillooetUpper/FountainLower/MountCurrieThompsonRiverSalishLytton/CanyonNicolaValleyShuswapWesternEasternFigure 1.6: Interior Salish Languages (Dark Pink) and Dialects (Light Pink)1.5.4.1 LillooetPrimary documentation of Lillooet includes a dictionary and grammar (Van Eijk,1997, 2013), which contain many examples of reduplication. I have also drawnexamples from an unpublished grammar and dictionary by H. Davis, which areboth based on original fieldwork. Papers using primary data discussing at leastone reduplicative morpheme include Van Eijk (1981a), Van Eijk and Hess (1986),38Van Eijk (1993), Matthewson (2000), H. Davis (2011), Van Eijk (2011), H. Davis(2014), and H. Davis and Mellesmoen (2023).Nelson (1998), Bird (2000), and Shaw (2005) use secondary data from VanEijk’s work. Downing and Inkelas (2015) also use data from Van Eijk (1997).Discussion of reduplication in Caldecott (2009) is uses data and description fromVan Eijk (1997) and H. Davis (in prep).Examples from and generalisations about Lillooet in this dissertation arelargely based on fieldwork conducted by Henry Davis (as detailed in Section1.4.1).1.5.4.2 Thompson River SalishPrimary documentation of Thompson River Salish includes a grammar(L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992), a dictionary (L. C. Thompson &Thompson, 1996), and a brief grammatical sketch which includes discussion ofreduplication (L. C. Thompson, Thompson, & Egesdal, 1996). Different typesof reduplication in Thompson River Salish are discussed in L. C. Thompson andThompson (1981), B. Carlson and Thompson (1982), and L. C. Thompson (1985).The most comprehensive examination and analysis of Thompson River Salishreduplication is Jimmie (1994), which uses data from L. C. Thompson andThompson (1992, 1996); Jimmie (1994) also includes some data from originalfieldwork. Discussion of glottalisation associated with Thompson River Salishreduplication can be found in Luntzlara (in prep), which is also informed byprimary data.Papers using secondary data include Coelho (1999) and Shaw (2005), whouse examples from the work of Laurence C. Thompson and M. Terry Thompson,and Broselow (1983), who uses Haeberlin (1918). Data in Zimmermann (2021b)also comes from Haeberlin (1918) by way of Broselow (1983). Kroeber (1988)also discusses reduplication in Thompson River Salish, drawing on data fromB. Carlson and Thompson (1982).391.5.4.3 ShuswapShuswap data used in this dissertation largely comes from Kuipers (1974a, 1989),which is a grammatical description based on primary fieldwork; reduplication isalso discussed in Kuipers (1974b).Discussions of Shuswap reduplication using Kuipers (1974a, 1989) as a sourceinclude Broselow (1983), Van Eijk (1990a), Taylor (1996), Hendricks (1998,1999), Nakamura (2000), Bjorkman (2006), and Kim and Gardiner (2016). Bell(1983) mostly draws on examples from Kuipers (1974a), but some were checkedthrough fieldwork. McCarthy and Broselow (1983) cite Bell (1983) as a datasource.In addition to Kuipers (1974a), there is another grammatical description inJ. Gibson (1973), which is based on primary fieldwork. Reduplication is brieflysummarised in M. Ignace and Ignace (2017).1.5.4.4 Montana Salish-Spokane-KalispelThere is no single term for the language consisting of the three major dialectsMontana Salish (Flathead), Spokane, and Kalispel. All examples from MontanaSalish-Spokane-Kalispel are annotated for specific dialect throughout thedissertation and appendices.Vogt (1940) is a grammar of Kalispel, based on primary fieldwork. Camp(2007) provides an interlinear analysis of textual material from Vogt (1940). In hisedition of a Kalispel grammar (Post, 1904), Speck (1977) includes discussion ofreduplication. Idris (1981) uses data from Haeberlin (1918), which originally camefrom Giorda (1879).The main source of primary data for Spokane is B. Carlson (1972a), a grammar,and B. Carlson and Flett (1989), a dictionary. Papers including discussion of atleast one reduplicative morpheme include B. Carlson (1972b), B. Carlson (1980),B. Carlson and Thompson (1982), B. Carlson (1989), Bates and Carlson (1989),Bates (1990), B. Carlson and Bates (1990), B. Carlson (1996), and Bates andCarlson (1998). Kroeber (1988), Yu (2007), and Vaux and Wolfe (2009) discussreduplication in Spokane, using secondary data from B. Carlson and Thompson(1982).40Primary fieldwork and a survey of the literature inform Black (1996), whichsummarises processes of reduplication in Spokane. Inkelas (2008) uses secondarydata from Black (1996).There is a dictionary of Montana Salish (Pete, 2010). Thomason (1997, 1999)contain discussion of reduplication that includes primary data from MontanaSalish; this is compared to data from other varieties, including Spokane, which isdrawn from B. Carlson and Flett (1989).1.5.4.5 Moses ColumbiaReduplication data from primary fieldwork on Moses Columbia is discussed inKinkade (1982) and Kinkade (1989). Some non-reduplicated forms given forcomparison come from Kinkade (1981), which is a word-list.Reduplication is also discussed in Willett and Czaykowska-Higgins (1995),Czaykowska-Higgins (1993a), Czaykowska-Higgins and Willett (1997),Czaykowska-Higgins (1998), and Willett (2003); they acknowledge Kinkade’sfieldnotes as an important source for their work, though they also carried outprimary fieldwork. Czaykowska-Higgins (2006) uses examples of reduplicationfrom Willett’s fieldwork. Czaykowska-Higgins (1985) and Czaykowska-Higgins(1993b) use data sourced from Kinkade’s fieldnotes. Bessell (1993a) providesa few reduplicated examples that come from Bessell and Czaykowska-Higgins(1991). Raimy (2009) uses data from Czaykowska-Higgins and Willett (1997).Urbanczyk (2005) uses data from Czaykowska-Higgins (1993b).1.5.4.6 Coeur d’AleneEarly documentation of Coeur d’Alene includes a grammar (Reichard, 1938) anda cross-Salish comparison of five languages (Reichard, 1959). Barthmaier (1996)is a dictionary of Coeur d’Alene based on file slips from Reichard (1938).There is also a dictionary and a teaching course written by LawrenceNicodemus (Nicodemus, 1975), who was a speaker and language consultant toothers who worked on the language, including Reichard. Lyon and Greene-Wood(2007) and Lyon (2010) are compilations of lexical information transcribed fromNicodemus.41Patterns of reduplication are discussed in a grammatical overview (Doak, 1997)and a paper on reduplication (Doak, 2004), based on both original fieldwork anddata from Reichard (1938) and Nicodemus (1975). Fieldwork also informs adiscussion of Coeur d’Alene aspect, including discussion of relevant processes ofreduplication, in Vincent (2014).1.5.4.7 OkanaganPrimary documentation for Okanagan includes a dictionary (A. Mattina, 1987), agrammatical description (A. Mattina, 1973), and papers discussing reduplication(A. Mattina, 1979, 1993; A. Mattina & Peterson, 1997). Primary data onreduplication is also included in Watkins (1970) and Pattison (1978). Watkins(1974) also discusses reduplication as part of a paper considering documentationfrom Franz Boas.1.5.4.8 Summary: Interior SalishReduplication in Northern Interior Salish languages is described more thoroughlythan for most other Salish languages; reduplication in Southern Interior languagesis not as well described, though the Spokane dialect of Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel is an exception.1.5.5 Bella CoolaCzaykowska-Higgins and Kinkade (1998, p.4) state that Bella Coola is the “mostdivergent of the Salish languages, showing influence of its Wakashan neighbours,as well as a number of innovations specific to it”. As a result of these differences,Bella Coola cannot be easily grouped with any of the other Salish languages;Kinkade (1990, p.10) considers it equally distant from the others.Reduplication is discussed in Newman (1937, 1947, 1971), which are basedon original fieldwork. Ingram (1973) and Brown (2004) use data from Newman(1971). Primary fieldwork on Bella Coola forms the empirical basis for a grammar(Nater, 1984) and dictionary (Nater, 1990). Papers focused on reduplication whichpresent data from primary fieldwork include Saunders and Davis (1972) and Nater(1978).42Bagemihl (1991) is an influential paper on syllables and reduplication in BellaCoola based on a combination of primary fieldwork and secondary sources. Workusing Bagemihl (1991) as a source includes Cook (1994), M. Gibson (1995),K. Carlson (1997), Raimy and Idsardi (1997), Nelson (2003), Marlo (2004),Shaw (2005), Topintzi (2005), Topintzi (2006), Frampton (2009), Vaux and Wolfe(2009), and Kirchner (2010). Angermeyer (2003) uses data from Newman (1971),Nater (1984), and Bagemihl (1991). The source of Bella Coola data is not clearin Nelson (2003), but likely can be traced back to Bagemihl (1991). Mellesmoen(2021b) uses secondary data sourced from Nater (1990).43Chapter 2Survey of Reduplication in SalishReduplication is found in every Salish language, though the number ofreduplicative morphemes in each language varies. The generalisations presentedin this chapter, and throughout the dissertation, are based on a survey of existingdocumentation for all twenty-three Salish languages. I describe my approach tocompiling the data from these sources in Section 2.1. Terminology, definitions,and glossing conventions related to reduplication and reduplicative morphemesare provided in Section 2.2.Identification of a particular morpheme as reduplicative in this survey isbased on a set of phonological criteria, which I establish in Section 2.2. I presentmy survey of reduplication grouped by major pattern (Sections 2.3–2.8) withillustrative examples; a more comprehensive set of data for each language isprovided in Appendices A and B. The chapter concludes with a discussion ofgeneralisations emerging from the cross-Salish survey (Section 2.9).2.1 Examples and SourcesSources for the survey include available grammatical descriptions for eachlanguage, papers specifically about at least one type of Salish reduplication, and44papers about reduplication which include data from Salish languages.1 I usedictionaries, archival materials, and other papers to supplement the survey whereneeded, particularly where they provide different descriptions or examples of aspecific type of reduplication, or where reduplication has not previously beendiscussed in detail.Illustrative examples of reduplication for each language can be found inAppendix A; examples of multiple reduplication are provided in Appendix B. Asummary of types of reduplication present in sources consulted can be found inAppendix D. See Section 1.4 for more about methods, including transcription andstandardisation across sources. Discussion of which sources are available for eachlanguage and the type of data (primary or secondary) can be found in Section 1.5.2.2 Terminology and Glossing ConventionsIn the literature on Salish languages, a single morphophonological pattern may belabelled and described in different ways across different sources, even for a singlelanguage. Variation in nomenclature may hinder cross-linguistic comparisons.Furthermore, labels are not innocent: they often contain implicit analyses. Itis particularly important to choose labels carefully when covering reduplicativepatterns across an entire language family, as in this dissertation.In this section, I establish and define the terminology and glossing conventionsI use throughout this dissertation. In Section 2.2.1, I explain the glossingconventions used to mark reduplication, before defining reduplicative morphemesand core types of reduplication in Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 respectively. I introduceform-based and meaning-based classification labels in Section 2.2.4 and additionalterminology in Section 2.2.5.1As my classification is primarily form-based, I focus on papers which address the morphologyor phonology of reduplication. Further, using “reduplication” as a main search term means paperswith a primarily semantic focus are under-represented in the survey; for example, papers with“aspect” in the title without mention of reduplication were not included in the initial list, even wherereduplication plays an important aspectual role. Some of these papers were added to the list later.452.2.1 Morpheme Breaks and GlossingReduplication is marked throughout this dissertation using either „ or ăą. Thisnotation is derived from a combination of Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the LeipzigGlossing Rules, which pertain to reduplication and infixes, respectively (Comrie,Haspelmath, & Bickel, 2008, pp.7–8).I use „ where the content associated with reduplicative morphemes can belinearly separated from adjacent morphemes (i.e., where reduplication can besegmented as a prefix or suffix); ăą is used where this is not possible (i.e.,reduplication surfaces as an infix). These glossing conventions are illustrated withthe Sechelt examples in (4).2,3 Aspectual (imperfective) reduplication in (4a) canbe delineated from the root (RED„root); in contrast, the segments associated withthe diminutive morpheme in (4b) appear in the middle of the root (rootăREDą).(4) a. P@´„Pı´ìt@n (cf. Pı´ìt@n ‘eat’)RED„eat‘eating’ (Beaumont, 1985, p.18, Sechelt)b. ka´ăk@ąn-a´t-cut (cf. ka´na´tcut ‘lower one’s voice’)lower.voiceăREDą-CTR-REFL‘lower voice a bit, speak a bit more softly’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.272,Sechelt)While the examples in (4) correspond to two different types of reduplication, thesame type of reduplication may be marked with „ in some words and with ăąin others. The pair of examples from Sechelt in (5) shows the same type ofreduplication (change-of-state), which is positioned after the second consonant ofa root in both cases. The segments associated with the reduplicative morphemefollow the root when the root has the shape CVC (CVC„VC); the segments occurin the middle of the root when the root has the shape CVCC (CVCăVCąC).2Labels for reduplication are introduced and motivated in Section 2.2.4. Until then, I use REDas a provisional label for any morpheme realised as reduplication; labels in the gloss line will bereplaced with meaning-based labels wherever possible from Section 2.2.4.2 onward.3Beaumont (2011, pp.1–2) marks emphasis on multiple vowels with the diacritic ´; it is not clearwhich of these correspond to primary (or secondary) stress. I choose to leave these diacritics inSechelt examples (see Section A.3.7).46(5) a. kw@´m„@m (cf. kw@´m@´lqı´n ‘have red hair’)red„RED‘getting red’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.607, Sechelt)b. ’qı´lăiląt (cf. ’qilt ‘bright’)lightăREDą‘daybreak, dawn, getting light’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.645, Sechelt)Readers familiar with Salish languages are cautioned that the glossing maysometimes look unfamiliar when informed by a particular analysis. For example,the glossing of the Comox-Sliammon examples in (6) is informed by the analysisin Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.3.1.1): segments associated with the diminutivemorpheme may occur to the left of the root (RED„root) or within it (rootăREDą),as shown in (6a) and (6b), respectively. This diverges from previous analyses ofdiminutive reduplication in Comox-Sliammon, which treat it as either exclusivelyprefixing (Blake, 2000; Watanabe, 2003) or infixing (Mellesmoen, 2017).(6) a. ’ti„’ta ’qt (cf. ’ta ’qt ‘mountain’)RED„mountain‘small mountain’ (JF, Comox-Sliammon)b. PiăPąm@n (cf. Pim@n ‘road, door’)roadăREDą‘narrow walkway (small trail)’ (JF, Comox-Sliammon)The glossing I use corresponds to the output of the phonology (i.e., the surfaceform), rather than the input. Most reduplicative morphemes in Salish are prefixesin the input, even when they surface as infixes. The choice between „ and ăąshould not be taken as a complete phonological analysis. Where there is ambiguityas to which segments are associated with a particular reduplicative morpheme, Ichose between „ and ăą depending on which is best supported by the languageand/or used in previous literature. For example, it is not clear whether the segmentsassociated with the reduplicative morpheme in the Lushootseed word in (7) are inthe first or second syllable. I use „ for this type of reduplication in Lushootseed,which is consistent with previous analyses of the language (e.g., Urbanczyk, 2001).47(7) sı´d„sid ’q-cutRED„spin-REFLor sı´dăsidą ’q-cutspinăREDą-REFL(cf. sı´d ’qcut ‘move over’)‘spin self around’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.203, Lushootseed)The position of morpheme breaks and which segments to gloss as thereduplicative morpheme is informed by:• assumptions necessary to derive the correct surface forms in thephonological analyses given in the case studies in this dissertation(Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, Halkomelem)• absence of stress and/or presence of [@], rather than an underlying vowel(Coeur d’Alene, Moses Columbia, Okanagan, Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel, Shuswap, Thompson River Salish, Northern Straits and Klallam,Sechelt, Cowlitz, Quinault, Upper Chehalis, Bella Coola)• comparison with closely related languages and/or consideration of previousdescriptions (Lushootseed, Nooksack, Pentlatch, Squamish, Twana, LowerChehalis, and Tillamook)2.2.2 What Counts as Reduplication?Descriptively, reduplication refers to the repetition or doubling of segments.Formally, I follow Pulleyblank (2008) and Kirchner (2010), among others, andanalyse reduplication as fission, rather than copying: an input segment is “split”into two output segments. Reduplication thus yields a 1:2 mapping between aninput and an output. The phonological framework adopted in this dissertation,discussed further in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4), assumes that reduplication resultsfrom the affixation of a morpheme which lacks segmental content, followingthe work of Svenonius and Bye (2012) and Zimmermann and Trommer (2013),among others.Within this framework, reduplication occurs when the phonological grammar(i.e., constraint ranking) favours fission over other potential strategies to providesegmental content to a prosodic unit which must be associated with segments inthe output. The main prosodic units relevant for reduplication are the mora (µ)48and syllable (σ ), though the nucleus (N) and foot (Ft) are also important (see theprosodic hierarchy introduced in Section 3.2). Morphemes with segmental contentmay also trigger reduplication to repair a marked structure (e.g., to provide an onsetfor a syllable).2.2.2.1 Reduplicative MorphemesThe definition of reduplication adopted here includes patterns that would belabelled as “phonological doubling” according to the Dual Theory of reduplicationproposed by Inkelas (2008): I will not consider morphological doubling, which isalso referred to as syntactic reduplication in some sources (e.g., Kirchner, 2010).4Phonological doubling for Inkelas (2008, p.367) is when “a consonant or vowel isrequired to be present in the output but is not present, or if present is not featurallyspecified” in the input, or “if a particular morphological construction imposes atemplate requiring a consonant, vowel, or mora in a position where the input hasnone to provide”.5Since reduplication is a phonological process under the framework I assume,not an inherent property of particular morphemes, I use the term “reduplicativemorpheme” to refer to morphemes with at least one allomorph expressed withreduplication. This approach to reduplication is well-suited to a discussion ofSalish languages, where the same morpheme may not always be realised withreduplication. For example, reduplication is only one possible way to realisethe imperfective morpheme in Halkomelem (see Section 5.3.1.1.1 in Chapter 5for a discussion of the full range of allomorphs). The set of examples in (8)shows that the same morpheme is associated with consonant reduplication (8a) andablaut (8b). The Halkomelem imperfective morpheme is considered reduplicativebecause at least one allomorph is realised as reduplication.(8) a. c@„ce´P-t (cf. cePt ‘turn it over’)RED„turn.over-TR‘turning it over’ (Hukari, 1984, p.147, Island Halkomelem)4An example of possible morphological doubling would be the repetition of a root in k@´xw k@´xwk@´xw ‘knock, knock, knock’ in Moses Columbia (Van Eijk, 1998a, p.465); this pattern is discussedand set aside in Section 2.2.3.2.2.5This definition includes compensatory reduplication, as described by Yu (2005).49b. ’cˇăeąkwx. -t (cf. ’cˇ@kwx. t ‘fry it’)fryăREDą-TR‘frying it’ (Hukari, 1984, p.148, Island Halkomelem)2.2.2.2 Phonological Criteria for Reduplicative MorphemesThe criteria I use to identify reduplicative morphemes are the following:1. Reduplication occurs as a direct result of the addition of a morpheme, wherefission provides segmental content necessary for a well-formed output.2. At least one allomorph of the morpheme is expressed with reduplication.These criteria provide a phonological definition of reduplication and reduplicativemorphemes that I apply throughout this chapter. Lexical entries for reduplicativemorphemes comprise two types: (i) those with prosodic units which requirereduplication to provide segmental content (e.g., an affixed syllable), and (ii) thosewith insufficient segmental content to meet the requirements for a well-formedoutput (e.g., they otherwise yield a syllable without an onset).The examples provided in (9) show the repetitive morpheme in Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel, which qualifies as a reduplicative morpheme under my criteria.The repetitive morpheme may be realised as -e-, as in (9a), or -eC-, where C standsfor a reduplicated consonant, as in (9b).6 This type of reduplication meets thecriteria because a morpheme is added and at least one of its realisations involvesfission. Fission occurs to provide an onset, which is necessary for a well-formedsyllable (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.106).(9) a. ìăeą ’kw-p-min (cf. ì ’kwpim ‘He speared it.’)pierce/spearăREPą-INCH-instrument‘pitchfork’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.105, Spokane)b. ’cˇe„ ’cˇi ’p-sˇ (cf. ’cˇi ’p ’p ‘It accidentally got pinched.’)REP„pinch-PL‘scissors, shears’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.104, Spokane)6The repetitive surfaces as either -a- or -aC- in an environment that triggers vowel lowering(Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.104).50It is harder to classify vowel reduplication than consonant reduplication, as thereare more marginal cases where vowels from different sources may appear to exhibita 1:2 mapping between input and output. I do not consider vowel lengthening asreduplication unless there is a good argument that it results from a 1:2 mapping,such that one input vowel has two output correspondents at some point in thephonological derivation (even if the VV sequence is realised phonetically as asingle long vowel). Vowel length that corresponds to a 1:1 mapping where aninput vowel corresponds to a single output linked to two moras does not countas reduplication.7 In other words, there must be a phonological motivation forfission: adding a morpheme must create the circumstances to trigger a 1:2 input-output mapping. In the case of vowel reduplication, this must be either triggeredby the necessity of a nucleus for prosodic well-formedness, or the presence of amora or syllable in the input that may be filled by a vowel.The examples in (10) show a type of vowel reduplication found in MontanaSalish-Spokane-Kalispel and Okanagan that meet my criteria for inclusion. Theinchoative marker -P- is typically only considered a reduplicative morphemein older sources, such as Vogt (1940) and Reichard (1959). However, there isevidence of a 1:2 mapping for at least some forms containing the inchoativemarker. Whether fission of a vowel results from the presence of an underlyingmora associated the inchoative morpheme, or alternatively represents a placewhere the grammar requires the addition of a vowel for prosodic reasons, either isconsistent with my criteria for reduplication.(10) a. qwăuPąu´ì (cf. hi qwuì ‘It is dusty.’)8dustyăINCHą‘It gets dusty.’ (Vogt, 1940, p.64, Kalispel)7Lengthening a segment may be used instead of reduplication to fill a prosodic unit in thephonology or can be a process that happens following reduplication (see Sections 6.6.2.2.1 and6.7.1.2); either way, lengthening a segment does not count as fission.8The Spokane form qwPuì is given in B. Carlson and Flett (1989, p.176). It is possible that thereis idiolectal or dialectal variation with respect to the presence of a doubled vowel with the inchoative.See Mellesmoen (2024a) for further discussion of V1 reduplication across different Salish languageswith multiple sources of data.51b. k@n ìăaPąa´’t (cf. cìQa ’t ‘be/get wet’)91SG.SUBJ wetăINCHą‘I got wet.’ (Watkins, 1970, p.107, Okanagan)Further discussion of the inchoative forms in (10) and other possible analyses canbe found in Appendix F.102.2.3 Defining Core Reduplication PatternsIn this section, I make a phonological distinction between “core” and “peripheral”reduplication patterns, which are defined in Section 2.2.3.1 and Section 2.2.3.2,respectively. I use this distinction to define the inclusion criteria for the cross-Salish survey in this chapter, as well as for the case studies in Chapter 4.2.2.3.1 Core Reduplication PatternsI define core reduplication patterns as those with shared phonological propertieswhich are widely attested across the family. The relevant phonological propertiesinclude the number and identity of segments copied. Core patterns include thosewhere two consonants are copied, those where one consonant is copied (dividedinto two based on whether the first or second consonant of a given phonologicalstring is copied), and those where a vowel is copied without copying a consonant.The resulting core reduplication patterns and the labels I use (C1C2, C1, C2, andV1) are introduced and defined in Section 2.2.4.1.Identifying core patterns makes it possible to conduct a typological survey ofreduplication in Salish because they define types of reduplication based on form,which allows classification of reduplication types even where little is known aboutthe meaning associated with reduplication or the phonological grammar generally(e.g., for Pentlatch or Quinault). Particular reduplication patterns across languagescan then be compared within each category on the basis of position and meaning.The core reduplication patterns are the smallest reduplicative units that canbe associated with distinct meanings. They form the basic set of reduplication9The underlying /Q/ in the root ìQa ’t- ‘wet’ (10b) is absent in forms with -P-, based on the examplesprovided in A. Mattina (1987, p.88).10Discussion of “link vowels” can also be found in Appendix F.52patterns that can then potentially be combined to yield multiple reduplication.Combinations of reduplicative morphemes (multiple reduplication) are discussedfurther in the case studies in Chapter 5 and across Salish in Chapter 6 (Section6.6.2.3).2.2.3.2 Peripheral Reduplication PatternsThere are a handful of reduplication patterns across the family that do not fit withinthe four core types. These patterns are either found with limited productivity in asingle language (C1C2C3 reduplication in Lower Chehalis, discussed in Section2.2.3.2.1), or appear to involve multiple iterations of reduplicative morphemes(C1C22 reduplication in Interior Salish, discussed in Section 2.2.3.2.2). I call thesepatterns peripheral reduplication patterns.11 I summarise peripheral patterns in thissection before setting them aside.2.2.3.2.1 Peripheral Pattern I: C1C2C3 ReduplicationLower Chehalis is the only Salish language that has a reduplication process wherethree consonants are copied. Robertson (2014, p.135) notes that “the meaningconveyed seems to be an aspect-like ‘intermittent action’”. Examples are given in(11).(11) a. cˇ@pa´Px.„cˇ@p@x. - ’w-nlightning„PL-INTR-3.SUBJ.IPFV‘It is lightening off and on.’ (Robertson, 2014, p.136, Lower Chehalis)b. Pi-x@ ’p@´ ’q„x@ ’p@ ’q- ’w-nIPFV-strike„PL-INTR-3.SUBJ.IPFV‘They (stones) always strike together.’ (Robertson, 2014, p.136, LowerChehalis)Robertson (2014, p.135) notes that this reduplication process is limited in use: it isrestricted to CVCV´C-shaped roots, which are less common than CVC and CVCCroots in Lower Chehalis and across Salish. He suggests that both the reduplicationand the words where it has been found may have been borrowed from Chinuk11Repeated C2 reduplication (“triplication” or C22 reduplication) is discussed in Section 2.6.4 andas part of the case study of Lillooet reduplication in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2.5).53Wawa.12 There is no evidence from other Salish languages to support positing acore reduplication process that copies three consonants.132.2.3.2.2 Peripheral Pattern II: RepetitionA second peripheral pattern is the apparent repetition of a core pattern. Examplesfrom Lillooet and Moses Columbia with two repetitions are provided in (12).Van Eijk (1998a, p.465) observes that all syllables in these repetitions “tend toreceive equal stress”.14 Examples from Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel (fromthe Montana Salish and Spokane dialects) and Okanagan with three repetitions aregiven in (13).(12) a. k@´xw k@´xw k@´xw‘knock, knock, knock’ (Van Eijk, 1998a, p.465, Moses Columbia)b. ka-mu´lmu´lmu´l-a‘repeatedly got dipped in water’ (Van Eijk, 1998a, p.466, Lillooet)(13) a. ca´ ca´ ca´ ca´‘the hollering noise one someone makes when getting beaten up’(Thomason, 1999, p.255, Montana Salish)b. lı´w lı´w lı´w lı´w‘sound of continuous ringing bells’ (Thomason, 1999, p.255, Spokane)c. ìa´ ’p ìa´ ’p ìa´ ’p ìa´ ’p‘sound of feet slapping on the floor’ (Thomason, 1999, p.255, MontanaSalish)d. ’p@s ’p@s ’p@s ’p@s‘[Coyote’s call to his helpers]’ (Thomason, 1999, p.255, Okanagan)12Chinuk Wawa, also known as Chinook Jargon, is a pidgin language that arose from contactand trade; it has influence from varieties of Chinookan, Salish, and Wakashan languages, as well asEnglish and French (Robertson, 2011, pp.5–6).13While Galloway (1993b) does describe a pattern that looks like C1C2C3 (CVCC) reduplicationin Nooksack, this pattern reflects his decision to analyse glottalised sonorants as a sonorant-glottalstop sequence instead of a single segment. This reduplication pattern can be classified as C1C2reduplication.14Primary stress in the Lillooet forms is likely final (H. Davis, p.c.).54Van Eijk (1998a, p.465) notes that repetitions of reduplication, such as those in (12)and (13), are “sound-imitative” or “refer to movements”. Czaykowska-Higgins andKinkade (1998) also observe that repetition itself may be used to yield an imitativeeffect. This is known in the literature on sound symbolism as “gestalt iconicity”(see, e.g., H. Davis & Trotter, 2023, and references therein). Further, repetitionin (13) above is not clearly phonological reduplication; it is also consistent withmorphological doubling (see, e.g., Inkelas, 2008), such that there may be multipleinstances of the root at the point of lexical insertion.Another reported instance of repetition is found with a final (C2) consonant inMontana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel, in both the Spokane and the Montana Salishdialects. B. Carlson and Flett (1989) and Thomason (1999) document threerepetitions, as shown in (14); these forms are onomatopoeic.(14) a. cu´ssss‘rustling noise when you walk in dry brush or pushing through brush’(Thomason, 1999, p.253, Montana Salish)b. i ’ca´xxxx‘the sound of frying food’ (Thomason, 1999, p.253, Montana Salish)c. ma’l’l’l’l‘sound of a gurgling stomach or brook’ (B. Carlson & Flett, 1989, p.50,Spokane)Repetition in (14) does not clearly correspond to a prosodic unit nor a copy-repairassociated with a segmental affix, which means that none of the fission-basedanalyses from Section 2.2.2.2 are plausible explanations. I set these casesaside because they are better analysed as repetition than reduplication. Thetranslations suggest an onomatopoeic quality; it is possible that these forms areused stylistically, similar to how vowels may be drawn out for emphasis whentelling a story.2.2.4 Labels for Reduplication PatternsA single reduplication pattern either in the same language or across the familymay be called different things across different sources. Variation in nomenclature55between sources and languages can hinder cross-linguistic and comparativeanalysis even in the best case scenario; in the worst case scenario, labels maysuggest or introduce analyses that are misleading. Labeling inconsistency isparticularly an issue when those with less familiarity with the languages orassociated naming conventions draw on descriptions of Salish languages. Inorder to discuss all twenty-three languages, it is therefore necessary to unify thedisparate labels under headings that allow for comparison across the family.Labels for types of reduplication may be based on phonological form (FORM-BASED) or draw on meaning (MEANING-BASED). An example of a form-basedlabel employed in the Salish literature is “total” reduplication (e.g., Kuipers, 1967);an example of a meaning-based label is “augmentative” (e.g., Van Eijk, 1998a).Each of these labels may be used to describe the same reduplication pattern, whichI categorise as C1C2 reduplication (see the following section). I adopt a form-basedclassification system, introduced in Section 2.2.4.1; this classification system usesadditional meaning-based labels to distinguish between semantic subtypes of thesame form, as discussion in Section 2.2.4.2.2.2.4.1 Form-Based Primary ClassificationUsing a form-based classification, I identify four core reduplication types: C1C2reduplication, C1 reduplication, C2 reduplication, and V1 reduplication. Theselabels refer to the defining characteristics of reduplicant shape (i.e., number andtype of segments copied).An example of each type is provided in (15). C1C2 reduplication is repetitionof the first and second consonant of a root, as shown in (15a).15 C1 reduplicationis the repetition of a consonant either at the beginning of a root or immediatelybefore a stressed vowel, as shown in (15b). C2 reduplication involves repeating aconsonant (either the second consonant of the root or the consonant directly aftera stressed vowel), as shown in (15c). V1 reduplication is the repetition of a vowel,as shown in (15d).(15) a. C1C2 Reduplication15Except in the case of Bella Coola, where the position of C1C2 reduplication is relative to thefirst sonorant segment in the word: see Section 2.4.1.56s-cu´yăcuyąqs-mit-n (cf. cu´ ’yqs-m ‘stumble’)IPFV-stumbleăPLą-MID-3SG.SUBJ‘They (sg.) are stumbling.’ (Kinkade, 2004, p.259, Cowlitz)b. C1 Reduplications-t@„ta´k@n (cf. sta´k@n ‘sock’)NMLZ-DIM„sock‘little sock’ (Montler, 1986, p.42, Saanich - Northern Straits)c. C2 Reduplication’ňisˇa´w„aw-m (cf. ’ňisˇa´wm ‘get cold’)cold-INCH„C2-MID‘It got cold slowly.’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.191, Upper Chehalis)d. V1 ReduplicationqăiPąi„qp-aPam (cf. q@pP@m ‘touch (s.t.)’)DIMăPLą„touch-A.INTR‘touch repeatedly’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.403, Comox-Sliammon)The division of Salish reduplication into these four core types follows thedescription of Lushootseed reduplication in Kirkham (1991), who classifies sevenreduplicative patterns into four categories: CVC, CV, V, and VC. However, mymodified notation (C1C2, C1, V1, and C2) abstracts over differences related tovowels. For example, C1C2 reduplication patterns are defined by the fact thattwo different consonants undergo fission. A vowel is not included in the C1C2label because the presence of a vowel and its source varies across the family (seeSection 2.4); the label C1C2 abstracts away from individual patterns of fissionor epenthesis of a vowel, which allows reduplication patterns to be grouped tofacilitate comparison.Excluding variable segments is also motivated by patterns in individuallanguages. For example, both -C- and Ci- are surface realisations of diminutiveC1 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon, as was shown in (6) earlier in this chapter(see Section 4.1.3.1.1 for discussion of this pattern). The two allomorphs can begrouped together as C1 reduplication because they both reduplicate a consonant.572.2.4.2 Meaning-Based Secondary ClassificationI use secondary meaning-based labels in order to differentiate between sub-types ofreduplication. These additional labels are necessary because there may be differentmeanings associated with the same reduplicative shape. For example, diminutive,plural, and progressive meanings are all marked with C1 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon, as shown in (16).(16) a. Comox-Sliammon Diminutive C1 Reduplicationi. ’pi„ ’pi ’q (cf. ’pi ’q ‘wide’)DIM„wide‘It is a little bit wide.’ (BW)ii. ’kwi„ ’kwas (cf. ’kwas ‘hot’)DIM„hot‘It is warm.’ (BW)b. Comox-Sliammon Plural C1 Reduplicationi. ’ňaă ’ňąy-at=cˇ (cf. ’ňayatcˇ ‘I am holding it.’)holdăPLą-CTR+STAT=1SG.SUBJ‘I am holding them.’ (BW)ii. ìiăìą ’kw-it (cf. ìi ’kwit ‘It is sewn.’)sewăPLą-STAT‘They are sewn.’ (BW)c. Comox-Sliammon Progressive C1 Reduplicationi. ìi„ìi ’kw-it-as (cf. ìi ’kwit ‘It is sewn.’)PROG„sew-CTR-3ERG‘She is sewing it.’ (BW)ii. ìu„ìu ’kw-uìPROG„fly-PSTFredFred(cf. ìu ’kw ‘fly’)‘Fred was flying.’ (BW)iii. ’cˇ@ă ’cˇąì (cf. ’cˇ@ì ‘rain’)rainăPROGą‘It’s raining.’(BW)58There are three different reduplicative morphemes in (16), but all are categorisedas types of C1 reduplication. They can be differentiated through the addition ofa semantic label (e.g., “diminutive”). The labels used in interlinear glossing arealways based on meaning, unless a meaning is too unclear to label. For example, Iuse the label C2 for (15c) above to gloss C2 reduplication in Upper Chehalis whichis associated with change of state or “slowness” (Kinkade, 1985).The choice of secondary label is informed by the literature on particularlanguages and cross-Salish patterns. Most reduplicative morphemes fall intothree categories when classified by meaning: plural, diminutive, and aspectual.Where little is known about the meaning of the reduplicative morpheme, I defaultto more general labels. For example, I use the gloss ASP to refer to the typeof C1 reduplication in Pentlatch shown in (17), which resembles progressivereduplication in Comox-Sliammon and Squamish.(17) Pentlatch Aspectual C1 Reduplicationa. s-’ta„’ta´yaq=cˇi (cf. ’ta´yaq ‘angry’)STAT-ASP„angry=1SG.SUBJ‘I am angry.’ (Boas, 1886)b. ’kwa„ ’kwa´y=cˇi (root: ’kwa´y- ‘hungry’)ASP„hungry=1SG.SUBJ‘I am hungry’ (Boas, 1886)An example from Squamish that is comparable to (17) is provided in (18a). Giventhat there is semantic work on progressive C1 reduplication in Squamish (Bar-el,2008), in addition to previous descriptive work on the language (Kuipers, 1967), Igloss this morpheme as PROG following the literature.(18) Squamish Progressive C1 Reduplicationa. cˇ@n1SG.SUBJwaIPFV’ta´„’taya ’q (cf. ta´ya ’q ‘get angry’)PROG„angry‘I am angry’ (Bar-el, 2006, p.245, Squamish)b. naRL’pa„ ’payaq-ant-asPROG„fix-TR-3ERGta=s-n@xwiì-s (cf. ’pa´yaq ‘be fixed’)DET=NMLZ-canoe-3POSS‘He’s in the process of fixing the canoe.’ (Bar-el, 2008, p.47,Squamish)592.2.5 Additional TerminologyIn addition to the four main form-based labels, there are two additional types ofterminology related to form: the first concerns pivots (where copied segments arepositioned); the second concerns non-reduplicated segments sometimes associatedwith reduplicative morphemes. These are introduced in Section 2.2.5.1 and Section2.2.5.2, respectively.2.2.5.1 Pivots: Edge vs. Prominence AlignmentThe possible positions where copied material can be placed are called pivots(Yu, 2007). Yu (2007) distinguishes edge-oriented from prominence-orientedpivots for affixation. Edge-oriented affixes are positioned with respect to a wordor morpheme edge, and prominence-oriented affixes are positioned relative toprosodic prominence (e.g., they follow a stressed vowel). Examples of edge-aligned and prominence-aligned C1 reduplication in Lillooet are provided in (19).The reduplicative morpheme is aligned to the left-edge of the root in (19a), whileit follows the stressed vowel in (19b).(19) a. Edge-Aligned: Initial C1 Reduplications-qw@„qw ’lı´p (cf. sqw ’lip ‘black tree moss’)NMLZ- C1.INIT„black.tree.moss‘lots of black tree moss’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57, Lillooet)b. Prominence-Aligned: Diminutive C1 Reduplicationkap@´ăpąuh (cf. kapu´h ‘coat’)coatăDIMą‘small coat’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.257, Lillooet)The position of a reduplicative morpheme in the input does not necessarilymatch its position in the output. For example, I analyse forms like (19b) aboveas containing a reduplicative prefix that is realised as an infix, such that thereduplicated consonant is adjacent to the stressed vowel (see Section 4.2.4.2 inChapter 4). In this chapter, I use the labels prefix, infix, and suffix descriptively torefer to the position of a reduplicant in the surface form; the relationship betweeninput affix position and linearisation is discussed further in Chapter 3 (Section603.5.1.2).2.2.5.2 Non-Reduplicated Segments: Fixed vs. EpentheticSegments associated with reduplicative morphemes may arise from (i)reduplication itself, (ii) fixed segments, or (iii) epenthesis. Fixed and epenthesizedsegments are not copies of existing material (i.e., they do not involve fission).I define fixed segments in Section 2.2.5.2.1 and epenthetic segments in Section2.2.5.2.2, immediately below.2.2.5.2.1 Fixed SegmentsFixed segments, such as the [i] in Sechelt diminutive reduplication, are part of alexical entry (and therefore present in the input to the phonology). Examples offixed segments are bolded in (20).16(20) a. s-lı´„l@m-ay (cf. sl@´may ‘branch’)NMLZ-DIM„?-tree‘small branch’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.771, Sechelt)b. Pı´l„al (root: Pil- ‘cry’)cry„C2‘sing’ (Drachman, 1969, p.279, Twana)c. du´„tuqusu (cf. tuqusu ‘beaver’)DIM„beaver‘little beaver’ (Edel, 1939, p.14, Tillamook)Lexical entries for some reduplicative morphemes consist only of a fixed segment.For example, repetitive C1 reduplication in Salish-Spokane-Kalispel correspondsto an underlying /e/; allomorphy is conditioned by syllable structure (Bates &Carlson, 1992). The repetitive affix surfaces as an infix -e- when the unreduplicatedword starts with a consonant cluster, as shown in (21a); reduplication occurs whenthe unreduplicated word starts with a CV- sequence, as shown in (21b). Non-16I am unsure if (20c) should have [q] or [qw], due to conditioning from the following roundedvowel [u]. I leave it as [q] because my best guess is that it is related to Proto-Salish *t@q, which isfound in words relating to (beaver) dams (Kuipers, 2002, p.106).61reduplicative prefixes, such as the nominaliser s- in (21a), do not factor into thechoice between -e- and -eC-.(21) a. s- ’mxey’l ’kw-e´ ’yeP (cf. ml ’kwe´lxw ‘a fur rug’)NMLZ-solidxREPy-seem‘shadow’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.105, Spokane)b. ’cˇăe ’cˇąi ’p-sˇ (cf. ’cˇi ’p ’p ‘It accidentally got pinched.’)pinchăREPą-PL‘scissors, shears’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.104, Spokane)2.2.5.2.2 Epenthetic SegmentsEpenthetic segments are not present in the input, in contrast to fissioned and fixedsegments, which correspond to segments present in the input.An epenthetic segment may accompany a reduplicative morpheme, such as inC1C2 reduplication in Halkomelem. A schwa is epenthesized between the doubledconsonants, as shown in (22), because the reduplicative morpheme requires avocalic nucleus.17(22) a. P@m„Pı´:m@T (cf. Pı´m@T ‘grandchild’)PL„grandchild‘grandchildren’ (Galloway, 1977, p.108, Upriver Halkomelem)b. s-ì@n„ìe´niP (cf. sìe´niP ‘woman’)NMLZ-PL„woman‘women’ (Leslie, 1979, p.49, Island Halkomelem)While epenthetic segments are typically vowels (and more likely to be [@] thanany other vowel), there are also cases of epenthetic consonants accompanyingreduplication. For example, V1 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon, analysedin Section 4.1.5.2, has a floating [c.g.] (constricted glottis) feature in the inputalongside a prosodic unit (µ). A glottal stop is inserted and a vowel is reduplicatedto provide segmental content for the feature and the prosodic unit, respectively.17In Chapter 6 (Section 6.5.2.1.3), I argue that σN`µ is the input for this type of C1C2reduplication: epenthetic [@] associates with the nucleus node of the affixed prosodic unit.62(23) a. ìăaPąa ’kw„ìu ’kw (cf. ìu ’kw ‘fly’)C1C2.PLăV1.PLą„fly‘flying around’ (BW, vf, Comox-Sliammon)b. păaPąaăpąya-sxw-Put (cf. paPa ‘one’)oneăV1.PLąăDIMą-CAUS-EXCL‘She did them one by one.’ (MV, vf, Comox-Sliammon)Epenthesis also accompanies reduplication as a repair, in which case it followsreduplication in order to ensure the well-formedness of a word where reduplicationcreates an impossible or dispreferred sequence. For example, an additional [@] isinserted to break up clusters created by diminutive C1 reduplication in Lillooet,as shown in (24a–b). The position of [@] is sensitive to the overall shape ofthe word, rather than the position of consonants associated with the diminutivemorpheme.18 A schwa inserted following C1 reduplication does not have a fixedposition: compare (24a) and (24b). Additionally, [@] is not obligatory as part ofthe reduplication: the diminutive form in (24b) requires an additional epenthetic[@] (the second) to meet phonotactic constraints, while a diminutive form with thesame root in (24c) does not.(24) a. x. z@´ăzą@ ’m (cf. x. zum ‘big’)bigăDIMą‘a bit bigger’b. z@´ă ’ząx@t (cf. zaxt ‘long’)longăDIMą‘a bit longer’c. z@ă ’ząxt-a´n (cf. za´xtan ‘lengthen s.t.’)longăDIMą-CTR‘lengthen s.t. a bit’(H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13, Lillooet)Where epenthesis varies depending on word shape and is not required by thereduplicative morpheme (i.e., to provide a nucleus for an affixed syllable), the18See Chapter 4 (Section 4.2.4.2.3) for further description and an analysis of diminutive C1reduplication in Lillooet.63segment is not glossed as part of the reduplicative morpheme (see e.g., the Lillooetexamples in (24) above).2.2.6 Classifying PatternsI have standardised the descriptions from previous work using the form-basedclassification system described in Section 2.2.4 above, which sorts patterns intoC1C2, C1, C2, and V1 reduplication. In general, there is high consistency acrosssources with respect to the presence of the three consonant-based reduplicationpatterns (C1, C1C2, and C2). However, I diverge from previous descriptions wheremotivated by the criteria described in Section 2.2.2, as stated in (25).(25) 1. Reduplication (a 1:2(+) input-output mapping) occurs as a directresult of the addition of the morpheme, where reduplication providessegmental content necessary for a well-formed output.2. At least one allomorph is expressed with reduplication.I include putative patterns of reduplication only if they can be analysed in a mannerconsistent with how I have defined reduplication, based on existing description orwhat can be reasonably be extracted from available data. I set aside two possiblecases of C2 reduplication, which are found in Bella Coola (Newman, 1947) andQuinault (Modrow, 1971), as well as possible cases of V1 reduplication, which arefound in Lower Chehalis (Robertson, 2014) and Bella Coola (Angermeyer, 2003).These are discussed in for each language in Appendix A.Cases where the data are too scarce or variable to determine if a pattern can beinclude: V1 and C2 reduplication in Nooksack (Galloway, 1984b), V1 reduplicationin Tillamook (Edel, 1939), V1 reduplication in the Island dialect of Halkomelem(Leslie, 1979), V1 reduplication in the Songish dialect of Straits (Raffo, 1972), andC1 and C2 reduplication in Lower Chehalis (Robertson, 2014). If additional datawere to support the inclusion of these patterns as reduplication, they would not bephonologically exceptional; they can easily be accounted for with the phonologicaltheory described in Chapter 3.Given that the survey undertaken here largely focuses on attested forms inexisting documentary sources, the conclusions I draw are necessarily based on64the presence of reduplication. The absence of a particular type of reduplicationin the survey does not rule out the possibility that the reduplication pattern mightexist, especially in languages with limited description. For example, it would notbe surprising if Pentlatch has C2 reduplication, given that it is present in both of theother languages of the North Georgia sub-branch of Salish (Sechelt and Comox-Sliammon). This cannot be concluded from the available documentation, however.Finally, I set aside reduplicated numerals used to count animals or humans.Anderson (1997) surveys these forms and finds that counting forms typicallyemploy one of the core reduplication patterns (C1C2 and C1), but their use withnumerals is semantically distinct and varies in arbitrary ways across the languages.The examples in (26) compare reduplicated numerals for ‘six people’ in InteriorSalish. The reduplication in the Shuswap word is not edge-aligned, unlike regularC1C2 reduplication in Interior Salish (see Section 2.4.1). In Lillooet, both C1C2and C1 reduplication are attested for the same numeral.(26)a. t@ ’qme´km@kst (cf. t@ ’qme´kst ‘six’)‘six people’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.56, Shuswap)b. ’ňa´ ’q ’ň@ ’qmekst (cf. ’ňa´ ’qmekst ‘six’)‘six people’ (Anderson, 1997, p.3, Thompson River Salish)c. n- ’ňa´ ’q ’ň ’q@mkst or n- ’ňa´ ’ň ’q@ ’mkst (cf. ’ňa´ ’q@ ’mkst ‘six’)‘six people’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.129–130, Lillooet)2.3 Core Reduplication Patterns across SalishTable 2.1 shows how many languages in each branch of the family exhibit each ofthe four core reduplication patterns identified in the survey.1919I discuss Northern Straits and Klallam together under the label Straits for reasons given inSection 1.5.1.4; however I tally them separately because they are different languages and otherwisethe total number of Salish languages is incorrect (i.e., 22 instead of 23).65Table 2.1: Summary: Core Reduplication in SalishBranch C1C2 C1 C2 V1Central Salish (n=10) 10 10 4 3Interior Salish (n=7) 7 7 7 3Tsamosan (n=4) 4 1 1Bella Coola (n=1) 1 1Tillamook (n=1) 1 1 1Total (n=23) 23 19 13 7As the table shows, C1C2 and C1 reduplication are widespread in Salish. Alllanguages have C1C2 reduplication; C1 reduplication is represented in everylanguage outside of the Tsamosan branch. In contrast, C2 reduplication is found in13 out of 23 languages; V1 reduplication is only found in seven. An inventory ofthe core types of reduplication by language is given in Table 2.2.66Table 2.2: Core Reduplication Patterns in Salish LanguagesLanguage C1C2 C1 C2 V1Comox-Sliammon ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Sechelt ✓ ✓ ✓Pentlatch ✓ ✓Squamish ✓ ✓Nooksack ✓ ✓Halkomelem ✓ ✓Straits ✓ ✓Northern Straits and KlallamLushootseed ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Twana ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Tillamook ✓ ✓ ✓Upper Chehalis ✓ ✓Cowlitz ✓Lower Chehalis ✓Quinault ✓ ✓Lillooet ✓ ✓ ✓Thompson River Salish ✓ ✓ ✓Shuswap ✓ ✓ ✓Okanagan ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Moses Columbia ✓ ✓ ✓Coeur d’Alene ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Bella Coola ✓ ✓I discuss each core type of reduplication in the following sections: C1C2 in Section2.4, C1 in Section 2.5, C2 in Section 2.6, and V1 in Section 2.7. This is followedby a discussion of multiple reduplication patterns in Section 2.8.2.4 C1C2 ReduplicationTwo consonants are copied in C1C2 reduplication, typically with an epentheticor reduplicated vowel placed between the copied consonants (i.e., resulting in a67surface CVC shape). The surface positions of segments associated with C1C2reduplication are compared in Section 2.4.1. The presence and quality of vowels inC1C2 reduplication are considered in Section 2.4.2. The meanings associated withand number of C1C2 reduplication processes are covered in Section 2.4.3.2.4.1 Position of C1C2 ReduplicationSegments associated with C1C2 reduplication are positioned relative to the edgeof a domain (e.g., word) for all languages except Bella Coola. The segmentsassociated with the reduplicative morpheme may surface in a prefixed or a suffixedposition (or an infixed position for CVCC roots). For example, the plural C1C2reduplicative morpheme in Comox-Sliammon is the first syllable in (27a); incontrast, the property-denoting C1C2 reduplicative morpheme in Moses Columbiais the second syllable in (27b).20(27) a. Edge-aligned: Realised as First Syllablecˇ@y„cˇu ’y (cf. cˇuy ‘child’)PL„child‘children’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.327, Comox-Sliammon)b. Edge-Aligned: Realised as Second Syllable’ca´’l„ ’ca’l-t (cf. ’ca ’l ’l ‘get shaded’)shade„PDEN-CHAR‘shady’ (Willett, 2003, p.243, Moses Columbia)In Bella Coola, the position of the reduplicative morpheme depends on prosodicstructure, rather than the edge of a stem or word.21 C1C2 reduplication targetsthe first syllable with a moraic (non-schwa) vowel or sonorant.22,23 Concatenativeprefixes do not factor into the position of reduplication, as shown in (28a), nor arethey copied (28b).20Stress is used to differentiate between plural (first syllable) and property-denoting (secondsyllable) C1C2 reduplication in Moses Columbia (see Czaykowska-Higgins, 1993).21Prosody-aligned reduplication can be identified by the fact that its position is variable; it issensitive to prosodic structure, not aligned to an edge.22While Bella Coola allows words (and syllables) without vowels (e.g., Bagemihl, 1991),reduplication does not apply to these words without epenthesis of a moraic vowel (Mellesmoen,2021b).23See Chapter 3 (Section 3.2) for more on moraic segments.68(28) Prosody-Aligneda. s-tan„tan-mx (cf. stan ‘mother’)NMLZ-mother„PL-person‘female ancestors’ (Nater, 1978, p.2, Bella Coola)b. Pa-s ’c-aì„ ’cì (cf. Pas ’caì ‘waterfall’)LOC-spray-precipitation„PL‘heavy rain’ (Nater, 1984, p.118, Bella Coola)The generalisation that prefixes are never copied extends across the family (VanEijk, 1998a). Examples from each of the major branches of reduplication withwords including prefixes are provided in (29). The prefix is never copied.(29) a. s-n@xw„n@xw ı´ì (cf. sn@xw ı´ì ‘canoe’)NMLZ-PL„canoe‘canoes’ (Kuipers, 1967, p.100, Squamish)b. t-cˇe´ ’n-cˇ@ ’n-@m (cf. tcˇe ’nm ‘take hold of’)LOC-hold„PL-MID‘They held on with both hands.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.635, Coeurd’Alene)c. s-cu´yăcuyąqs-mit-n (cf. cu´ ’yqs-m ‘stumble’)IPFV-stumbleăPLą-MID-3SG.SUBJ‘They (sg.) are stumbling.’ (Kinkade, 2004, p.259, Cowlitz)2.4.2 Vowels in C1C2 ReduplicationThe presence and quality of a vowel in C1C2 reduplication can vary. In mostlanguages, the vowel is an epenthetic [@], as in Comox-Sliammon (30a); however,there are exceptions, such as a fixed segment /i/ in Tillamook (30b), or a faithfulcopy in Lushootseed (30c).2424Edel (1939, p.11) notes alternations in Tillamook between stem vowels that vary acrossrecordings with “no apparent change in context or meaning”, including [a] (“A”) and [@] (“U”); theexample in (30b) appears to be an example of this. However, [@] before a uvular sound is realisedlower (i.e., closer to [a]) in many languages, so it is not clear that the pronunciation of these wouldbe very different in this word.69(30) a. kw@s„kwus@n (cf. kwus@n ‘star’)PL„star‘stars’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.372, Comox-Sliammon)b. gw@PFUTPiq„P@qı´-i (cf. Paqi ‘to run away’)PL„run.away-1SG.SUBJ‘I will skip around.’ (Edel, 1939, p.14, Tillamook)c. hu´d„hud (cf. hudcˇup ‘light fire, burn wood’)PL„burn‘burning here or there’ (Hess, 1967, p.65, Lushootseed)A vowel may also be absent in the surface form of a word with C1C2 reduplication,as shown in the Bella Coola example in (31), repeated from (28b). The absence ofa vowel is dictated by the general phonological grammar of the language.(31) Pa-s ’c-aì„ ’cì (cf. Pas ’caì ‘waterfall’)LOC-spray-precipitation„PL‘heavy rain’ (Nater, 1984, p.118, Bella Coola)The presence of a vowel in the reduplicant in the Comox-Sliammon example in(30a) and the absence of a vowel in the reduplicant in the Bella Coola examplein (31) are consistent with the phonological grammars of each language: Comox-Sliammon tolerates fewer consonant clusters than Bella Coola, forcing the presenceof a vowel where Bella Coola lacks one. In general, the presence of a vowel isdetermined by the phonology of a particular language, and in particular whether areduplication process would create phonotactically illicit sequences.25Further description and exemplification of C1C2 reduplication patterns inindividual languages can be found in Appendix A.2.4.3 Meanings Associated with C1C2 ReduplicationC1C2 reduplication marks plurality and/or pluractionality across all 23 languages.A secondary type of C1C2 reduplication is associated with properties/adjectives.These two types of C1C2 reduplication are discussed in Sections 2.4.3.1 and25See discussion of schwa in Chapter 3 (Section 3.2), as well as syllabification in Comox-Sliammon in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.1).702.4.3.2, respectively. The cross-Salish distribution of C1C2 reduplication bymeaning is discussed in Section 2.4.3.3.2.4.3.1 Plural C1C2 ReduplicationPlurality marked by C1C2 reduplication varies across languages, ranging frombeing restricted to a specific type of plurality (e.g, pluractional verbs in Tsamosanlanguages that refer to events distributed in either time or space) to marking generalplurality of both events and entities (i.e., both plural and pluractional meanings).C1C2 reduplication may be sensitive to lexical category and/or the event-entitydistinction. When C1C2 reduplication acts as a marker of plurality in the verbaldomain, events may be distributed across participants, times, and spaces. Forexample, Bar-el (2008) finds that C1C2 reduplication with verbs marks habitualor iterative events in Squamish. J. Thompson (2009) finds that plural morphologyon verbs in Upriver Halkomelem can mark a plurality of times, space-times, andparticipants. Broadly, the use of terms such as “repetitive” by A. Mattina (1973) forOkanagan and “continuative” by Nater (1984) for Bella Coola suggest that there isa range of ways in which events can be distributed with pluractional uses of C1C2reduplication.Certain languages have stricter restrictions on the use of C1C2 reduplicationthan others. For example, plural C1C2 reduplication with verbs in Comox-Sliammon requires both spatial and temporal distribution (Mellesmoen &Huijsmans, 2019c). While Comox-Sliammon allows plural entity readings whenC1C2 reduplication occurs with nouns, C1C2 reduplication in Upper Chehalis onlyallows for a distributive interpretation over events (Kinkade, 1995, p.357); UpperChehalis does not use C1C2 reduplication to mark plural arguments on a verb orplural entities in the nominal domain.Some languages allow a plural argument reading on adjectives with C1C2reduplication, as shown for Comox-Sliammon and Sechelt in (32).(32) a. ’pi ’q„ ’pi ’q-asˇin (cf. ’pi ’q ‘wide’)PL„wide-foot‘wide feet’ (FL, Comox-Sliammon)71b. ’ň@ ’q„ň@ ’qt-sˇ@n (cf. ’ň@ ’qt ‘long’)PL„long-foot‘long legs’ (FL, Comox-Sliammon)c. Pı´y„Piy (cf. Piy ‘good’)PL„good‘good (more than one person/thing)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.192, Sechelt)2.4.3.2 Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationA second type of C1C2 reduplication is called “characteristic” in the Salishliterature. As these often involve permanent (individual-level) properties, ratherthan temporary (stage-level) states, I use the label “property-denoting” for C1C2reduplication that can be distinguished from plural/pluractional C1C2 reduplicationeither on the basis of form or meaning (i.e., where the form or meaning do notmatch that of plural C1C2 reduplication in a given language). Examples are givenin (33): C1C2 reduplication denotes a individual-level property in (33a–b) and astage-level one in (33c).(33) a. g@ ’y„gay-aì-t@n (cf. gayat ‘ask s.o.’)PDEN„ask-CONNECT-instrument‘curious’ (PD, Comox-Sliammon)b. k@n1SG.SUBJtì„taì-t (cf. taì ‘straight, certain’)PDEN„straight-CHAR‘I am honest.’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.200, Okanagan)c. ’c@´ ’qw„ ’c ’qw (cf. ’c@ ’qw ‘dirt’)dirt„PDEN‘dirty’ (Montler, 2015, p.286, Klallam)While previous analyses have proposed collapsing plural and property-denotingreduplication into a single “augmentative” category (see e.g., Van Eijk 1998a),there are both phonological and semantic reasons to keep them separate in at leastsome languages. For example, Czaykowska-Higgins (1993b) shows that C1C2reduplication in Moses Columbia exhibits two distinct stress assignment patterns.She attributes this to a difference in position: plural reduplication is prefixed (stress72on the second syllable), while property-denoting reduplication is suffixed (stresson the first syllable). Examples of plural reduplication are shown in (34), whileproperty-denoting forms are given in (35).26 Forms with a clear property-denotingmeaning across Interior Salish languages often have the affix -t, which I gloss asCHAR.(34) a. k@ì„ka´ì-xt-nPL„give-APP-1SG.SUBJlxPL‘I gave them a lot of things.’ (cf. t swa´t ci ka´ìtus ‘Who gave that tothem (sg.)?’) (Czaykowska-Higgins, 1993b, p.68, Moses Columbia)b. ’t@ì-’t@´ì-xn (cf. Pinwı´ kw ’t@ìt ‘Your face is dirty.’)PL„dirty-foot‘Their (sg.) feet are dirty.’ (Czaykowska-Higgins, 1993b, p.70, MosesColumbia)c. ’qaP„ ’qa´P-n (cf. ’qaPaPmı´nn ‘It’s too small for me.’)PL„wedge.in-TR+1SG.SUBJ‘I put them away.’ (Czaykowska-Higgins, 1993b, p.70, MosesColumbia)(35) a. x. wu´s„x. wus-cn (cf. xwus ‘hurry’)hurry„PDEN-mouth‘talk fast’ (Czaykowska-Higgins, 1993b, p.70, Moses Columbia)b. ’t@´ì„’t@ì-t (cf. Pinwı´ kw ’t@ìt ‘You are dirty.’)dirty„PDEN-CHAR‘They (sg.) are dirty.’ (Czaykowska-Higgins, 1993b, p.70, MosesColumbia)c. ’qa´P„ ’qaP-t (cf. ’qaPaPmı´nn ‘It’s too small for me.’wedge.in„PDEN-CHAR‘crowded’ (Czaykowska-Higgins, 1993b, p.70, Moses Columbia)The range of meanings associated with property-denoting reduplication inMoses Columbia is quite broad, particularly where the characteristic -t is not26Forms given for comparison in (34a–c) come from Willett (2003, pp.88,187,226). Thecomparison forms in (35b–c) come from Willett (2003, pp.187,226).73present, which may indicate that the property-denoting or adjectival semanticsare contributed by that affix. This would be consistent with other analyses ofproperty-denoting reduplication, both in Moses Columbia and more broadly acrossInterior Salish; Willett (2003, p.242) analyses property-denoting reduplicationas a process of adjective formation in Moses Columbia, while H. Davis (2011)proposes that C1C2 forms an adjective in Lillooet. This type of meaning withC1C2 reduplication in Lillooet is sometimes found with a -t affix, which alternateswith an -m form (see examples in Section 4.2.3.2.1).Property-denoting C1C2 reduplication is also found in languages withoutproductive use of the -t affix. See, for example, the non-plural use of C1C2reduplication in Klallam and Comox-Sliammon in (33) above, or the Secheltexamples in (36b) and (37b) below. As in Moses Columbia, there are pairs inSechelt where the same root allows for both plural and non-plural interpretations.Examples are provided in (36) and (37). Sechelt does not typically use twodifferent forms to mark the distinction in meaning, though there is sometimes adifference in the reduplicant vowel, as shown in (36).(36) a. Pı´y„Piy-ìa´l-um (cf. Pı´yìa´lum ‘enjoy what one is eating’)PL„good-food-MID‘enjoy what one is eating (more than one person)’ (Beaumont, 2011,p.983, Sechelt)b. Pa´y„Piy-ìa´l-um (cf. Pı´yìa´lum ‘enjoy what one is eating’)PDEN„good-food-MID‘really enjoy what one is eating’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.967, Sechelt)(37) a. m@´y„ma´y-@l (cf. ma´y@l ‘bad (rotten, spoiled)’)PL„bad-enter.state‘bad (rotten, spoiled) (more than one thing)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.33,Sechelt)b. s-m@´y„may-ı´t (cf. smay ‘badness, evil’)STAT-PDEN„bad-STAT‘feeble (frail, weak)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.154, Sechelt)There are phonological reasons to posit two separate reduplicative morphemes74in at least some languages (e.g., Moses Columbia). Furthermore, L. C. Thompsonand Thompson (1992, p.89) provide the example in (38) with both types of C1C2reduplication co-occurring in the same word in Thompson River Salish, with ameaning consistent with a compositional interpretation of both of them.(38) Pes-t-paQ„pa´Q„paQ-t (cf. Pestpa´QpaQt ‘grey, faded’)STAT-QUAL-PL„fade„PDEN-CHAR‘several are grey, faded’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.89,Thompson River Salish)Further work is required to determine the range of non-plural uses of C1C2reduplication and how this differs across Salish languages.2.4.3.3 Distribution of C1C2 Reduplicative MorphemesThe distribution of C1C2 reduplication is summarised in Table 2.3 for each branchof the family. I use “plural” to refer to both general plurality and pluractionalityunless otherwise specified.27Table 2.3: C1C2 Reduplication in Salish Languages by BranchPlural Plural and UnclearProperty-DenotingCentral Salish (n=10) 1 7 2Tillamook (n=1) 1 0 0Tsamosan (n=4) 4 0 0Interior Salish (n=7) 1 6 0Bella Coola (n=1) 0 0 1Total 7 12 3Of the 12 languages with multiple meanings associated with C1C2 reduplication,five languages show differences in form that correspond to a semantic distinction(“different form” in Table 2.4 below), and seven do not (“same form” in Table2.4). As these distinctions are based on existing documentation, the absence of27Note that Tsamosan languages only have pluractional, not plural, C1C2 reduplication.75evidence for a distinction may reflect gaps in the documentary record and shouldbe interpreted accordingly.28Table 2.4: C1C2 Reduplication in Salish LanguagesOne Function PluralTillamook, Cowlitz, Lower Chehalis,Lushootseed, Upper Chehalis,Quinault, Montana Salish-Spokane-KalispelTwo Functions Property-Denoting and PluralSame Form Coeur d’Alene, Shuswap,Lillooet, Okanagan, SecheltSquamish, NooksackDifferent Forms Comox-Sliammon, Thompson River Salish,Halkomelem, Moses ColumbiaNorthern Straits, KlallamUnclearPentlatch, Twana, Bella CoolaDistinguishing types of C1C2 reduplication on the basis of form is often notpossible, even for languages with “different” forms in Table 2.4 because the twotypes of reduplication are often homophonous. For example, in Comox-Sliammon,the difference is only reflected in the placement of sonorant glottalisation andtherefore is obscured with obstruent-only roots. In Sechelt, the two forms areusually the same, except some minimal pairs are differentiated with an additional[a] in the reduplicant for the plural form, as in (36) above.Languages listed as having the same form also may have multiple patternsfor C1C2 reduplication. For example, variable stress placement is observedin both Moses Columbia and Lillooet C1C2 reduplication, but stress is notused to differentiate different types of C1C2 reduplication in Lillooet (seeanalysis of C1C2 reduplication in Section 4.2.3.2.1), unlike in Moses Columbia(Czaykowska-Higgins, 1993b).28Limitations in available evidence are more likely to result in under-determination than over-determination of semantic distinctions.762.4.4 Summary: C1C2 ReduplicationThere are two sub-types of C1C2 reduplication in Salish: plural and property-denoting. As all languages have plural C1C2 reduplication but not all haveproperty-denoting reduplication, there is an implicational relation between them:if a language has property-denoting C1C2 reduplication, then it has plural C1C2reduplication.2.5 C1 ReduplicationC1 reduplication is widespread in Salish (Czaykowska-Higgins & Kinkade, 1998);it is found in all Salish languages excluding the Tsamosan branch. C1 reduplicationincludes the most diverse set of reduplicative processes in both form and meaning.With respect to form, the key parameters for variation include the position of thereduplicant and vowel presence/quality. These are discussed in Section 2.5.1 andSection 2.5.2, respectively. The meanings associated with C1 reduplication arediscussed in Section 2.5.3.2.5.1 Position of C1 ReduplicationThere are both edge-aligned and prominence-aligned C1 reduplication patterns inSalish: the reduplicated consonant may be either the first in the relevant domain(prefixes are excluded), or the one before the stressed vowel.The segment(s) copied in edge-aligned C1 reduplication may occur in the firstsyllable or second syllable of a word, as shown in (39a–b) and (39c), respectively.(39) a. cı´„ci ’cˇ-it (cf. cı´ ’cˇit ‘fork something’)IPFV„root-CTR‘forking/spearing something’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.875, Sechelt)b. ’qi„ ’qixw (cf. dxw ’qixw ‘toward the head of an inlet’)DIM„upstream‘a little upstream’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.187, Lushootseed)c. kwa´ăkwą@l-a´m (cf. kwa´la´m ‘glow(ing) from heat/light’)glowăDIMą-MID‘dim/weak (of light)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.603, Sechelt)77The vowels in (39a–b) are copies of the root vowel; however, [@] is epenthesized in(39c) following the infixed consonant; vowels associated with C1 reduplication arediscussed further in Section 2.5.2 immediately below.In the prominence-aligned patterns, found in the Northern Interior languages,C1 reduplication targets the first consonant before the stressed vowel, and thecopied consonant is placed after the stressed vowel. Examples from the threeNorthern Interior Salish languages are given in (40).(40) a. ì@ ’qt-Pu´ăPą@ywide-realăDIMąG@=l@te´p (cf. ì@ ’qtPu´y ‘It’s too wide.’)DET=table‘The table is a little too wide.’ (GD, Shuswap)b. qemu´ă ’mąt (cf. qemu´t ‘hat’)hatăDIMą‘small hat’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.73, Thompson River Salish)c. s-p@q- ’m@´ă ’mąx (cf. sp@q ’mı´x ‘swan’)NMLZ-white-excessăDIMą‘little swan’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.15, Lillooet)The examples in (40) further show that while prefixes are not copied in C1reduplication, suffixes may be (40a,c).Languages with prominence-aligned C1 reduplication may also have edge-aligned C1 reduplication. Both patterns are found in Lillooet, as shown in (41).29(41) a. Edge-Aligned: Initial C1i. n-x.@„x. zu´m-anaP (cf. x. zum ‘big’)LOC-C1.INIT-big-ear‘big ears’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57, Lillooet)ii. s-qw@„qw ’lı´p (cf. sqw ’lip ‘black tree moss’)NMLZ- C1.INIT„black.tree.moss‘lots of black tree moss’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57, Lillooet)29The edge-aligned C1 reduplication pattern in (41a.ii) is phonologically regular but marginal inoccurrence: see Chapter 4 (Section 4.2.3.1) for more about this type of reduplication.78b. Prominence-Aligned: Diminutive C1i. kap@´ăpąuh (cf. kapu´h ‘coat’)coatăDIMą‘small coat’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.257, Lillooet)ii. xw@´ăxwą ’kt@ ’n (cf. xw ı´ ’k-t@n ‘knife’)knifexDIMy-instrument‘small knife’(Van Eijk, 1997, p.254, Lillooet)Prominence-aligned C1 reduplication is only found in Northern Interior Salish.However, even in languages with only edge-aligned reduplication, there may bean additional component that is infixed further into a stem or word. For example, aglottal stop occurs in certain diminutive forms in Halkomelem and Straits (42): [P]may be discontinuous with the rest of the reduplicative morpheme (i.e., realised asC@...P), as shown in (42b).(42) a. s-kw ı´P„kwTeP (cf. skwTeP ‘island’)NMLZ-DIM„island‘little island’ (Leslie, 1979, p.53, Island Halkomelem)b. x.@„x. a´ăPącˇeP (cf. x. a´cˇeP ‘lake’)DIM„lakeăDIMą‘small lake’ (Galloway, 1990, p.46, Samish - Northern Straits)2.5.2 Vowels in C1 ReduplicationC1 reduplication can also involve a vowel, which may be either (i) reduplicated(43a), (ii) a fixed segment (43b), or (iii) an epenthetic segment (43c).(43) a. C1 Reduplication with Reduplicated VowelPu´„Pu ’qwu-d (cf. Pu´ ’qwud ‘pull out’)DIM„pull.out-CTR‘pull part way out’ (Urbanczyk, 2006, p.183, from Bates et al., 1994,Lushootseed)79b. C1 Reduplication with Fixed Vowelcı´„c@q@t (cf. c(@)qat ‘tree’)DIM„tree‘a little tree’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.86, Nooksack)c. C1 Reduplication with Epenthetic Vowelc@„cı´txw (cf. citxw ‘house’)C1.INIT„house‘group of houses’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.58, Lillooet)A reduplicated, fixed, or epenthetic vowel is not present in all C1 reduplicationinstances, however. For example, there are no vowels associated with C1reduplication in the examples given in (44).(44) a. puăpąt (cf. put ‘boat’)boatăDIMą‘little boat’ (Suttles, 2004, p.212, Downriver Halkomelem)b. G=n-ciăcątxw (cf. citxw ‘house’)DET=1SG.POSS-houseăDIMą‘my house’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)The absence of a vowel is determined by (i) the source of the vowel when present(underlying, copy, or epenthesis) and (ii) the grammar of the language. A vowelis present if supplied in the underlying form (fixed segment) or if the affixedprosodic unit requires one; an affixed mora can be filled by a coda consonantalone. Vowels may be omitted later in the derivation if consistent with patternsof unstressed vowel deletion in the language. Conversely, if reduplication of aconsonant creates an illicit cluster, phonological repairs later in the derivation cansupply an epenthetic vowel.2.5.3 Meanings Associated with C1 ReduplicationThe most common meaning of C1 reduplication is diminutivity, which is foundin the 19 languages in my survey with C1 reduplication. C1 reduplication isalso associated with aspectual and plural meanings across Salish. Diminutive C180reduplication is discussed in Section 2.5.3.1, aspectual C1 reduplication in Section2.5.3.2, and plural C1 reduplication in Section 2.5.3.3.2.5.3.1 Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive reduplication on nouns either marks a small entity (count nouns), or asmall amount (mass nouns), as shown in (45a) and (45b), respectively. Diminutivenouns may also refer to the young of an animal (45c) or be used as terms ofendearment or familiarity (45d).(45) a. cı´ăcą ’cˇ@´min (cf. cı´ ’cˇ@´min ‘fork’)forkăDIMą‘little fork’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.874, Sechelt)b. s-nu´ă ’nąyeP (cf. snu´yeP ‘money’)NMLZ-moneyăDIMą‘a small amount of money’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.73, Thompson RiverSalish)c. s-cı´„cqay (cf. sc@´qay ‘sockeye’)NMLZ-DIM-sockeye‘young sockeye (salmon)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.795, Sechelt)d. pı´„puPt@d (cf. pu´Pt@d ‘shirt’)DIM„shirt‘thin shirt’ or ‘favourite shirt’ (Hess, 1967, p.62, Lushootseed)Diminutive C1 reduplication on adjectives refers to a lesser degree of the propertydenoted by the adjective (46a), or a lesser degree of difference between the propertyand a standard, in cases of comparison (46b).(46) a. ìı´P„ìqw (cf. ì@qw ‘wet’)DIM„wet‘damp’ (Hess, 1967, p.8, Lushootseed)b. x. z@´ăzą@ ’m (cf. x. zum ‘big’)bigăDIMą‘a little bit bigger’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p. 13, Lillooet)81Diminutive C1 reduplication has a range of meanings with verbs. It may denotethe small size of an event participant (47a), indicate that the event is diminishedin intensity (47b), or indicate that the event is restricted in some way (generally inspace or time) (47c).(47) a. xw ı´„xwi’til (cf. xw ı´ ’til ‘fall from height’)DIM„fall.from.height‘small item(s) fall(s) from a height’ (Hess, 1967, p.62, Lushootseed)b. lı´P„lu:-d (cf. lu:d ‘hear something’)DIM„hear-CTR‘hear something a little’ (Urbanczyk, 2006, p.208, from Bates et al.1994, Lushootseed)c. ’kw ı´ă ’kąw ’t-u´s-@m (cf. ’kw ı´ ’tu´s@m ‘look out window’)lookăDIMą-face-MID‘look briefly out of the window’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.621, Sechelt)2.5.3.2 Aspectual C1 ReduplicationAspectual C1 reduplication is found in Central Salish (Kroeber, 1999, p.10). Ithas imperfective or progressive semantics.30 For example, Bar-el (2008) showsthat aspectual C1 reduplication in Squamish marks the progressive. H. Davis,Huijsmans, and Mellesmoen (2020, p.120) argue that aspectual C1 reduplication inComox-Sliammon is also progressive. Examples of progressive C1 reduplicationfrom Squamish and Comox-Sliammon are given in (48).(48) a. ’tu´„’tu ’kw (cf. ’tu ’kws ‘take (something) home’)PROG„go.home‘be going home’ (Dyck, 2004, p.200, Squamish)b. Ta„Tap-isˇ (cf. Tapisˇ ‘bathe’)PROG„bathe-TR‘be bathing’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.392, Comox-Sliammon)30Other labels have been used to describe imperfective C1 reduplication. For example, Montler(1986) uses the label “actual” for the Saanich dialect of Northern Straits, which is equivalent to whatGalloway (1984b) calls “continuative” in his description of the Samish dialect.822.5.3.3 Plural C1 ReduplicationA third type of C1 reduplication marks plurality. In Comox-Sliammon, forexample, C1 reduplication is used to mark plurality of arguments when applied toadjectives or derived states, as shown in (49a). C1 reduplication marks multiplerepeated events in Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel and Moses Columbia, asshown in (49b). I gloss the latter as REP.(49) a. PaăPąmut (cf. Pamut ‘be home’)be.homeăPLą‘They are all home’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.376, Comox-Sliammon)b. ka„kı´c-stu-m-s (cf. kn kicx ‘I arrive’)REP„arrive-TR-1SG.OBJ-3ERG‘They came here (to see me) several times.’ (Willett, 2003, p.209,Moses Columbia)Lushootseed uses C1 reduplication to mark plurality on nouns and plural argumentson verbs, as shown in (50). The same is true of Lillooet, though two different typesof reduplication are used, as shown in (51): a (marginal) initial C1 reduplicationmarks plural entities and an infixed type of C1 reduplication marks plural events(H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023).31(50) a. s-da´„duukw (cf. sduukw ‘knife’)NMLZ-PL„knife‘knives’ (Kirkham, 1991, p.1, Lushootseed)b. sa´„saxw-@b (cf. sa´xw@b ‘run, jump’)PL„run-MID‘many run away’ (Hess, 1967, p.64, Lushootseed)c. sa´„sa ’qw (cf. sa ’qw ‘fly’)PL„fly‘many fly up’ (Hess, 1967, p.64, Lushootseed)31There is a limited, likely lexicalised, version of initial C1 reduplication that marks aspect inLillooet. Examples are given in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2.3.1).83(51) a. s-qw@„qw ’lı´p (cf. sqw ’lip ‘black tree moss’)NMLZ- C1.INIT„black.tree.moss‘lots of black tree moss’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57, Lillooet)b. xw@lp-ı´ăpą’l@x (cf. xw@lpı´lx ‘turn around’)turnăC1.PLą-AUT‘turn around and around’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.21,Lillooet)Thompson River Salish has two types of C1 reduplication: it has an initial (edge-aligned) C1 reduplication pattern, distinct from its infixed (prominence-aligned)C1 reduplication, marking diminutivity. The meaning and productivity of thisedge-aligned C1 reduplication are unclear, but it has been labelled “affective” byL. C. Thompson and Thompson (1996). I include it with C1 plural reduplicationhere because I group it with Lillooet initial C1 reduplication based on form, thoughlittle can be said about its meaning at present. Some examples are given in (52).(52) a. x. w@„x. wa´x. w„ox. w (cf. nx. wax. wa´yePqn ‘summer shelter’)AFF„stick„COS‘have many shoots’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.436,Thompson River Salish)b. Qw@„Qwo´ ’yt (diminutive cf. Qwo´QwiPt ‘take a nap’)AFF„sleep‘sleep erratically’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.480,Thompson River Salish)c. Pes-c@„co´Qw (cf. Pesco´Qw ‘have a stripe, be striped’)STAT-AFF„stripe‘(The pattern is) all striped.’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996,p.37, Thompson River Salish)2.5.3.4 Person-Linked C1 ReduplicationUnique amongst Salish languages, Shuswap uses C1 reduplication with a firstperson argument including possessor, subject, and object, as shown in (53).84(53) a. G=n-ciăcątxw (cf. citxw ‘house’)DET=1SG.POSS-houseăREDą‘my house’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)b. kiăkącx-kn (cf. tkicx ‘arrived there’)arriveăREDą-1SG.SUBJ‘I arrive.’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)c. m-wı´ăwąk-t-s@m-sCOMPL-seeăREDą-TR-1SG.OBJ-3SUBJr@=MaryDET=Mary‘Mary saw me.’ (cf. swe´t ’y kwikts ‘Whom did they (sg.) see?’)(Gardiner, 1996, p.175, Shuswap)C1 reduplication marking first person is prominence-aligned and identical in formto diminutive C1 reduplication. Examples of diminutive C1 reduplication areprovided in (54).(54) a. SanderSanderP@p@kwut-scoat-3POSSì@t„ìa´ăìą ’ň (cf. ìa ’ň ‘wet’)PDEN„wetăDIMą‘Sander’s coat is a little wet.’ (Shuswap: GD, vf)b. SanderSanderxwPitmanyt@=s-t@q„tı´ă ’ňąqtDET=NMLZ-PL„cloudăDIMąG@=s-wı´k-@m-sDET=see-MID-3POSS‘Sander saw a lot of small clouds.’ (cf. s ’ňiqt ‘cloud’) (Shuswap: GD,vf)2.5.3.5 Distinguishing Types of C1 ReduplicationC1 reduplication patterns may be distinguished by position. Thompson RiverSalish and Lillooet each have a marginal edge-aligned C1 reduplication in additionto their productive prominence-aligned C1 patterns. Recall that Lillooet has twoprominence-aligned C1 reduplication patterns: one that marks diminutivity andone that marks pluractionality.3232Though they surface in the same position, pluractional and diminutive C1 reduplication inLillooet can be distinguished by the vowel (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023). An analysis is given inChapter 4 (§4.2.4.2).85(55) a. k@„k’la´xw (cf. k ’laxw)C1.INIT„muskrat‘muskrat(s)’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)b. s-G@ă ’Gąp (cf. sGap)NMLZ-treeăDIMą‘little tree, sapling’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13, Lillooet)c. ’ca´ă ’cąq-@ ’n ( ’ca´qa ’n ‘pull s.t. out’)pull.outăC1.PLą-CTR‘pluck something (a bird)’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.24,Lillooet)Different types of C1 reduplication may also be distinguished by vowel quality.For example, in Lushootseed, a fixed segment /a/ is associated with the plural; thediminutive either copies a vowel or has the fixed segment /i/. Squamish patternswith Lushootseed in having /i/ associated with the diminutive, as shown in (57).However, the use of the diminutive in Squamish is very limited (Dyck, 2004).Aspectual C1 reduplication, which copies a vowel, is much more common.(56) a. s-da„duukw (cf. sduukw ‘knife’)NMLZ-PL„knife‘knives’ (Kirkham, 1991, p.1, Lushootseed)b. s-dı´„duukw (cf. sduukw ‘knife’)NMLZ-DIM„knife‘small knife’ (Urbanczyk, 2006, p.208, from Bates et al. 2004,Lushootseed)(57) a. lı´„la ’m (cf. la ’m ‘house’)DIM„house‘little house’ (Squamish Nation Education Department, 2011, p.103,Squamish)b. naRL’pa„ ’payaq-ant-asPROG„fix-TR-3ERGtaDETs-n@xwiì-scanoe-3POSS(cf. ’pa´yaq ‘be fixed’)‘They (sg.) are in the process of fixing the canoe.’ (Bar-el, 2008, p.47,Squamish)86There is good evidence for at least three types of C1 reduplication across Salishon the basis of both form and meaning: diminutive, plural, and aspectual.33Diminutive and plural C1 reduplication frequently have a fixed vowel, whileaspectual C1 does not.2.5.3.6 Distribution of C1 Reduplicative MorphemesTable 2.5 shows the number of languages with at least one C1 reduplicationprocess.Table 2.5: Number of Languages with C1 Reduplication by BranchBranch C1 No C1Central Salish 10 0Tillamook 1 0Tsamosan 0 4Interior Salish 7 0Bella Coola 1 0A summary of the meanings associated with C1 reduplication in each languageis given in the table below. I use (✓) to indicate the more marginal edge-alignedC1 reduplication processes in Thompson River Salish (“affective”) and Lillooet(“initial”), where the languages have more productive prominence-aligned C1reduplication.33In Central Salish, aspectual C1 reduplication marks imperfective aspect.87Table 2.6: Types of C1 Reduplication# of Language Diminutive Plural Aspect Person-Types Linked3 Comox-Sliammon, Sechelt, ✓ ✓ ✓Halkomelem3 Lillooet ✓ ✓ (✓)2 Moses Columbia, Tillamook, ✓ ✓Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel, Lushootseed2 Shuswap ✓ ✓2 Squamish, Pentlatch, ✓ ✓Straits2 Thompson River Salish ✓ (✓)1 Coeur d’Alene, Okanagan, ✓Twana, Nooksack0 Upper Chehalis, Quinault,Lower Chehalis, CowlitzUnclear Bella CoolaAll languages with C1 reduplication use it to mark diminutivity. Eight alsouse C1 reduplication to mark plurality, and seven (all in Central Salish) use C1reduplication to mark an aspectual contrast (imperfectivity).Unlike with C1C2 reduplication (Section 2.4.3.3), different types of C1reduplication can be distinguished on the basis of form in every language,aside from Shuswap, where both diminutive and first-person are marked withprominence-aligned C1 reduplication.34 This is summarised in Table 2.7, whichshows whether there is a difference in phonological form between the differenttypes of C1 reduplication in each language.34There may also be an edge-aligned C1 reduplication process in Shuswap, however the data aretoo sparse at this point for me to draw this conclusion.88Table 2.7: C1 Reduplication: Form-to-MeaningThree MeaningsDiminutive, Plural, and AspectualDifferent Forms Comox-Sliammon, Sechelt, HalkomelemDiminutive, Plural (Initial), and Plural (Pluractional)Different Forms LillooetTwo MeaningsDiminutive and PluralDifferent Forms Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel, Tillamook,Lushootseed, Moses ColumbiaDiminutive and First PersonSame Form ShuswapDiminutive and AspectualDifferent Forms Straits (Klallam and Northern Straits),Squamish, PentlatchDiminutive and “Affective”Different Forms Thompson River SalishOne MeaningDiminutiveCoeur d’Alene, Okanagan,Twana, NooksackUnclear/NoneBella Coola, Tsamosan Languages2.5.4 Summary: C1 ReduplicationIf a language only has a single C1 reduplication pattern, it will be diminutivity.The only languages without diminutive reduplication are the Tsamosan languages,which lack any process of C1 reduplication, regardless of meaning.Plural C1 reduplication is scattered throughout the family: it is found inSouthern and Northern Interior Salish, as well as in Central Salish and Tillamook.It is likely that this type of reduplication is more widespread than previouslythought. For example, “consonant reduplication” as described by Van Eijk (1997)actually contains two separate C1 reduplicative processes, distinguished by vowelquality: a plural C1 with a full vowel, and a diminutive C1 with a schwa (H. Davis89& Mellesmoen, 2023). In the eight languages with plural C1 reduplication, it isassociated with pluractionality (e.g., repetition or plural participants), rather thanmarking plurality in the nominal domain.While aspectual C1 reduplication is limited to Central Salish, it is a core partof the aspectual system in these languages and therefore well-attested in existingdocumentation.2.6 C2 ReduplicationC2 reduplication copies either the second consonant in the root (edge-alignedreduplication) or the consonant following a stressed vowel (prominence-alignedreduplication). The positions and vowel qualities associated with C2 reduplicationare summarised in Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2, respectively. The meanings associatedwith C2 reduplication are covered in Section 2.6.3. Triplication is discussed inSection 2.6.4. I summarise the distribution of C2 reduplication across Salishlanguages in Section 2.6.5.2.6.1 Position of C2 ReduplicationC2 reduplication may be edge-aligned or prominence-aligned. Edge-alignedpatterns are found in Central Salish, Southern Interior Salish, and Tillamook;prominence-aligned patterns are found in Northern Interior Salish and Tsamosan.In edge-aligned C2 reduplication, a copy of the second consonant of the rootimmediately follows the consonant it copies. Examples from Coeur d’Alene aregiven in (58).(58) a. ’qe ’y„@ ’y-u´t-@m (cf. s ’qe´ ’y@m ‘writing’)write„COS-STAT-INDEF.OBJ‘It is possible to write.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.607, Coeur d’Alene)b. ni ’cˇ„@ ’cˇ-u´t-@m (cf. ’ci:nı´ ’cˇ@m ‘S/he cut some.’)cut-COS-STAT-INDEF.OBJ‘It is cut-able.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.607, Coeur d’Alene)Edge-aligned C2 reduplication is positioned relative to the left-edge of the word:where the root has more than two consonants, the reduplicated consonant is90between the second and third consonants (59).(59) a. ’qı´lxilyt (cf. ’qilt ‘bright (moon, sky)’)brightxCOSy‘daybreak, dawn, getting light’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.645, Sechelt)b. gw@lă@ląa´pu (cf. gw@la´pu ‘you folks’)2SG.INDEPăC2ą‘just you folks’ (Hess, 1967, p.66, Lushootseed)In contrast, C2 reduplication in Lillooet and Thompson River Salish is prominence-aligned and positioned relative to stress, as shown in (60) and (61), respectively.(60) a. p@ì„pu´ăì@ąì (cf. pu´ìxal ‘to boil smth.’)PL„boilăCOSą‘rapids’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57, Lillooet)b. c@q„cı´ăq@ąq (cf. cı´q@q ‘get stabbed’)PL„stabăCOSą‘to get stabbed all over’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57, Lillooet)(61) n-ceqe´ ’m„ ’m (cf. nceqe´ ’mix ‘recline, lie on back’)LOC-lie.on.back„COS‘fall backwards accidentally’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, pp.20–21, Thompson River Salish)The pattern in Shuswap is harder to discern because there are fewer documentedexamples. Further documentation of longer words is needed.35 However, evenif C2 reduplication is prominence-aligned in Shuswap, it differs from the otherNorthern Interior languages because the reduplication is positioned before thestressed syllable rather than afterwards, as shown in (62).(62) a. ’ňă@xwąu´xw (cf. ’ňuxw ‘numb’)numbăCOSą‘(got) numb’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)35In my own fieldwork, I was not successful in eliciting C2 reduplication with any multisyllabicwords with stress on a syllable beyond the first two, which could differentiate between edge-alignedand prominence-aligned reduplication.91b. ’ňă@sąa´s (cf. ’ňas ‘make a splashing sound’)splashăCOSą‘(got) soggy’ (Kuipers, 1989, p.163, Shuswap)2.6.2 Vowels in C2 ReduplicationThe vowel accompanying C2 reduplication may be a faithful copy, a fixed segment,or an epenthetic vowel (/@/).Tsamosan and Central Salish languages other than Twana with C2reduplication have a faithful copy of the vowel. Examples from Lushootseed aregiven in (63).(63) a. da´ ’y„a ’y (cf. da´ ’y ‘very, only’)only„C2‘alone’ (Hess, 1967, p.66, Lushootseed)b. s-ìa´dăadą@yP (cf. sìa´d@yP ‘woman’)NMLZ-womanăC2ą‘woman (living) alone’ (Hess, 1967, p.66, Lushootseed)Twana has a fixed segment /a/ in C2 reduplication.36 Examples are provided in(64).(64) a. s-P@´ ’qw„a ’qw (root: P@ ’q-)NMLZ-snow„C2‘snow’ (Drachman, 1969, p.172, Twana)b. bı´xw„axw (root: bixw-)smile„C2‘smile’ (Drachman, 1969, p.279, Twana)All of the Interior Salish languages as well as Tillamook have an epenthetic /@/ inC2 reduplication. An example from Lillooet is provided in (65).36There is also a C2 process associated with distributive numerals, but it is not possible to discernthe vowel source because there are too few examples to establish a generalisation.92(65) pu´ăì@ąì (cf. pu´ìxal ‘to boil smth.’)boilăCOSą‘come to a boil’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)When the vowel associated with C2 reduplication is /@/, its presence is determinedby the general phonology of the language.372.6.3 Meanings Associated with C2 ReduplicationAcross the family, C2 reduplication is primarily associated with a change-of-statemeaning. Kroeber (1988) compares the meaning of C2 reduplication in InteriorSalish and Comox-Sliammon, contrasting its putative “out of control” meaning inthe Interior languages with “inceptivity” in Comox-Sliammon.There are a few other meanings associated with C2 reduplication. InLushootseed, Hess (1967) states that C2 reduplication is used to mark something“isolated”/“restricted” (66a), or something “aimless” (66b).(66) a. s-ìa´dăadą@yP (cf. sìa´d@yP ‘woman’)NMLZ-womanăC2ą‘woman (living) alone’ (Hess, 1967, p.66, Lushootseed)b. sa´xw„axw-@b (cf. sa´xw@b ‘run, jump’)run„C2-MID‘scurrying about trying to get things done’ (Hess, 1967, p.66,Lushootseed)Kinkade (1985) finds that the most frequent meaning associated with C2reduplication in Upper Chehalis is to indicate that a change-of-state is slow orgradual. He finds 41 roots which allow for this use. Examples are provided in(67a-b). The next most frequent meaning associated with C2 reduplication is thesuperlative, shown in (67c), which Kinkade finds with 29 roots. However, all thesuperlative uses of C2 reduplication he lists are provided in combination with thesuperlative sxw-...-s(t).37See the analysis of C2 reduplication in Lillooet in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2) for further discussionand analysis.93(67) a. ’ňisˇ-a´w„aw-m (cf. ’ňisˇ-a´w-m ‘get cold’)cold-INCH„C2-MID‘it got cold slowly’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.191, Upper Chehalis)b. s-tı´păipąi-w-n (cf. tı´pì ‘get dark’)IPFV-darkăC2ą-INCH-IPFV‘It gets dark gradually.’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.193, Upper Chehalis)c. sxw- ’ňu´ ’kw„ ’kw-st (cf. ’ňu´ ’kw ‘high’)SUPR-high„C2-SUPR‘highest’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.193, Upper Chehalis)The other categories Kinkade (1985, p.189) lists include “persistent, frequent” (9roots), “while going” (3 roots), “become a colour” (4 roots), “by oneself” (limitedto independent pronouns), counting forms (limited to numbers), and plural (onlyapplies to the lexical suffix -@lwas meaning ‘middle’). C2 reduplication occurswith an additional 12 roots without a clear meaning (Kinkade, 1985, p.190). TheEnglish translations given by Kinkade for examples in the “persistent, frequent”,“while going”, “become a colour”, and residual categories suggest that all mightinvolve a basic change of state semantics. For example, contrast (67b) above,which has a separate inchoative marker, with the examples given in (68) below.Kinkade (1985) labels (68a) as “become a colour”, while (68b) is listed under“persistent, frequent”. I group these uses, and the superlative, shown in (67c)above, under change of state.(68) a. s-tı´p„ip-n (cf. tı´pì ‘get dark’)IPFV-dark„COS-IPFV‘it is kind of dark’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.194, Upper Chehalis)b. s-’tana´p„ap-n (root: ’ta ’na´p-)IPFV-dark„COS-IPFV‘It gets darker and darker.’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.194, Upper Chehalis)In Twana, there is a type of C2 reduplication that Kim (2017a) analyses astruncated C1C2 reduplication. The consonant in C2 position is reduplicated and thecopied segment is positioned on the left edge of the root (prior to C1). This typeof reduplication is also called “wrong side” reduplication by Kim and Gardiner94(2016), who find a similar pattern in Tillamook. An example from Twana isgiven in (69). The meaning is consistent with C1C2 reduplication (i.e., it marksplurality). This type of reduplication is analysed in Chapter 6 (Section 6.5.3.3.2).(69) s-q„te´qaw (cf. steqe´w ‘horse’)NMLZ-PL„horse‘horses’ (Drachman, 1969, p.32, Twana)2.6.4 “Triplication” (C22 Reduplication)There is another reduplication pattern that I have classified under C2 reduplicationon the basis of shape. This “triplication” pattern appears to involve two instancesof C2 reduplication. This C22 reduplication refers to the continuation of an eventin Lillooet (H. Davis, p.c.), as shown by the examples in (70). C22 reduplication isalso found in Shuswap and Okanagan, as shown in (71) and (72), respectively.(70) a. ìă@laląı´l (cf. ìı´lin ‘sprinkle something’)sprinkleăTRIPą‘to keep sprinkling’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)b. ’ňă@ì@ìą@´ì (cf. ’ň@ìp ‘shake, shiver’)shiverăTRIPą‘to keep shivering’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)(71) a. pă@t@tąe´t (cf. snpto´lePxw ‘dumplings’)bubble/boilăTRIPąbubble, boil (Kuipers, 1989, p.22, Shuswap)b. tă@kw@kwąı´kw (cf. tPikw ‘fire’)fireăTRIPą‘throw off sparks’ (Kuipers, 1989, p.22, Shuswap)(72) a. t@’răqqąa´q (root: t ’rq-)jump/kick/danceăTRIPą‘jump up and down’ (A. Mattina, 1993, p.221, Okanagan)b. ’tăqwqwąiqw (cf. ’tiqwt ‘burst, explode’)burst/explodeăTRIPą‘explosion’ (A. Mattina, 1993, p.221, Okanagan)95Though it has not been discussed explicitly in descriptions of Thompson RiverSalish, I have been able to locate the following form in L. C. Thompson andThompson (1996, p.422), which they describe as an “unusual apparent doublereduplication”; they do not identify the root.(73) a. x.@nă ’qa ’qąa´ ’q „ x.@nă ’q@ ’qąa´ ’q?ăTRIPą‘rumbling, snorting noise’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996,p.422, Thompson River Salish)C22 reduplication patterns are notable because stress always falls on the finalsyllable, contra to standard patterns of stress assignment.On the surface, these patterns could be analysed as the combination of two C2reduplicative morphemes (i.e., as multiple reduplication) or as one instance of C22reduplication (i.e., as triplication). I analyse this pattern as triplication in the casestudy of Lillooet reduplication presented in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2.5).2.6.5 Summary: C2 ReduplicationC2 reduplication is found in all branches of the Salish family. However, it is onlypresent in four out of ten Central Salish languages and in one of four Tsamosanlanguages. It occurs in all of the Interior Salish languages, and is also found inTillamook. The table below summarises the distribution of C2 reduplication acrossthe family.Table 2.8: C2 Reduplication in Salish Languages by BranchC2 None/Reduplication UnclearCentral Salish (n=10) 4 6Tillamook (n=1) 1 0Tsamosan (n=4) 1 3Interior Salish (n=7) 7 0Bella Coola (n=1) 0 1Total (n=23) 13 10962.7 V1 ReduplicationOnly a vowel is copied in V1 reduplication. This is the least frequent of the fourcore types of reduplication; it is found in seven languages, including three from theCentral branch, three from the Interior branch, and one from the Tsamosan branch.I discuss the form and meaning of V1 reduplication by branch: Central Salish inSection 2.7.1, Interior Salish in Section 2.7.2, and Tsamosan in Section 2.7.3.2.7.1 Central Salish V1 ReduplicationExamples of V1 reduplication in Central Salish are given in (74). The examplesin (74a–b) show a frequent combination of V1 reduplication with C1 reduplicationin Twana and Comox-Sliammon; there is an additional glottal stop, which maybe analysed as a fixed or epenthetic segment, inserted to provide an onset for thesyllable created by copying the vowel. In examples like (74c) from Lushootseed,it is not clear if vowel reduplication is realised as two adjacent vowels or a longvowel (i.e., VV vs. V:).(74) a. qăiPąi„qp-aPam (cf. q@pP@m ‘touch (s.t.)’)DIMăPLą„touch-A.INTR‘touch repeatedly’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.403, Comox-Sliammon)b. be- ’kwăaPąa´ă ’kwąsˇ@-cˇ@d (cf. be ’kwasˇa´cˇ@d ‘I’m cutting things.’)CONT-cutăDIMąăDIMą-1SG.SUBJ‘I’m cutting a little.’‘I’m cutting things small.’ (Drachman, 1969, p.137, Twana)c. cˇa´ăaągw@s (cf. cˇ@gwa´s ‘wife’)wifexPLy‘wives’ (Hess, 1967, p.65, Lushootseed)V1 reduplication in Twana is associated with diminutivity. It is found incombination with diminutive C1 reduplication, which can either involve theaffixation of a glottal stop in addition to reduplication (shape: PC) or copy a vowel(shape: CV). For this reason, I analyse V1 reduplication in Twana as a realisationof the PC diminutive: a consonant is copied and there is a floating constricted97glottis feature ([c.g.]). Vowel reduplication is triggered to avoid a complex onset(e.g., [qP] in (74a) above).V1 reduplication in Lushootseed and Comox-Sliammon marks plurality.According to Hess (1967, p.64), in Lushootseed it marks plural arguments withverbs and plurality with nouns. Hess (1967, p.65) notes that V1 reduplication withnouns is not a productive form of the plural. In Comox-Sliammon, V1 marks apluractional that involves temporally distributed events (Mellesmoen et al., 2020).In Comox-Sliammon, V1 reduplication typically co-occurs with another type ofreduplication: see description and analysis in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.5.2).2.7.2 Interior Salish V1 ReduplicationWhile there is no evidence for V1 reduplication in the Northern Interior branch, it isattested in three of the Southern Interior languages: Coeur d’Alene (75a), MontanaSalish-Spokane-Kalispel (75b-c), and Okanagan (75d).38(75) a. h@n-’ta´ăPaąsˇ-a´lp (cf. ’tasˇ ‘be inherently sweet’)LOC-sweetăINCHą-feeling‘I felt sweetness’ (Reichard, 1938, p.612, Coeur d’Alene)b. năaPąa´s (cf. hi nas ‘It is wet.’)wetăINCHą‘They (sg.) get wet.’ (Vogt, 1940, p.64, Kalispel)c. qwăuPąu´ì (cf. hi qwuì ‘It is dusty.’)dustyăINCHą‘It gets dusty’ (Vogt, 1940, p.64, Kalispel)d. qwăaPąa´c (cf. qwaPcı´naP ‘warm weather’)warmăINCHą‘It is getting warm.’ (Watkins, 1970, p.100, Okanagan)V1 reduplication in the examples above accompanies the inchoative affix -P-: seeSection 2.2.2. I treat vowel reduplication in these cases as an allomorph of the38My choice for morpheme breaks is informed by the position of the inchoative marker -P- inwords without V1 reduplication. CVPC surfaces in Coeur d’Alene where it is CPVC in Okanaganand Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel (A. Mattina, 1993, pp.231–232).98inchoative infix. As there is variation across different descriptions as to whetherthe vowel is present with these forms, it is possible that there are differencesbetween dialects and speakers regarding whether and when the inchoative triggersreduplication.In addition to inchoative V1 reduplication, Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispelmarks plurality with V1 reduplication. Examples are provided in (76). Plural V1reduplication behaves like the inchoative V1 reduplication, except the copied vowelis positioned after the stressed vowel, rather than before.(76) a. cı´ăPiątxw-s (cf. citxw ‘house’)houseăPLą-3POSS‘their house’ (Thomason, 1997, p.354, Montana Salish)b. nunxwe´ăPeąnP-em (cf. nunxwe´neP ‘believe’)believeăPLą-MID?‘They (sg.) believed.’ (Pete, 2010, p.51, Montana Salish)2.7.3 Tsamosan V1 ReduplicationV1 reduplication is documented by Modrow (1971) for Quinault. The stressedvowel is copied and a glottal stop separates the identical vowels, as shown in (77).V1 reduplication in Quinault is associated with comparatives.(77) a. qwumı´ăPiąn (cf. qwumı´n ‘slow’)slowăCOMPą‘slower’ (Modrow, 1971, p.356, Quinault)b. na´ăPaąw (cf. na´w ‘big’)bigăCOMPą‘bigger’ (Modrow, 1971, p.356, Quinault)While Upper Chehalis and Cowlitz do not have vowel reduplication, as definedby a 1:2 output mapping, vowel lengthening is used to mark the diminutive andresults from the affixation of a mora (Kinkade 1998, p.204; Mellesmoen 2022,p.73). While I do not count vowel lengthening as a type of reduplication, I discussits theoretical relevance to the model of non-concatenative morphology that I adoptin Chapter 6 (Section 6.6.2.2.1).992.7.4 Summary: V1 ReduplicationBased on available documentation, I count seven languages with V1 reduplication.Its distribution across the family is summarised in Table 2.9.Table 2.9: V1 Reduplication in Salish Languages by BranchV1 None/Reduplication UnclearCentral Salish (n=10) 3 7Tillamook (n=1) 0 1Tsamosan (n=4) 1 3Interior Salish (n=7) 3 4Bella Coola (n=1) 0 1Total (n=23) 7 16The meanings of V1 reduplication are summarised in the table below.Table 2.10: Meanings of V1 ReduplicationMeaning LanguagesPlural/Pluractional Comox-Sliammon (Mellesmoen et al., 2020),Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel (Thomason, 1997),Lushootseed (Hess, 1967)Diminutive Twana (Drachman, 1969)Comparative Quinault (Modrow, 1971)Inchoative Coeur d’Alene (Reichard, 1938),Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel (Vogt, 1940),Okanagan (Watkins, 1970)V1 reduplication is used to mark plurality in three languages, and is associatedwith scalar functions (diminutive and comparative) in two. The change-of-state(inchoative) use is found in three languages, where vowel reduplication is triggeredby the infixation of the inchoative marker (-P-). Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispelis the only language to have more than one V1 reduplication process: vowelreduplication can mark plurality or surface as part of the inchoative.3939There may be an underlying /P/ in the plural as well.1002.8 Multiple ReduplicationMultiple reduplication, the combination of more than one reduplicative morphemein a single word, is attested in 15 of the 23 Salish languages.Table 2.11: Multiple Reduplication in Salish Languages by BranchYes No Lacks Sufficient DataCentral Salish (n=10) 7 2 1Tillamook (n=1) 1 0 0Tsamosan (n=4) 0 3 1Interior Salish (n=7) 7 0 0Bella Coola (n=1) 0 1 0Total (n=23) 15 6 2The criterion for being classified as multiple reduplication is that each of thecomponent reduplication processes is attested independently.Not all possible combinations of reduplicative processes are attested withinany given language; multiple reduplication has restrictions on which (and howmany) reduplicative morphemes can be combined in the same word. Multiplereduplication typically allows for the combination of at most two types ofreduplicative morphemes.The most common type of multiple reduplication is the combination of C1C2and C1 reduplication, which is most frequently used to form diminutive plurals.(78) a. hı´„h@p„hu´pit (cf. hu´pit ‘deer’)DIM„PL„deer‘young deer (more than one)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.115, Sechelt)b. p@s„pe´xpys@ìkwe (cf. pe´s@ìkwe ‘lake’)PL„lakeăDIMą‘small lakes’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)c. bı´„b@d„b@daP (cf. b@da´P ‘child, offspring’)DIM„PL„child‘dolls, litter (of animals)’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.306, Lushootseed)101The combination of C1C2 and C1 reduplication is included in one of the earliestdescriptions of reduplication in Salish, that of Haeberlin (1918), who documentsthis combination of reduplicative morphemes to mark diminutive plural inLillooet, Thompson River Salish, Okanagan, Lushootseed, Klallam, NorthernStraits (Songish), Shuswap, and Comox-Sliammon.40 In languages with fewreduplicative morphemes, multiple reduplication is not attested. The languageswhich lack multiple reduplication include the Tsamosan languages, Bella Coola,Nooksack, and Squamish. Pentlatch and Quinault do not appear to have productivemultiple reduplication, but this conclusion is based on limited data.Multiple reduplication is discussed in more detail in the case studies in Chapter5 and in Chapter 6 (Section 6.6.2.3), since it can be used to test predictions ofparticular theoretical approaches and assumptions. The basic generalisation is thatat least one type of multiple reduplication is permitted for most languages withmore than one reduplicative morpheme.2.9 Generalisations and Gaps in Salish ReduplicationAttested and unattested patterns in Salish reduplication allow for somegeneralisations about the possible forms and meanings of reduplicative morphemesin the inventory of a single language and across the family. Generalisations aboutthe core types of reduplication and inventories of reduplicative morphemes aresummarised in Section 2.9.1. Generalisations pertaining to form and meaningassociated with reduplication across the family are provided in Sections 2.9.2and 2.9.3, respectively. The distribution of reduplicative processes across lexicalcategories is discussed in Section 2.9.4.2.9.1 Generalisations about Core Types of ReduplicationGeneralisations about core types of reduplication in Salish languages are given in(79).40These languages represent the documentation available at the time Haeberlin (1918) was writing;subsequent research has revealed more languages that permit the combination of C1C2 and C1reduplication.102(79) Generalizations about Core Reduplication Patterns:1. C1C2 Reduplication: All 23 Salish languages have a C1C2reduplication process associated with plurality of entities and/orevents.2. C1 Reduplication: The second most common type of reduplication isC1 reduplication, which is found in all languages except those in theTsamosan branch. If a language has C1 reduplication, it will use C1reduplication to mark diminutivity, though there may be other typesof C1 reduplication in the language.3. C2 Reduplication: C2 change-of-state reduplication is found inthirteen languages. C2 reduplicative processes, if present, show lesscross-linguistic variation in form than C1 and V1 reduplication.4. V1 Reduplication: V1 reduplication is less common comparedto other core types of reduplication; where present, it shows lesscross-linguistic variation in its form than in its meaning. Nine Salishlanguages have a V1 reduplication process, though its meaning variescross-linguistically between plurality, diminutivity, comparison, andchange-of-state.2.9.2 Generalisations about FormGeneralisations about the form of Salish reduplication are given in (80).(80) Generalisations about Form:1. Position of Segments: Most reduplicative morphemes in Salishare positioned relative to the left edge of the word (ignoring non-reduplicative prefixes), but reduplication in Lillooet, Shuswap, andThompson River Salish may be aligned to stress, and reduplicationin Bella Coola may be aligned to the leftmost vowel or sonorantsegment.2. Number of Segments: The maximum number of segments copied inreduplication (setting aside cases of multiple reduplication) is three,103though the most common number is one. The number of reduplicativemorphemes in a word with multiple reduplication is usually no morethan two.2.9.3 Generalisations about MeaningReduplicative morphemes in Salish can be classified into three major semanticcategories: (i) aspectual, (ii) plural, and (iii) scalar (including diminutive,comparatives, and superlatives). Aspectual reduplication marks imperfectives,progressives, continuatives, inceptives/inchoatives, and changes of state. Pluralreduplication marks plurality of entities or events (including arguments).Reduplicative morphemes with scalar properties include processes that markdiminutivity, intensity, or comparison.Types of reduplication that do not fall into the three major categories includenon-plural (“property-denoting”) C1C2 reduplication, found across the family, andfirst person C1 reduplication in Shuswap.Reduplication in Salish is not used to mark tense, mood, or clause-type.2.9.4 Generalisations about Syntactic DistributionReduplication often applies across syntactic categories, but the resulting meaningsshow sensitivity to semantic types. For example, if a reduplicative morphemeapplies to both nouns and verbs, it targets entities in the nominal domain (e.g.,plural) and events or their arguments in the verbal domain (e.g., pluractional).Despite earlier claims by Jelinek and Demers (1997, p.303) that reduplicationis not confined to any given class of lexical items, distributional restrictions havebeen documented for a number of languages. Aspectual C1 reduplication is limitedto the verbal domain, for example. H. Davis (2011) argues that the non-pluraluse of C1C2 reduplication in Lillooet is semantically vacuous and derives anadjective from a category-neutral root. Another example of the limited applicationof reduplication to specific categories of roots is seen in Comox-Sliammon:change-of-state C2 reduplication “is found with all roots of basically stativeaspectual character” (Kroeber, 1988, p.143), which Huijsmans (2023b, p.180)argues are adjectives. The fact that C2 reduplication cannot be used to derive a104verb from a nominal root provides evidence that certain types of reduplicationcannot apply indiscriminately to any category.The supposed cross-categorial nature of reduplication in Salish has featuredin debates about whether a noun-verb distinction exists (e.g., Kinkade, 1983;Van Eijk & Hess, 1986). In an argument for acategorial roots, Wiltschko andSteriopolo (2007) state that diminutive reduplication can occur with nouns, verbs,and adjectives in Halkomelem because the diminutive merges with a pre-categorialroot. This claim is challenged by H. Davis and Trotter (2023) who argue thatthe Halkomelem diminutive must apply to categorially specified roots. Morespecifically, the diminutive in Halkomelem only occurs with imperfective stemsin the verbal domain (Suttles, 2004); it is never found with perfective verbs. Itfollows that the diminutive has a selectional restriction related to viewpoint aspect,it cannot be combined with a pre-categorial root. Other restrictions of this natureare attested: plural C1 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon applies only to statesand stative-marked verbs (Watanabe, 2003, p.376).105Chapter 3Phonological Theory andBackgroundReduplication in Salish has significance for phonological theory because itprovides empirical support for certain frameworks while showing where otherapproaches are insufficient. Over the next four chapters, I argue that thereduplicative morphemes found across Salish and within the grammars ofindividual languages provide empirical evidence in support of three main claims:1. Reduplication happens across a number of sub-word phonological domains(strata), which do not correspond to morphosyntactic categories.2. Lexical entries for concatenative and non-concatenative morphemes are notinherently different.3. The realisation of a reduplicative morpheme is based on the grammar(constraint ranking) of the stratum at which it is parsed.The rest of the dissertation is divided into four chapters: an overview of previouswork on reduplication in Salish and the theoretical assumptions I adopt for theanalysis (Chapter 3); an analysis of single reduplication patterns in Comox-Sliammon and Lillooet (Chapter 4); an analysis of multiple reduplication patternsin Halkomelem, Lillooet, and Comox-Sliammon (Chapter 5); and a discussion ofthe cross-Salish typology of reduplication and implications for theory (Chapter 6).106In this chapter, I situate my analysis of Salish reduplication in the context ofphonological theory, covering background and relevant assumptions about Salishsyllabification, as well as explaining the theoretical framework I employ and myassumptions about the architecture of the grammar.3.1 Salish Reduplication and Phonological TheorySalish reduplication has been analysed within a number of different theoreticalframeworks and has been used to argue for (and against) many existingphonological theories.Many early phonological analyses follow Marantz (1982) in using a templaticapproach to reduplication, including Bates (1986), S. Davis (1988), and Batesand Carlson (1998), among others. Salish reduplication has also been analysedusing a-templatic approaches within the (Parallel) Optimality Theory framework,including, for example, in the work of Urbanczyk (1996a, 1999, 2001, 2006) andCoelho (1999). Others have analysed the same or similar data with reference toco-phonologies (e.g., Downing, 2008), contrast enhancement (e.g., Czaykowska-Higgins & Urbanczyk, 2001; Urbanczyk, 2005), phonological precedence andlinearisation (e.g., Fitzpatrick & Nevins, 2003; Fitzpatrick, 2006), compressionbetween morphemes and edges (e.g., Hendricks, 1999), transderivationalcorrespondence (e.g., Benua, 1997), distributed reduplication (e.g., Frampton,2009), contiguous articulatory gestures (e.g., Angermeyer, 2003), and wordfaithfulness (e.g., Struijke, 2000). Salish reduplication has also been used to arguefor a subjacency condition in morphology (Broselow, 1983), a separation betweenphonology and morphology in reduplication (Alderete et al., 1999; Inkelas,2008), a separation between morphology and syntax in reduplication (Kirchner,2010), and for theories concerning alignment or anchoring (Nelson, 1998, 2003;Nakamura, 2000; Shaw, 2005).While Salish reduplication has been analysed and used to support manydifferent phonological approaches, previous work largely focuses on a single typeof reduplication (e.g., the various reduplicative and non-reduplicative allomorphsof the Halkomelem imperfective, such as in Monahan, 2002, Zimmermann, 2013,and Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2020) or a specific combination of two types of107reduplication (e.g., multiple reduplication involving the plural and diminutivein Lushootseed, such as in Broselow 1983 and Park 2000). Exceptions to thisgeneralisation are where reduplication forms part of a larger phonological study(e.g., Willett, 2003), or in work focusing on the reduplicative system of a singlelanguage (e.g., Jimmie, 1994; Urbanczyk, 2001; Crawford, 2015). I aim tocomplement these studies by contributing a formal analysis of Salish reduplicationin the broader context of the full inventory of reduplicative morphemes, bothwithin languages and across the family.Two components are necessary for a cross-Salish analysis of reduplication thatcan extend beyond a single language or type of reduplication. First, it is necessaryto adopt a framework that is capable of deriving the surface form, includinglinear position, of the attested reduplicative morphemes. Second, the analysismust be able to predict the form of words with multiple reduplication, whichrequires an explanation of any relevant interactions with other (reduplicativeand non-reduplicative) morphemes. Minimally, an appropriate phonologicalframework must account for the form and position of reduplicated segments acrossboth single and multiple reduplication patterns for each individual language. Fora complete analysis of Salish reduplication, the same theoretical assumptionsestablished for any one language must also be compatible with the grammars andreduplicative inventories of the other 22 languages.The present analysis adopts the assumptions of Prosodic Morphology andGeneralized Non-Linear Affixation (GNLA), defined in Sections 3.3 and 3.4,respectively. Reduplication is defined as fission (introduced in Section 2.2.2),which is a phonological repair strategy that provides segmental content to ensure awell-formed output. Reduplicative morphemes often involve an “empty” prosodicunit, such as a mora (µ) or a syllable (σ ). GNLA has been used previously inanalyses of non-concatenative morphology in Salish (e.g., Svenonius & Bye,2012; Zimmermann, 2013; Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2020), though analysingreduplicative morphemes as prosodic affixes in Salish predates GNLA (see, e.g.,Jimmie, 1994; Willett & Czaykowska-Higgins, 1995).The core assumptions of Prosodic Morphology and GNLA are presentedwithin a Stratal OT framework, defined in Section 3.5.2.1, which is well-suitedto analysing reduplication in languages with several productive reduplicative108processes that interact with other morphology in a particular order.3.2 The Mora, Nucleus, and the Salish SyllableI adopt the prosodic hierarchy proposed by Zec (1988), which adds the morato earlier work proposing that prosodic structure is comprised of constituentsarranged in a hierarchy (e.g., Selkirk, 1978; Nespor & Vogel, 1986). I focus onprosodic structure beneath the level of the prosodic word (PrWd). This includesthe mora (µ), syllable (σ ), and foot (Ft), as shown in (81).1(81) PrWdFtσµThe mora is crucial for understanding prosodic structure and syllabification inSalish and will play a key role in the analysis of reduplication in the followingchapters. I assume that the mora is key to syllabification in Salish, adopting thetheoretical assumptions of moraic theory (e.g., Hyman, 1985; Hayes, 1989).Moraic theory proposes that the mora is the unit counted in syllabification,rather than the segment (cf. segmental theories in Levin, 1985, among others).The mora is a prosodic unit that corresponds to a phonological position and tophonological weight: for example, a light syllable has one mora and a heavysyllable has two. Moras are often described as timing units. However Campos-Astorkiza (2004) distinguishes between two types of moras: positional moras(µp) license segments by virtue of their position in the syllabification process,while timing moras (µ t) correspond to time-related properties. Moras described inthis chapter are positional moras. Key assumptions about moraicity and syllablestructure in Salish are given in this section.1This will later be revised to include the nucleus; see Section 3.2.3 and Section 6.5.2.1.3.1093.2.1 Moraic and Non-Moraic ConsonantsThe moraicity of consonants in Salish languages is determined by their positionwithin a syllable. Following previous work on Salish (e.g., Blake, 2000), Iassume that onsets are always non-moraic and that codas are typically moraic.2While Blake (2000) focuses primarily on evidence from Comox-Sliammon,there are arguments for moraic codas in other Salish languages, including MosesColumbia (Czaykowska-Higgins & Willett, 1997) and Halkomelem (Mellesmoen& Urbanczyk, 2020).As a working assumption throughout this dissertation, I view coda consonantsas moraic, unless language-specific patterns emerge that warrant furtherdiscussion. For instance, Mellesmoen (2021b) argues that only continuantobstruents are moraic in Bella Coola: non-continuant obstruents (stops) arenot. Exceptions of this kind underscore the role of language-specific patternsin reduplication. The moraicity of different consonants is a language-specificdifference in the phonological grammar, which may result in cross-linguisticvariation in non-concatenative morphology, including reduplication.Finally, not all analyses of Salish phonology assume that coda consonants areor can be moraic. For example, Leonard (2019) argues that consonants in theSaanich dialect of Northern Straits (Central Salish) are not moraic. However, it isimportant to note that her argument comes from a lack of evidence for the necessityof moraic codas rather than positive evidence for non-moraic codas. This suggeststhat either a moraic or non-moraic analysis is possible; I assume that codas inNorthern Straits are moraic for consistency across the family.3.2.2 Moraic and Non-Moraic VowelsPrevious work on Salish syllables and schwa has posited that schwa is nuclear butnon-moraic (e.g., Shaw, 1993; Shaw, Blake, Campbell, & Shepherd, 1999; Blake,2000). In other words, a schwa may occupy the peak position or head a syllable,but it may not bear phonological weight. All other vowels in Salish are moraic.I assume that [@] is a non-moraic vowel, following Blake (2000) in particular,who proposes that a moraic coda is required for a syllable with a stressed schwa2Assumptions about onsets exclude potential moraic consonants which are ambisyllabic.110to ensure that any stressed syllable has weight.3 As a schwa cannot bear its ownmora, the syllable must have a coda consonant, which are moraic in Salish. A codaconsonant can therefore contribute weight to a stressed syllable, as shown in (82).(82) σC @´µCThe leftmost mora in a stressed syllable is the head mora. Where relevant, I usethe notation µ+ to mark a head mora in the analysis. An example is provided in(83), which shows that the head mora is leftmost in the stressed syllable, as well asin the foot.(83) FtσCµ+V´σCµV3.2.3 Two Types of Monomoraic Syllables in SalishGiven that [@] is nuclear and non-moraic in Salish, there are two possible structuresfor monomoraic syllables: one with and one without a moraic vowel.4A monomoraic syllable (σµ ) in Salish can be closed (with a coda) or open(with no coda) depending on the identity of the nucleus (moraic vs. non-moraic),as shown in (84).53It may be the case that schwa in a stressed syllable may share a mora with an adjacent consonant.This modification allows a stressed schwa to be associated with the head mora of a prosodic word,and therein bear acoustic correlates of stress despite being a non-moraic vowel.4Minor or simple syllables without vocalic nuclei are not considered here. See Bagemihl (1991)for discussion of the Simple Syllable Hypothesis in relation to Bella Coola.5I do not show bimoraic and trimoraic syllables here; I assume C@CC and CVC syllables arebimoraic, while CVCC syllables are trimoraic.111(84)Open σµ σCµVClosed σµ σC @µCGiven that a monomoraic syllable σµ corresponds to both configurations in(84), something additional is needed to differentiate between different syllablestructures; I propose that a nucleus node is also a possible constituent of asyllable. The difference between an open monomoraic syllable and a closedmonomoraic syllable is represented in (85). An open monomoraic syllable has asingle dependant unit (the mora and the nucleus are one and the same), while theclosed monomoraic syllable has two dependant units (the mora and the nucleusare separate).6(85)σ µ σCµVσN+µ σCN@µCThe syllable, mora, and nucleus will be shown in Chapter 4 to be relevant units fordistinguishing different types of reduplication in Salish.3.3 Prosodic Morphology3.3.1 Background: Prosodic Morphology HypothesisThe Prosodic Morphology Hypothesis, as laid out in McCarthy and Prince (1986),establishes prosodic units as the core of templatic morphology. While ProsodicMorphology was first fully articulated by McCarthy and Prince (1986, 1990),6The nucleus in the open monomoraic syllable in (85) is not explicitly labeled. A question forfuture work is whether an explicit nucleus node is always present in syllables with a nucleus and, ifso, where it sits in the prosodic structure relative to the mora for moraic vowels. At present, I do notassume that the mora dominates the nucleus, or vice versa. I treat the mora and the nucleus node assharing an equal status as dependants of the syllable, regardless of whether they are both present insome capacity for moraic vowels (e.g., fused or combined). I discuss how reduplication motivatesthe nucleus as a part of the prosodic structure in Chapter 6 (Section 6.5.2.1.3).112Urbanczyk (2019) notes that their framework incorporates earlier insights fromautosegmental approaches (e.g., Leben, 1973; Goldsmith, 1976). Autosegmentalapproaches were common in analyses of reduplication using skeletal templates(e.g., Marantz, 1982); Prosodic Morphology builds on these earlier insights andanalyses.The prosodic categories outlined by McCarthy and Prince (1986) are theprosodic word, foot, and syllable. They make explicit reference to reduplicationto illustrate the difference between prosodic units and segments, and in fact makethe case for prosodic units being better suited to the analysis of reduplication thansegments. They argue that if a reduplicative morpheme could have the target shapeXXX, where X is a segment (without any particular role in prosodic structure),a type of reduplication that copies the first three segments of a word (regardlessof whether they are vowels or consonants) should be possible, such as the one in(86).(86) a. badupi - bad„badupib. bladupi - bla„bladupic. adupi - adu„adupi(McCarthy & Prince, 1986, p.240)They point out that processes such as the one in (86) are unattested. In fact,languages have a restricted set of reduplication patterns, often with the shapesCV or CVC (showing sensitivity to sonority and syllable structure); there is noevidence for reduplication counting a specific number of segments, and thereforethere is no empirical motivation for segmental templates.Prosodic Morphology captures the insight that reduplication and othernon-concatenative morphological processes (e.g., ablaut and vowel lengthening)are sensitive to prosodic structure. The relevance of prosody is reflected bywhat is copied (e.g., CV reduplication matches a monomoraic syllable and CVCreduplication matches a bimoraic syllable), as well as by the position of thereduplicant (e.g., the diminutive in Shuswap is aligned relative to the stressedsyllable).Another component of Prosodic Morphology is the Satisfaction Condition,113given in (87), which states that every element in the template must be obligatorilysatisfied (i.e., filled).(87) Satisfaction Condition: All elements in a template are obligatorily satisfied(McCarthy & Prince, 1986, p.243).Under the Satisfaction Condition, the choice of segmental content to fill a prosodictemplate is determined by the phonological grammar.McCarthy and Prince (1986, p.243) state that “the fact that the templates arebounded by a language’s prosody follows from their being literally built fromthat prosody”, which means that the realisation of reduplicative morphemes isshaped by what makes for a well-formed syllable, foot, and prosodic word in thelanguage. Reduplication typically results in unmarked prosodic structures (e.g.,McCarthy & Prince, 1994). In contrast, under a segmental approach, marked oratypical prosodic structure would be predicted because a segmental template (e.g.,XXX) could result in unattested surface forms. Prosodic Morphology is thereforemore appropriate for an analysis of reduplication patterns than a segment-basedapproach.3.3.2 Modifications: The Mora as a Prosodic UnitThe centrality of the mora to Salish phonology was mentioned in Section 3.2.However, McCarthy and Prince (1986) do not consider the mora as an independentprosodic affix, despite its inclusion in the prosodic hierarchy. In other words, theydistinguish between monomoraic and bimoraic syllables, but do not treat the moraas a stand-alone prosodic unit that may be affixed independent of a syllable.In order to account for attested patterns in Salish, I include the mora as apossible prosodic affix. This addition does not pose any challenge to the coretenets of Prosodic Morphology, which already distinguishes syllables by moraicweight. Affixed moras are necessary for the analysis of C1 reduplication in Salish,in particular (see discussion in Section 2.5). Examples of C1 reduplication wherea single consonant is copied are given in (88); these types of reduplication, mostnotably found in the Interior Salish languages, have been called “bare consonantreduplication” or “internal C reduplication” by Hendricks (1998) and Bell (1983),respectively.114(88) a. cqeă ’qąìp (cf. c ’qeìp ‘tree’)7treeăDIMą‘small tree’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)b. xw@´ăxwą ’kt@ ’n (from xw ı´ ’kt@n)knifexDIMy‘small knife’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.254, Lillooet)If only syllables or feet could be affixed, the examples of single consonantreduplication in (88) would constitute an argument against Prosodic Morphologybecause there is no prosodic unit that corresponds to a single consonant. However,if the possible inventory of prosodic affixes includes moras and if coda consonantsare analysed as moraic (see Section 3.2.1), then bare consonant reduplicationpatterns pose no problem for Prosodic Morphology because they correspond to aprosodic unit, namely a mora. A prediction of this approach is that restrictions onwhich segments can be moraic will match restrictions on which segments can bereduplicated if a morpheme contains an underlying mora; this will be revisited inChapter 6 (see discussion of Bella Coola and Straits in Section 6.6.2.2.2).3.4 Generalized Nonlinear AffixationGeneralized Nonlinear Affixation (GNLA) proposes that all non-concatenativemorphology involves the affixation of non-linear (i.e., non-segmental)phonological content (Bermu´dez-Otero, 2012).8 These “phonologically defective”representations may include affixed prosodic units, tones, or phonological features(Zimmermann, 2017). Reduplication in GNLA is typically triggered by theaffixation of a floating prosodic unit.GNLA is implemented in Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky, 2004),a constraint-based grammatical model where potential output candidates aregenerated by GEN and evaluated by EVAL. Constraints are violable and thewinning candidate is the one that best satisfies the highest ranked constraints. Thesurface form of a reduplicative morpheme thus follows from the constraint ranking7One instance of / ’q/ is deglottalised in (88a) because Shuswap only allows one ejective per word(see, e.g., L. C. Thompson and Thompson 1985).8Generalized Nonlinear Affixation builds on earlier work by Lieber (1992) and Stonham (1994).115of the grammar, which determines the best way to provide segmental content toassociate with (or “fill”) an affixed mora, syllable, or foot.Reduplication is not an inherent property of any morpheme under GNLA,but instead reflects the phonological grammar (constraint ranking) of a language.Reduplication occurs when the grammar favours fission (where a single inputsegment corresponds to two segments in the output) over other possible repairsthat would provide segmental content to the affixed (underspecified) prosodicunit, such as epenthesis. Schemas for reduplication and epenthesis are given in(89). The top row shows the input and the bottom row shows the output. Inreduplication, one consonant in the input (C3) is fissioned (split) into two segmentsin the output. Epenthesis inserts a new segment that was not present in the input(Cx).9(89)Reduplication C1C1V2V2C3C3 C3Epenthesis C1C1V2V2C3C3∅CxGNLA integrates the strengths of Prosodic Morphology and retains many ofthe desirable qualities of earlier template-based approaches, with a prosodic unitserving as a template, with the additional ability to account for allomorphy betweennon-concatenative processes; it can account for a range of non-concatenativemorphological processes, including subtraction, mutation, lengthening andreduplication (Bermu´dez-Otero, 2012). Under a GNLA approach, as defined byBermu´dez-Otero (2012), reduplication occurs following the affixation of an emptyprosodic unit. Other non-concatenative processes can emerge if a given constraintranking favours them over reduplication.GNLA has been used previously to analyse non-concatenative morphologyin Salish languages (e.g., Svenonius & Bye 2012; Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk2020; Zimmermann 2021b). For example, C1 reduplication is only one of thephonological processes used to mark imperfectivity in Halkomelem (comparereduplication in 90a to metathesis in 90b).109Fission violates the constraint IDENTITY, while epenthesis violates DEP; these constraints aredefined in Chapter 4 in the first analysis section (Section 4.1.3.1.2).10See Case Study #1 in Chapter 5 (Section 5.3) for discussion of reduplicative and non-reduplicative allomorphs.116(90) a. ìı´„ì@ ’c-@t (from ìı´ ’c@t)IPFV„cut-CTR‘cutting it’b. păaąqw-t (from pqwat)breakăIPFVą-CTR‘breaking it’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, as cited in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2020,pp.240–241)Zimmermann (2013), building on Urbanczyk (1998) and Kurisu (2001), analysesseveral allomorphs of Halkomelem imperfective C1 reduplication within a GNLAapproach using a segmentally empty prosodic foot, showing the strength of theapproach for analysing non-concatenative allomorphy in Salish. Mellesmoenand Urbanczyk (2020) further show how a GNLA approach can be expanded toaccount for the remaining allomorphs of the Halkomelem imperfective morpheme(including schwa epenthesis and deletion) if the prosodic unit is analysed as amora, rather than a foot. GNLA therefore allows for the unification of a numberof distinct surface forms from a single input, with the choice of output predictedby the phonological grammar of the language. This reduces the amount ofmorpheme-specific information needed to correctly derive all possible surfaceforms.113.4.1 Underlying Forms/Affixes in GNLAGNLA assumes that nonconcatenative processes, such as reduplication, followinsertion of “empty” (underspecified) phonological representations. Theserepresentations can be a single prosodic unit, such as a mora, or the lexical entrymay include additional prosodic, segmental, or featural specifications.Underlying forms may be minimally specified, or carry additionalspecifications that must also be satisfied by the grammar. For example, theunderlying form of a morpheme may be a single syllable with no further11In fact, Svenonius and Bye (2012) argue against the need for any morphological componentof the grammar, building on an earlier proposal by Lieber (1992), who claimed that syntax couldlinearise morphemes and that the phonological grammar can account for any alternations.117specification for number of moras or other prosodic structure. The grammaronly needs to fill the syllable, which means that the least marked syllable forthat context will emerge, regardless of whether it is weightless, monomoraic, orbimoraic. In contrast, another morpheme may also be an affixed syllable but carryadditional structural specification, such as a mora (σµ ) or a mora and nucleus(σN`µ ), as shown in (91). The basic monomoraic syllable σ µ has a single moraattached to a syllable: it may be filled with either a consonant or vowel, whichallows for either a closed or open monomoraic syllable to surface in the output.σN`µ is more specific than σµ ; it requires a closed syllable, though it may beeither monomoraic (C@C) or bimoraic (CVµC).(91)a. σµ σµb. σN+µ σN µProsodic units may also be associated with features. The association of featuralcontent with an affixed mora is proposed by Paschen (2018, p.215), who discussesa type of reduplication arising from the affixation of a mora and a floating [PHAR](pharyngeal) feature in Fox (Algonquian). A minimally specified mora maybe filled by any segment in a moraic position, while a mora with additionalspecification must be filled by a segment that also meets the requirements for thatspecification (e.g., epenthesis of a pharyngeal coda satisfies both the mora and anassociated [PHAR] feature).The range of possible affixed units (and any featural specifications) isconstrained by the inventory of units and features present in the language.3.5 Architecture of the GrammarIn this section, I outline my assumptions about the architecture of the grammar.The full model and how all the assumptions fit together are discussed in Chapter 6(see Section 6.1 for a summary of the full model from spell-out through to phoneticimplementation).I adopt a span-based approach to the syntax-morphology interface (Section3.5.1), but depart from previous work (e.g., Svenonius & Bye, 2012) in assuming118that the lexical entries of individual morphemes contain linearisation features,rather than linearisation being determined by a general algorithm (such as MirrorTheory). Most reduplicative morphemes in Salish are linearised as prefixes in themorphology; the phonological grammar then determines how the reduplicativemorpheme is integrated into prosodic structure. I further assume stratification inthe phonological grammar within a constraint-based framework: Stratal OptimalityTheory (Section 3.5.2). All together, these elements permit a theoretical approachthat can derive reduplication at the right time and place in the derivation.3.5.1 Spans and LinearisationThe crucial morphosyntactic components of my analysis include a w-span, whichdefines a word, and linearisation features, which specify an affix as a prefix(linearised to the left) or a suffix (linearised to the right). The w-span is defined inSection 3.5.1.1; linearisation features are discussed in Section 3.5.1.2.3.5.1.1 Domain: w-spanThe relevant domain for reduplication in Salish is the word, which is definedmorphosyntactically as a w-span, which I adopt as part of the span-based approachto spell-out proposed by Svenonius (2016, 2022). A span is a sequence of headswhich stand in a head-complement relationship; the w-span thus includes all headsthat are part of the word.Svenonius (2022) uses the feature [w] to mark where spans are divided intowords. The feature [w] sits on the highest head of the span that is part of aword. The definition of a lexical word, which is adapted from Svenonius (2016),is provided in (92). I replace “root” in the original definition with “minimal lexicalhead” to clarify where the span starts; it ends with the head marked with [w].(92) A minimal lexical head and the span dominating it up to the first [w] featureis a lexical word (Svenonius, 2016, p.12).The w-span for a verb in Salish varies between languages: for example,imperfective aspect is marked by affixation in some languages, such as Comox-Sliammon (via progressive C1 reduplication), while it is marked by an independent119word in others, such as Lillooet (e.g., via the imperfective auxiliary waP). Anexample of each is provided in (93).(93) a. One w-span: Comox-Sliammon C1 Progressiveq@jˇi=Putstill=EXCLPi„Pim-it-H-asPROG„walk-CTR-3OBJ-3ERG‘They (sg.) are still stepping on it.’ (KG)b. Two w-spans: Lillooet waP ImperfectivewaP Pı´ ’ňx. c-a ’mIPFV scream-MID‘They (sg.) are screaming.’ (H. Davis, Frank, Whitley, & The UpperSt’a´t’imc Language Authority, in prep)The relevant domain for reduplication can vary between languages: the w-spanmust include the relevant aspectual head in Comox-Sliammon, but not in Lillooet.Examples are shown in (94). These trees show the sequence of heads in the w-span.This style of tree follows Brody (2000) and Svenonius (2016): complements slopeto the right, while specifiers slope to the left (if present).12(94)Comox-Sliammon C1Asp[w]VoiceAgrOvVLillooet waPAspVoice[w]AgrOvV12This style of tree is particularly useful for seeing spans because they can quickly be identified assequences of right sloping lines. See Section 6.2 for discussion of syntactic structure and the role ofhierarchal structure in linearisation, which includes a more conventional tree.1203.5.1.2 Linearisation: Prefix FeatureI adopt an affix-driven model of linearisation following Huijsmans (2023a) andH. Davis and Huijsmans (2024). Lexical insertion occurs in two steps. The firststep matches terminal elements in the syntax with lexical entries by their features;the second step inserts the phonological content. I follow Huijsmans (2023a) inassuming that linearisation also happens in two stages. Prior to the first stageof lexical insertion, sister nodes are unordered with respect to each other. Afterterminals are matched with lexical entries based on features, linear order can beestablished between the heads in the w-span. A further step of linearisation, whichdetermines the correct order between pairs of heads, precedes the insertion ofphonological content.I treat all reduplication as prefixing in Salish, with the exception of Bella Coola(see Section 6.4.2), which is suffixing. The fact that most reduplication in Salish isprefixal is motivated by the fact that edge-aligned reduplication in Salish is alwaysleft-aligned (see Section 2.9.2). I assume all affixes carry a feature specifyingtheir direction of attachment (i.e., [prefix] or [suffix]). This feature is availablefollowing the matching step of lexical insertion, which allows for the appropriateorder of heads in a w-span to be established.The [prefix] and [suffix] features are instructions for linearisation. Starting atthe bottom of the tree, linearisation is determined based on the feature carried bywhichever of the two heads is higher in the span. If it is a prefix, A will lineariseto the left; if it is a suffix, A will linearise to the right. A w-span is shown in(95a) for the Comox-Sliammon verb given in (93a) in the previous section, withsquiggly lines showing the lexical entries associated with heads. The linearisationfeature associated with the lexical entry is marked with a subscript font next to thephonological material. The resulting linear order is shown in (95b).121(95) a.Asp[w]µprefix Voiceassuffix AgrOHsuffix vtsuffix VPimb. µ-Pim-t-H-asIPFV-walk-CTR-3OBJ-3ERG‘They are stepping on it.’ (Comox-Sliammon)All reduplicative morphemes in a word are spelled out and linearised as part of thesame w-span. The input to the phonological component of the grammar contains allof the heads in a w-span in the order determined by linearisation; the phonologicalgrammar can cause further changes, such as infixation.For simplicity, I assume all affixes are marked for direction of attachment bya linearisation feature. The more standard approach would be to adopt MirrorTheory, which is based on the generalisation that “an exponent representing highermaterial in a span, if it is affixal, normally follows exponents of lower material”(Svenonius, 2016, p.13); this inverse ordering pattern is often taken as axiomatic(Svenonius, 2016, p.13). I do not adopt this approach as it establishes a fixedorder between heads, such that a head is always linearised to the right of the oneimmediately beneath it; this would require proposing that reduplicative affixes arealways suffixes in the morphosyntax while behaving as prefixes in the phonology.The simpler solution is to assume that all affixes, including non-concatenative ones,carry linearisation instructions.13A two stage approach to linearisation incorporating linearisation features13See Chapter 6 (Section 6.8.2.1) for further discussion of why an affix-driven approach tolinearisation is preferable to Mirror Theory.122ensures that the reduplicative morpheme is correctly positioned as a prefix, priorto entering the phonological component of the grammar. Reduplicated segmentsmay then surface in infixed positions if motivated by the phonological grammar.3.5.2 Stratification: Phonological LevelsI assume that the phonological grammar is stratified: there are a number ofdifferent strata that correspond to phonological levels and have their own grammar(constraint ranking). I introduce Stratal Optimality Theory in Section 3.5.2.1. Ifurther explain my assumptions about stratification and phonological levels inSection 3.5.2.2. Level diacritics, which specify when in the derivation (i.e., atwhich stratum) an affix is parsed into prosodic structure, are defined in Section3.5.2.3. Finally, I explain the way I summarise constraint rankings in Section3.5.2.4.3.5.2.1 Stratal OTStratal Optimality Theory (Stratal OT) provides a phonological framework foranalysing Salish reduplication, and makes testable predictions about possiblepatterns of allomorphy. The core components of Stratal OT are Optimality Theoryand modularity, with the interleaving of morphology and phonology (Kiparsky,2015).Optimality Theory is a constraint-based framework that models phonologicalcomputation with the use of ranked and violable constraints. Stratal OT followsmany of the same assumptions used in traditional Optimality Theory (Prince &Smolensky, 2008), though it is unlike traditional (parallel) Optimality Theorybecause rather than a single global evaluation, it employs multiple stages ofderivation between lexical insertion and phonetic implementation.Modularity is a crucial component of Stratal Phonology and refers to how thegrammar is structured: one component interfaces with another where the outputof the first component aligns with the input of the next one. Following from thetradition of Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky, 1982; Mohanan, 1982), the morphologyand phonology are interleaved and stratified.Kiparsky (2015) defines three principles central to Stratal OT. First, there is123stratification - phonology and morphology are divided into different levels calledstrata, each with their own constraint ranking. The standard number of strata isthree, termed stem, word, and phrase. Second, levels (strata) are ordered andcorrespond to morphological domains. Third, Stratal OT assumes cyclicity, suchthat phonological content evaluated by constraints at the first stratum will also beevaluated at all subsequent strata as well.14My analysis assumes stratification and modularity as properties of thephonological grammar. However, I do not link strata to morphological domains, asdiscussed in the following section (Section 3.5.2.2); this is a substantial divergencefrom previous work in Stratal OT, which assumes a correspondence betweenmorphological and phonological domains. In my model, strata are labeled simplyas ordered levels (i.e., Level 1, Level 2, Level 3), which correspond to stepsof phonological computation in the derivation of the word. The phonologicalword and associated prosodic structure are built up across the levels, as shown in(96). Constraint rankings differ at each stratum, determining which phonologicalprocesses will apply to material parsed into the phonological word at a given pointin the derivation.(96) Stratum-Based Derivation of the WordInput to Level 1Level 1 PhonologyOutput of Level 1 (and Input to Level 2)Level 2 PhonologyOutput of Level 2 (and Input to Level 3)Level 3 PhonologyOutput of Level 3I follow Jaker and Kiparsky (2020) in assuming that the number of strata canvary across languages; polysynthetic languages typically need a greater numberof levels to account for differences in allomorphy and phonological patterns14Inkelas (2014, p.189) differentiates between “true cyclicity” (multiple derivations with the samegrammar) and “layering” (multiple derivations with different grammars); the cyclicity discussed inthis section is an example of the latter: there are multiple strata with different constraint rankings. InStratal Phonology, however, all words must pass through all strata in sequence, regardless of whichaffixes are present (unlike co-phonologies, as in Downing, 2008).124associated with affixation.3.5.2.2 Stratification and the GrammarFollowing work on Stratal Phonology (e.g., Kiparsky, 2015; Bermu´dez-Otero,2017), I assume the phonological derivation occurs over a sequence of strata,such that particular phonological processes may apply at different levels. Withina constraint-based approach, stratification means that each stratum may have adifferent constraint ranking: the output of the previous stratum becomes the inputto the next stratum. The grammar cannot access information about earlier stages inthe derivation if it is not present in the output of the immediately previous stratum.I diverge from previous work within Lexical Phonology and Stratal OT(Mohanan, 1982; Kiparsky, 1982, 2015; Bermu´dez-Otero, 2017) because mystrata correspond to strictly phonological, not morphological, domains. All affixesin the phonological word (defined as the w-span in Section 3.5.1) are present inthe input. Each affix carries a diacritic specifying a level, which is visible to thephonological grammar and determines when the affix is parsed into the prosodicstructure.Cross-Salish variation in aspectual reduplication provides support for adecoupling of morphosyntactic and phonological domains. For example,employing a traditional Stratal OT analysis, Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2021a)analyse the imperfective morpheme in Halkomelem as a stem-level affix, ratherthan a word-level affix. However, viewpoint aspect composes with the entireVP, and therefore forms an outer layer of the morphosyntax: how can outermorphology then be part of the stem domain? In Chapter 5 (Section 5.3), Iargue that imperfective reduplication in Halkomelem happens at the earliestphonological stratum, Level 1. This analysis does not lead to any bracketingparadox or mismatch between morphology and phonology as long as phonologicallevels do not correspond to morphological domains. The imperfective is linearisedto the left, as a prefix, and the phonological grammar can then build up thephonological word sequentially over the levels.Assumptions needed to make morphosyntactically-defined strata work in ananalysis of Salish reduplication have detrimental consequences for other parts of125grammar; this provides further motivation for phonologically-defined domains.Reduplication in Salish marks a number of common meanings, such as pluralityand aspect. Where languages use reduplication to mark a similar meaning, thereis little reason to suspect major differences in the morphosyntax. If reduplicativemorphemes in two languages correspond to the same category of head or a headwith a similar position in the verb span, an approach assuming morphosyntacticdomains predicts that their phonological form should be computed at the samestratum; this prediction is not consistent with Salish reduplication. Whileimperfective reduplication in Halkomelem must happen at the first stratum,progressive reduplication happens at a later stratum in Comox-Sliammon (seeSection 4.1). As progressive is a subtype of imperfective aspect, there is noreason to expect that the imperfective morpheme would be part of the stemdomain in Halkomelem while the progressive would be part of the word domain inComox-Sliammon. Either the languages have drastically different grammars withrespect to the morphosyntax of aspect, or stages in the phonological derivationare not strictly defined by morphological domains; I adopt the latter view. Themodel proposed in this dissertation therefore assumes that morphosyntacticunits are only relevant insofar as determining which morphemes are in the inputto the phonological grammar (i.e., the w-span introduced in Section 3.5.1.1);morphosyntax is irrelevant for stratification. A consequence is that the output ofthe phonological grammar may be considered a word, but there is no need for a“stem”. This implication will be discussed briefly in Chapter 6 (Section 6.8.3).Since phonological strata are not determined by morphological domains in mymodel, individual affixes must be associated with diacritics specifying the stratumat which they are parsed into the phonological word.15 The level that an affixis parsed into the word may be consistent with a morphological domain, suchthat “stem” affixes would be parsed at Level 1, but this is not a necessity. Leveldiacritics are discussed further in the following section.While the specific implementation proposed in this dissertation is novel,15Paschen (2018) observes similar challenges for the mapping between morphological domainsand phonological strata in Stratal OT and proposes that diacritics on lexical entries may be neededto account for surface orders that are unexpected by the morphosyntax, though the details of such ananalysis are not provided.126distinguishing phonological and morphological domains has precedents in Salishlinguistics. Czaykowska-Higgins (1993a, p.268) argues that “the morphologicalproperties of suffixes cannot predict their phonological behaviour” with respectto stress assignment in Moses Columbia. Czaykowska-Higgins argues that astratum-ordering model is not sufficient because it would require at least ten stratato account for the patterns (pp.269–270); however, Trommer (2023) proposes areanalysis within Stratal OT that captures some of these patterns with referenceonly to a stem and word domain. My model falls in the middle of these twoapproaches: I assume a stratum-ordering model as Trommer (2023) does, but Iagree with Czaykowska-Higgins (1993a) that strata cannot be defined or limitedin number on the basis of morphosyntactic domains.3.5.2.3 Level Diacritics: Classifying Morphemes by StratumRecall from Section 3.5.1 that reduplicative morphemes are part of a w-span,which corresponds to a word. Following lexical insertion, the phonological contentassociated with the complete w-span is present in the input to the phonology. Thismeans that all affixes will be in the input at the first stratum, even those that mustbe parsed into the prosodic structure later in the derivation (e.g., affixes that arepositioned relative to stress).A sample lexical entry for the (non-reduplicative) affix -as that marks thirdperson subjects on transitive verbs in Comox-Sliammon is given in (97). Thediacritic L2 marks this as an affix parsed into prosodic structure at Level 2.(97) a. asL2 ôă3ERGąIn contrast, the transitivizing morpheme -t in (98) bears no diacritic.16 Morphemeswithout a diacritic, including roots, are parsed at Level 1. If the number of relevantstrata in a language is n, then the number of possible diacritics is n-1.(98) a. asL2 ôă3ERGąb. t ôăCTRą16I use the morphemes in (97) and (98) as examples of how the diacritics and levels could work,but this should not be taken as an analysis. The transitivizing morpheme -t may actually parsed at alater stratum than Level 1: see the discussion of link vowels and the transitivizer in Appendix F.127The fact that unmarked affixes are parsed at Level 1 can be explained with theconstraints PARSEAffix and AFFIXL2, defined in (99). PARSEAffix is violated by anyaffix left unparsed; AFFIXL2 is violated by every affix with an L2 diacritic that isparsed into the phonological word.(99) a. PARSEAFFIX: Assign a violation mark for any affix left unparsed.b. AFFIXL2: Assign a violation mark for every affix with an L2 diacriticthat is parsed into the phonological word.AFFIXL2 is ranked higher than PARSEAffix at Level 1, and the inverse is true at Level2. These rankings are shown in (100), which shows a derivation for the Comox-Sliammon phrase t@qtas ‘she closed it’.17 A foot is built at Level 1, which integratesthe root and the control transitivizer -t; the latter is unmarked for phonologicallevel. The third person suffix -as is left unparsed because it is marked with anL2 diacritic and any candidate that parses it would incur a fatal violation underAFFIXL2. At Level 2, AFFIXL2 is lower than PARSEAffix: the -as affix must beintegrated into the phonological word. Brackets in (100) show parsed material.(100) a. Level 1: AFFIXL2 ąąPARSEAffix/tq + t + asL2/ AFFIXL2 PARSEAFFIX a. (t@qt) + asL2 ˚b. (t@qtas) ˚!c. (t@q) + t + asL2 ˚˚!b. Level 2: PARSEAffix ąą AFFIXL2/(t@qt) + asL2/ PARSEAFFIX AFFIXL2 a. (t@qtas) ˚b. (t@qt) + asL2 ˚!The diacritic specifying a stratum is only visible to the phonology until theaffix is parsed into the phonological word. In the above tableau, -as bears a L2diacritic in the input to Level 2, as well at Level 1; this specification only ceasesto be accessible in the output of Level 2, when the affix has been parsed into the17As laid out at the beginning of the Comox-Sliammon case study in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.1), Iassume the schwa in the root is epenthetic, following Blake (2000).128phonological word. In contrast, -t is unmarked and therefore parsed into the wordat the first stratum. The Level 2 grammar cannot “see” that -t was an unmarkedaffix because it is fully integrated into the phonological word following Level 1.I further assume that the classification of affixes for different levels islanguage-specific, and thus may vary between languages within the same family.Consider the imperfective in Halkomelem and the progressive in Comox-Sliammon, as mentioned in the previous section. In the morphology, both themorphemes correspond to an aspectual head and are linearised as prefixes;the difference between the two arises in the phonological derivation, becauseimperfective reduplication in Halkomelem occurs at Level 1, while the equivalentmorpheme in Comox-Sliammon occurs at Level 2. Issues with defining strata bymorphosyntactic domains are discussed further in Chapter 6 (Section 6.8.3).3.5.2.4 Summarising Constraint RankingsOne of the key benefits of adopting the Stratal OT framework for an analysis ofSalish reduplication is that it allows for different constraint rankings at differentstrata, which proves essential for the analysis of languages with a number ofreduplicative morphemes with different forms. These rankings are not specific toreduplication or indexed to a particular morpheme (in contrast to co-phonologies,as elaborated in e.g., Downing, 2008): the derivation of even monomorphemicwords will involve evaluation at each stratum in a fixed order. My analysis ofreduplication is therefore constrained by the fact that affixes do not determinetheir own grammar, they just select for a given entry point in the derivation of aphonological word.As the goal of the analyses in Chapter 4 is to present a working grammar foreach stratum which can derive more than one type of reduplication, there are toomany relevant constraints at each stratum to establish crucial ranking relationsbetween every pair of constraints. Instead of presenting constraints in a single flatlinear ranking, I therefore summarise constraint rankings in a manner modelledafter constraint demotion and dominion hierarchies in work on phonologicallearning (e.g., Tesar and Smolensky, 1998). This provides a way of visualizingand discussing the rankings which is not misleading: the relative ranking for many129pairs of constraints cannot be determined and does not matter for the output.An example of what the summary of constraint rankings look like in Chapter 4for each stratum is given in Table 3.1. The first row of constraints includes the onesthat are not crucially dominated by any of the other constraints which are relevantat a particular stratum in the analysis. The second row includes constraints that arecrucially ranked below at least one of the constraints in the first row. Constraintsgiven in subsequent rows are crucially ranked beneath at least one of the constraintsin the second row. The columns show where there is a direct relationship betweenthe constraints. For example, Constraint 6 in Table 3.1 is crucially ranked beneathConstraint 4, which is in turn crucially ranked beneath Constraint 1. The letters inthe leftmost column show the relationship between constraints: a constraint in rowB must be ranked beneath a constraint in row A of the same column.Table 3.1: Example Summary of Constraint Rankings at a StratumA Constraint 1 Constraint 2 Constraint 3B Constraint 4 Constraint 5C Constraint 6A crucial ranking means that if one constraint (e.g., Constraint 2 in Table 3.1)was not ranked above another (e.g., Constraint 5), an unattested candidate wouldwin over the attested form in some derivations. However, the representation saysnothing about the pairwise ranking of a constraint with constraints in a higherrow in different columns: while Constraint 5 may be given in a lower row thanConstraint 1, their pair-wise ranking is not critical or not established in the presentanalysis. Constraint 3 is in the final column, which means it is either undominated,and must therefore dominate more than one of the other constraints in a lower row,or it is not crucially ranked relative to any other specific constraint.The type of table exemplified by Table 3.1 is used to summarise crucialrankings in Chapter 4. Flat linear rankings used to create tableaux for eachstratum can be found in Appendix C; however, many of the constraints are notcrucially ranked relative to other constraints and so these flat rankings provide lessinformation than the summary tables.1303.6 Predictions of the Phonological TheoryThe phonological assumptions introduced in this chapter make predictions aboutreduplication that will be explored in subsequent chapters. The version of StratalOT proposed in this dissertation assumes that strata are phonologically defined andmappings between morphemes and strata are lexically determined; lexical entriesfor reduplicative morphemes can therefore vary within and across languages withrespect to their underlying content and their level diacritic, which determines thestratum at which they will be parsed. As all strata are ordered and have their ownconstraint ranking, level diacritics play an important rule in determining the formand position of a reduplicative morpheme, as well as its potential interactions withother morphemes.Regarding form and position, Stratal OT predicts that a language can fillthe same prosodic unit (e.g., a mora) differently, depending on when it entersthe derivation and the constraint ranking determining how that unit is filled.Specifically, the same input prosodic units may take on different forms dependingon when they are parsed (e.g., at Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3). A type ofreduplication (e.g., diminutive) may surface differently in one stratum comparedto subsequent ones. This means that the total inventory of prosodic units availablein affixation for a given language may be smaller than the total number ofreduplicative processes, as two processes that surface differently may involve thesame prosodic unit.Modularity in Stratal OT limits possible interactions between reduplicativemorphemes. The form and position of a reduplicative morpheme is not expectedto be sensitive to the shape of affixes parsed at a later stratum than the one atwhich it is parsed. The influence of a morpheme at a prior stratum on the formof a reduplicative morpheme is limited, however: a reduplicative affix can only besensitive to the full output of Level 1 (i.e., it cannot see individual morphemes).The predictions in this section are tested through case studies of singlereduplication patterns in Comox-Sliammon and Lillooet in Chapter 4. Multiplereduplication patterns in Halkomelem, Lillooet, and Comox-Sliammon areconsidered in Chapter 5. The case studies in Chapters 4 and 5 are followedby a broader consideration of the cross-Salish typology of reduplication in131Chapter 6 in the light of the theoretical model expounded in this chapter. Theselection of case study languages is motivated by practical considerations, suchas access to speakers (Comox-Sliammon and Lillooet) and the quality of existingdocumentation (Halkomelem), as well as by the relevance of these languages to thegoals of the dissertation. The three languages exemplify a range of reduplicationpatterns, including allomorphy and multiple reduplication.132Chapter 4Single ReduplicationComox-Sliammon and Lillooet each have a rich inventory of reduplicativemorphemes: Comox-Sliammon has seven types of reduplication, and Lillooethas six. These two languages are ideal for a case study because each representsa different major branch of the family (Central vs. Interior Salish). Further, it ispossible to conduct fieldwork with speakers where data is sparse, meaning thatanalysis is not limited to existing documentation.Reduplication patterns in Comox-Sliammon and Lillooet exhibit a combinationof properties that can establish the necessary constraints (and rankings) neededto analyse reduplication across the family. Comox-Sliammon is particularlyrelevant for forming an analysis that may be adapted and extended to other Salishlanguages because it uses all four core types of reduplication (C1C2, C1, C2, andV1), introduced in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2.3). Lillooet is relevant for a cross-Salishanalysis because it has both edge-aligned and prosody-aligned reduplicativepatterns, the latter necessary for an analysis of diminutive reduplication in theNorthern Interior Salish languages.The first half of this chapter presents an analysis of reduplication inComox-Sliammon (Section 4.1); the second half focuses on Lillooet (Section4.2). Within each case study, the major subsections are structured by strata(phonological domain), with data and analysis presented in minor subsectionsfor each reduplicative morpheme (input/lexical entry). At the end of each majorsubsection, a summary of the constraint ranking (grammar) is given.1334.1 Case Study I: Comox-SliammonThe first case study in this chapter explores reduplication in Comox-Sliammon.An overview of relevant facts about the phonological grammar of the language isprovided in Section 4.1.1, followed by a preview of the grammar of reduplication inSection 4.1.2. Description, data, and analysis are then presented for reduplicationat Level 1 (Section 4.1.3), Level 2 (Section 4.1.4), and Level 3 (Section 4.1.5).4.1.1 Comox-Sliammon PhonologyThe phonology of Comox-Sliammon is influenced by contact with Kwak’wala,a neighbouring Northern Wakashan language (see Kroeber & Watanabe, 2004).Comox-Sliammon differs from other Salish languages in syllabification, prosody,and phonotactics in three main ways. First, stress always falls on the firstsyllable of a word, regardless of vowel quality, which is a departure fromthe rest of the language family, where stress is typically weight-sensitive ormorphologically-governed (see e.g., Dyck, 2004, p.10).1 Second, it has also lostall non-reduplicative prefixes. Third, complex onsets are not permitted.2 Thisrestriction on onsets rules out word-initial consonant clusters and limits the lengthof word-medial ones; epenthesis is required to repair illicit consonant clusters thatwould be tolerated elsewhere in the family.Like other Salish languages, Comox-Sliammon differentiates moraic vowels(/i/, /a/, or /u/) from the non-moraic vowel (/@/).3 The default epenthetic vowelis schwa, as in the rest of the family. Following Blake (2000), I assume that thedistribution of schwa is fully predictable in Comox-Sliammon. This means thatall instances of [@] are epenthetic; schwa is never present in the input to the initialstratum.A phonological pattern that is specific to Comox-Sliammon and relevant toreduplication concerns alternations between the voiced obstruents /jˇ/ and /g/ and1Due to the predictability of stress assignment, I do not mark stress on any examples from Comox-Sliammon.2There are very few exceptions where a fossilised prefix s- remains (Kroeber & Watanabe, 2004),such as sjˇ@suì ‘yesterday’. Further, some clitics are proclitic in Comox-Sliammon, which can yieldcomplex onsets (e.g., Huijsmans, 2023a).3My assumptions about moraic and non-moraic vowels are stated in Chapter 3 (Section 3.2.2).134the glides /y/ and /w/. Glide-stop alternations are conditioned by the position of thesegment within a syllable, as discussed in Blake (1992) and Mellesmoen (2018b).The phonemes /jˇ/ and /g/ surface as [jˇ] and [g] in an onset, and [y] and [w] in a coda,respectively: examples are given in (101).4 This alternation can be characterisedas a distinction between non-moraic (onset) and moraic (coda) allophones.(101) a. Root: hujˇ- ‘finish’i. hujˇ-itfinish-STAT‘ready’ii. huyfinish‘stop, finish’ (EP/FL)b. Root: t ’g- ‘freeze’i. taPg-itfreeze-STAT‘frozen’ii. t@ ’wfreeze‘ice’ (FL)Sequences of /@y/ or /@w/ within the same syllable are pronounced as [i] or [u],respectively, whether or not the glide is underlying, as in (102a), or comes from anunderlying /g/ or /jˇ/, as in (102b), where an underlying /g/ is reduplicated as part ofC1C2 reduplication, yielding coda /w/; the resulting glide is subsequently realisedas [u] because it follows /@/.4/ ’g/ is realised as [Pg] in (101b.i) because /g/ and /jˇ/ pattern with sonorants; these glottalisedsonorants may undergo glottal restructuring, such that an underlying /S’/ is realised as [PS] (Blake,2000, pp.240–245). I argue in Mellesmoen (2018b) that the reason voiced obstruents pattern asobstruents is because /jˇ/ and /g/ retain the feature [SV] (sonorant voice) from Proto-Salish *y and*w, which they developed from.135(102) a. cˇicˇayisˇ (cf. cˇayisˇ ‘hand’)//cˇ@y„cˇayisˇ//PL„hand‘hands’ (JF)b. huhigus (cf. higus ‘chief’)//h@w„higus//PL„chief‘chiefs’ (EP/FL)4.1.2 Preview of Comox-Sliammon ReduplicationThe grammar of Comox-Sliammon contains two C1C2 reduplication processes(plural and property-denoting), three C1 reduplication processes (diminutive,plural, and progressive), a C2 reduplication process (change-of-state), and a V1reduplication process (plural).Reduplication can occur at three different strata: Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3.The grammar of reduplication in Comox-Sliammon is summarised in Table 4.1.Table 4.1: Preview of Comox-Sliammon Reduplicative AffixesStratum Type Affix SectionLevel 1 Diminutive C1 µ or i 4.1.3.1.1Plural C1 µ or a 4.1.3.1.3Property-Denoting C1C2 σN`µ 4.1.3.2.1Level 2 Progressive C1 µ 4.1.4.1.1Plural C1C2 σN`µ 4.1.4.2.1Level 3 Change-of-State C2 σ 4.1.5.1.1Plural V1 µ [c.g.] 4.1.5.2.14.1.3 Level 1I analyse diminutive C1, plural C1, and property-denoting C1C2 reduplicationas Level 1 affixes. Diminutive C1 and plural C1 reduplication both involvethe affixation of either a mora or a fixed segment allomorph (i- for diminutiveand a- for plural); these morphemes are homophonous when they affix a mora.136Property-denoting C1C2 reduplication involves the affixation of a monomoraicsyllable with a nucleus node that is not directly associated with the mora (σN`µ ).The underlying forms and surface positions of the reduplicative morphemes aresummarised in Table 4.2.Table 4.2: Level 1 Reduplicative AffixesUnderlying Form Surface PositionDiminutive C1 µ or i Prefixed or InfixedPlural C1 µ or a Prefixed or InfixedProperty-Denoting C1C2 σN`µ Prefixed4.1.3.1 Level 1 C1 ReduplicationC1 reduplication at Level 1 marks either diminutivity or plurality, as shown in (103)and (104). The diminutive examples in (103a) and (103b) are homophonous withthe plural examples in (104a) and (104b), respectively.(103) Diminutive C1 Reduplicationa. luălą ’qw-it (cf. lu ’qwit ‘something is stuck’)get.stuckăDIMą-STAT‘something is just a little stuck’ (PD)b. TiăTąq-it (cf. Tiqit ‘dug up’)digăDIMą-STAT‘dug up (a little)’ (FL)(104) Plural C1 Reduplicationa. luălą ’qw-it (cf. lu ’qwit ‘something is stuck’)get.stuckăC1.PLą-STAT‘more than two things are stuck’ (PD)b. TiăTąq-it (cf. Tiqit ‘dug up’)digăC1.PLą-STAT‘dug up (multiple)’ (FL)137Vowel quality is the only form-related clue which distinguishes diminutive andplural C1 reduplication. When a non-reduplicated word has a non-moraic vowel(i.e., [@]) in the first syllable or is monomoraic, both the diminutive and theplural will surface with a moraic vowel.5 The default patterns are that [i] in thereduplicant is associated with the diminutive and [a] is associated with the plural:compare (105) and (106). Instances of [i] in square brackets in (105) and (106)have a different source (either epenthetic or marking stativity); this is differentthan the one associated with the diminutive (e.g., the first [i] in 105).(105) Diminutive C1 Reduplication’ti„’tl[i] ’k (cf. ’t@l ’k ‘hole’)DIM„hole‘small hole’ (BW)(106) Plural C1 Reduplication’ta„’tl[i] ’k (cf. ’t@l ’k ‘hole’)C1.PL„hole‘bunch of holes’ (KG)Identifying the type of C1 reduplication on the basis of form can be challengingeven when [i] or [a] are present, because both can occur for other reasons. Forexample, [i] can occur in addition to (or as part of) stative marking (see Watanabe,2003, pp.376–384; Mellesmoen & Huijsmans, 2019b, pp.155–156). An identicalpair of examples with stative marking, where both diminutive and plural formshave [i], is provided in (107) and (108).(107) Diminutive C1 Reduplicationti„tq-it (cf. t@qit ‘closed’)DIM„close-STAT‘a little bit closed’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.389)5When I talk about words or roots with a non-moraic vowel, this refers to words or roots thatsurface with [@] in the output; as stated in Section 4.1.2, I do not assume schwa is present inunderlying forms.138(108) Plural C1 Reduplicationti„tq-it (cf. t@qit ‘it is closed’)C1.PL„close-STAT‘They are closed.’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.389)However, even when the form of diminutive and plural C1 reduplication isidentical, it is usually possible to distinguish the two either by their meaning orby their distribution. For example, C1 reduplication on a nouns always marks adiminutive.6 C1 plural reduplication is semantically restricted to state-denotingpredicates.7Given the generalisations laid out in this section, I analyse /i/ as the fixed vowelassociated with diminutive C1 reduplication, and /a/ as the fixed vowel associatedwith plural C1 reduplication. I use distribution and meaning to distinguish betweenforms where vowel quality does not provide evidence (i.e., words with a moraicvowel). I set aside forms with confounding factors (e.g., [i] with stative marking).In the following subsections, I provide a description (Section 4.1.3.1.1) and6One exception is the word qw@ìay ‘driftwood’, which has both a diminutive and plural form, asshown in (i) and (ii) respectively.(i) Diminutive C1 Reduplicationqwi„qwìay (cf. qw@ìay ‘driftwood’)DIM„driftwood‘little driftwood’ (FL)(ii) Plural C1 Reduplicationqwa„qwìay (cf. qw@ìay ‘driftwood’)C1.PL„driftwood‘driftwood’ (FL)7State-denoting predicates include adjectives, such as a colour in (i), and predicates derived withthe stative marker, as shown in (ii). A plural state means that the state holds of multiple participantsor that instances of the state are spatially distributed, which may involve a single participant.(i) ’pa„ ’pu ’qwC1.PL„greym@m„mimawPL„cat(cf. ’pu ’qw ‘grey’)‘light-coloured cats’ (FL)(ii) x.a„x.ň-it (cf. x. @ňit ‘it is broken’)C1.PL„break-STAT‘They are broken.’‘It is broken (in multiple places).’ (BW)139analysis (Section 4.1.3.1.2) of diminutive C1 reduplication, which also accountsfor homophonous plural C1 forms. Further examples of plural C1 reduplication areprovided in Section 4.1.3.1.3, followed by an analysis showing the derivation ofplural forms with [a] in Section 4.1.3.1.4.4.1.3.1.1 Diminutive C1 ReduplicationWhen the first vowel in the non-reduplicated form is [@], the diminutive form has[i] between the matching consonants (109).8(109) a. ti„tx.@ma ’y (cf. t@x. @mPay ‘cedar’)DIM„cedar‘small cedar’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.388)b. ’qi„ ’qsna ’y (cf. ’q@sna ’y ‘shirt’)DIM„shirt‘small shirt’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.386)c. ’tTi„’tTx. wuP (cf. ’tT@x. wu ‘cod’)DIM„cod‘small cod’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.386)d. Ti„Tjˇapuqw (cf. T@jˇapuqw ‘hat’)DIM„hat‘little hat’ (PD)Diminutives built from monosyllabic words also have [i].9 Examples are shown in(110).(110) a. ’ti„’ta ’qt (cf. ’ta ’qt ‘mountain’)DIM„mountain‘small mountain’ (JF)8There is additional glottalisation associated with the diminutive, as seen in (109a); however, thisis variable across speakers and glottalisation of sonorants is falling out of use in Comox-Sliammon(Caldecott & Mellesmoen, 2018). I will not provide an analysis of reduplication-related glottalisationin Comox-Sliammon nor include it in the underlying form. However, the Proto-Salish diminutive waslikely associated with glottalisation (Mellesmoen, 2022).9While the choice of Ci- is robust for monosyllabic words, I have recorded some variation inchoice between -C- and Ci- for younger speakers for multisyllabic words with [@].140b. ti„t@ ’w (cf. t@ ’w ‘ice’)DIM„ice‘little bit of ice’ (JF)c. pi„pukw (cf. pukw ‘book’)DIM„book‘little book’ (JF)When the input is multisyllabic and has an underlying vowel, the first consonantof the root is doubled and positioned after the first vowel of the root, as shown in(111–113).(111) Root Vowel: /a/a. ’ňaă ’ňąì@m (cf. ’ňaì@m ‘salt’)saltăDIMą‘little bit of salt’ (FL)b. saăsąplin (cf. saplin ‘bread’)breadăDIMą‘small piece of bread’ (JF)(112) Root Vowel: /i/a. miămąx. aì (cf. mix. aì ‘bear’)bearăDIMą‘small bear’ (JF)b. PiăPąm@n (cf. Pim@n ‘road, door’)road/doorăDIMą‘narrow walkway (small trail)’ (JF)(113) Root Vowel: /u/a. sˇuăsˇąkwa (cf. sˇukwa ‘sugar’)sugarăDIMą‘little bit of sugar’ (JF)b. suăsąpayu (cf. supayu ‘axe’)axeăDIMą‘small axe, hatchet’ (EP)141While I analyse the diminutive as a prefix in the input for all forms, copiedsegments may surface in an infixed position, as in (111–113); infixation of thediminutive is motivated by the phonological grammar, as detailed in the analysisprovided in Section 4.1.3.1.2 below.Evidence of recent productivity of the diminutive is provided by the loanwordsin (110c) and (111b) above (see discussion of productivity in Section 1.4.3.3). Thediminutive form of the loanword pukw ‘book’ in (110c), which is borrowed fromEnglish, shows that the Ci- form has been recently productive with monosyllabicinputs. The word for a ‘small piece of bread’ in (111b) is derived from the loanwordsaplin ‘bread’, which is borrowed from French via Chinuk Wawa; this shows thatthe -C- form was also recently productive. Another example of the -C- form of thediminutive with a loanword is sˇusˇkwa in (111a); sˇukwa ‘sugar’ is borrowed fromEnglish.I analyse the -C- form of the diminutive as the default; the Ci- form surfaceswhen the word would otherwise be monosyllabic or have [@] as its first vowel.4.1.3.1.2 Analysis of Diminutive ReduplicationI analyse the diminutive as either a mora or /i/; the constraint ranking leads to thereduplication of a single consonant regardless of allomorph choice. The lexicalentry for the diminutive is given in (114). It is a Level 1 morpheme, so there is nodiacritic on the lexical entry, as explained in Chapter 3 (Section 3.5.2.3).(114) Comox-Sliammon Diminutive:{µ , i}ô xDIMyThree constraints needed for the µ allomorph include MAX-FLOAT, *FLOAT, andREALIZEMORPHEME, which are defined in (115). MAX-FLOAT and *FLOAT,defined in (115a–b), motivate reduplication following affixation of a prosodic unit(i.e., filling a mora is preferred over deleting a floating mora or leaving a morafloating in the output). O in (115b) stands for output. REALIZEMORPHEME,defined in (115c), requires the surface form of α+β to differ from that of α alone;α stands for the phonological form a morpheme is added to and β stands for themorpheme added.142(115) a. MAX-FLOAT (MAXFLT): All prosodic units or features that arefloating in the input have output correspondents.(modified from Wolf, 2005, p.370)b. *FLOAT: @p P O, where p is a prosodic unit or phonological feature:Ds, where s is a segment (i.e., phonological content on the segmentaltier), and p dominates or is associated with s.(modified from Saba Kirchner 2013, p.232)c. REALIZEMORPHEME (RM): Let α be a morphological form,β be a morphosyntactic category, and F(α) be the phonologicalform from which F(α+β ) is derived to express a morphosyntacticcategory β . Then RM is satisfied with respect to β iff F(α+β )‰F(α)phonologically.(Kurisu, 2001, p.39)MAX-FLOAT is violated when floating elements in the input are not present in theoutput. *FLOAT bans floating prosodic units or phonological features in the output,which motivates phonological processes (e.g., fission, epenthesis, lengthening,etc.) to provide segmental content to fill a floating prosodic unit (Saba Kirchner,2013, p.232). A violation mark is incurred under *FLOAT for each prosodic unitin the output that is not connected to segmental content. REALIZEMORPHEMErequires every input morpheme to be expressed in the output; it is violated if noexponent of an input morpheme is present in the output, such that the output isidentical to what it would be without the morpheme (Kurisu, 2001, p.39).*FLOAT is dominated by AFFIXL2 (and AFFIXL3) in Comox-Sliammon at Level1, such that floating prosodic units are only tolerated when they carry a L2 (Level2) or L3 (Level 3) diacritic; they may remain floating until a later point in thederivation. The definition of AFFIXL2, originally defined in Chapter 3 (Section3.5.2.3) is restated in (116).(116) AFFIXL2: Assign a violation mark for every affix with an L2 diacritic thatis parsed into the phonological word.The tableau in (117) summarises how the ranking of AFFIXL2 and PARSEAFFIXrelative to REALIZEMORPHEME, MAX-FLOAT, and *FLOAT achieves the desired143outcome at Level 1: a hypothetical mora with the L2 diacritic is left floating, whileone with a L1 diacritic is filled in a manner that results in a different surface formthan would have surfaced if it were not present. I use x to stand in for either areduplicated or epenthetic segment in this tableau. I only mark moras where theycorrespond to a floating mora in the input unless otherwise stated. As laid out inChapter 3 (Section 3.2), I assume that all non-schwa vowels and coda consonantsare moraic.(117)/µL2 + µ + CVC/ AFFIXL2 MAXFLT RM *FLOAT PARSEAFFIX a. µL2 CVxµC ˚ ˚b. CVxµxµC ˚!c. CVxµC ˚! ˚d. µL2 CVµC ˚! ˚ ˚e. µL2 µ CVC ˚˚! ˚˚!Candidate (117b), which fills the Level 2 mora, fatally violates AFFIXL2. Candidate(117c) satisfies AFFIXL2 by deleting the Level 2 affix, which incurs a fatal violationunder MAX-FLOAT because one of the input moras is absent. Candidate (117d)fatally violates REALIZEMORPHEME because the unmarked (i.e., non-L2) moraassociates with a vowel, which would also be associated with a mora in the absenceof the morpheme. Candidate (117e), which leaves both affixed moras floating, isruled out because it violates the same constraints as the winning candidate butincurs two violations under each constraint.10I exclude REALIZEMORPHEME and the affix constraints AFFIXL2 andPARSEAFFIX from tableaux in the remainder of this chapter. I assume affixconstraints are ranked as motivated in Chapter 3 (Section 3.5.2.3) and will onlydiscuss their rankings as part of the final ranking given in summary sections. Forbrevity, I will only show affixes in the input which will be parsed at that particularstratum: a L2 or L3 diacritic will be provided alongside lexical entries in Sections4.1.4 and 4.1.5, respectively, but will be omitted in the tableaux.Reduplication is the fission of a segment, which creates a 1:2 mapping between10While PARSEAFFIX and *FLOAT incur identical violations for the candidates not ruled out byhigher ranked constraints in (117), both are needed because *FLOAT will not apply to the fixedsegment allomorph and *FLOAT is needed to avoid an instance where a mora is parsed into a syllableor foot without associating with segmental content.144the input and output. Fission of a segment violates INTEGRITY (McCarthy &Prince 1999), defined in (118). INTEGRITY also limits the size of the reduplicant:a candidate which fills the affixed prosodic unit with the fewest violations ofINTEGRITY will always be preferred (cf. Kirchner 2010).(118) INTEGRITY: An element of the input does not have multiplecorrespondents in the output.Each instance of fission incurs a violation mark under INTEGRITY; C1reduplication copies a single consonant and incurs one violation. The factthat *FLOAT and MAX-FLOAT outrank faithfulness constraints, includingINTEGRITY, results in EVAL (the evaluation component of the grammar) selectingcandidates where the affixed prosodic unit is filled. The tableau in (119) showshow ranking *FLOAT and MAX-FLOAT above INTEGRITY results in reduplication.I use subscripts to mark correspondence between consonants in the input andoutput. The candidate with fission to fill the floating mora in (119a) wins over acandidate which leaves the mora floating in (119b), as well as one which deletesthe mora entirely (119c).(119)/µ + C1VC2/ MAXFLT *FLOAT INTEGRITY a. C1VC1,µC2 ˚b. µ C1VC2 ˚!c. C1VC2 ˚!*FLOAT and MAX-FLOAT are ranked highly at every stratum relevant forreduplication and will be omitted from tableaux for the remainder of the chapterunless further discussion of their ranking is warranted.In order to correctly predict which segments will be copied (vowels,consonants, or both), INTEGRITY is divided into two constraints: INTEGRITY-Vand INTEGRITY-C. These constraints are defined in (120). INTEGRITY-C isviolated by fission of a consonant, and INTEGRITY-V is violated by fission of avowel.(120) a. INTEGRITY-C (INT-C): A consonant in the input does not havemultiple correspondents in the output.145b. INTEGRITY-V (INT-V): A vowel in the input does not have multiplecorrespondents in the output.The relative ranking of INTEGRITY-C and INTEGRITY-V determines whetherthe grammar favours candidates with the reduplication of a consonant or thereduplication of a vowel.The position of the INTEGRITY constraints relative to other faithfulnessconstraints determines whether the grammar uses reduplication to fill an emptyprosodic unit. When DEP, defined in (121), is ranked above INTEGRITY,reduplication is preferred to epenthesis.11(121) DEP: An output segment must have an input correspondent.Parallel to the division of INTEGRITY into INTEGRITY-C and INTEGRITY-V, Idivide DEP into DEP-C and DEP-V, defined in (122).(122) a. DEP-C: A consonant in the output must have an input correspondent.b. DEP-V: A vowel in the output must have an input correspondent.The ranking of each of the DEP constraints relative to the INTEGRITYconstraints allows EVAL to select candidates with reduplication of one typeof segment and epenthesis of another (e.g., reduplication of consonants andepenthesis of vowels). Diminutive reduplication shows that DEP-C is rankedabove INTEGRITY-C (consonants are reduplicated) and INTEGRITY-V is rankedabove DEP-V (vowels are epenthesized). This is consistent with the cross-Salishpatterns in Chapter 2: fission is generally preferred for consonants, whileepenthesis is generally preferred for vowels.Throughout this dissertation, I give [i] as an example of an epentheticmoraic vowel to illustrate how unattested candidates are ruled out; this choiceis motivated by the analysis of other Salish languages where the [i] associatedwith the diminutive may be analysed as epenthetic, rather than an underlyingvowel (see, e.g., analysis of Lushootseed diminutive reduplication in Mellesmoen11Epenthesis and fission are the only options to fill prosodic units in Comox-Sliammon, butlengthening is also an option in other languages. This is discussed in Section 6.6.2.2.1 with respectto vowel length in the Tsamosan languages.146& Urbanczyk, 2024). While [h] is typically the epenthetic consonant in Salish,I give [P] as an example of a default consonant in tableaux in this dissertationbecause [P]-epenthesis is seen with V1 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon (seeSection 4.1.5.2), as well as in other Salish languages. Further, Blake (2000, p.60)states that [h] is the “epenthetic (onset) consonant” in Comox-Sliammon; as Iam interested in epenthesis in both onset and coda positions, I have picked [P] torepresent any epenthetic consonant in unattested candidates.The tableau in (123) for example (113b) above shows how ranking both of theDEP constraints and INTEGRITY-V above INTEGRITY-C correctly predicts whichsegments are copied in Level 1 C1 reduplication. The attested candidate (123a)only violates INTEGRITY-C, which means that INTEGRITY-C must be rankedlower than the other constraints. The ranking in (123) accounts for the default -C-diminutive pattern.(123)/µ + supayu/ DEP-C INT-V DEP-V INT-C a. susµpayu ˚b. suµsupayu ˚! ˚c. Puµsupayu ˚! ˚!d. siµsupayu ˚! ˚e. suPµpayu ˚!The tableau in (123) does not consider candidates where the mora surfaces indifferent positions. The infixed position of the reduplicant can be derived bymodifying the PREFIX constraints from McCarthy (2003, p.94), which are violatedby any infixation (PREFIX), infixation beyond the first mora (PREFIX/µ), andinfixation beyond the first syllable (PREFIX/σ ). These constraints are categorical,rather than gradient, such that a prefix preceded by a single segment and onepreceded by multiple segments each incur a single violation. While McCarthy(2003) uses these constraints to make reference to a specific morpheme (e.g.,PREFIX(-af-)), I adapt these as general constraints in Comox-Sliammon whichaffect any prefix.(124) a. PREFIX: The output correspondent(s) of a prefix are not preceded by asegment.147b. PREFIX/µ: The output correspondent(s) of a prefix are not precededby a mora.c. PREFIX/σ : The output correspondent(s) of a prefix are not precededby a syllable.modified from McCarthy (2003, p.94)The tableau in (125) shows how ranking the PREFIX constraints below INTEGRITY-V, DEP-V motivates infixation within, but not beyond, the first syllable. Thediminutive mora is indicated with a subscript µ in candidates; a period is usedto show syllable breaks. The position of the diminutive reduplicant is limited by acombination of constraints penalizing the fission and epenthesis of vowels, whichforce the reduplicant inwards (125b–c). However, the affixed mora cannot migratefurther than the first syllable without violating PREFIX/σ (125d). This limits thediminutive to the attested position.(125)/µ + supayu/ INT-V DEP-V PREFIX/σ PREFIX/µ PREFIX a. susµ .pa.yu ˚ ˚b. siµ .su.pa.yu ˚!c. suµ .su.pa.yu ˚!d. su.papµ .yu ˚! ˚ ˚The tableau in (125) also shows that anything that violates PREFIX/σ or PREFIX/µalso violates PREFIX. If there is a mora or a syllable preceding the outputcorrespondent(s) of the prefix, it will be associated with segmental content giventhe high ranking of *FLOAT. I only include PREFIX in subsequent tableaux forbrevity.The choice between µ (-C-) and i- (Ci-) can be captured by using preferentialallomorph selection (Mascaro´ 2007). Violation marks are assigned under aPRIORITY constraint, given in (126), when the selected allomorph is not thepreferred candidate (as noted by indices showing allomorph order).(126) PRIORITY: Respect lexical priority (ordering)Given an input containing allomorphs m1, m2,..., mn, and a candidatemi’, where mi’ is in correspondence with mi, PRIORITY assigns as many148violation marks as the depth of ordering between mi and the highestdominating morph.(Mascaro´, 2007, p.726)I treat -C- as the default realisation of the diminutive, which means that µ isthe default allomorph. The Ci- form from the /i/ allomorph occurs when theunreduplicated form of the word is monosyllabic or no vowel in the input to the firststratum. Choosing /i/ as the default allomorph would not work because words witha moraic vowel may take either µ or /i/; the choice depends on whether the wordis monosyllabic. If /i/ was the priority allomorph, there would be no phonologicalmotivation to select µ and the -C- form would never occur. The preferential orderof allomorphs is provided in (127).(127) Comox-Sliammon C1 Diminutive:(µ1 ą i2) ô xDIMy*COMPLEXONSET, defined in (128), and DEP-V are ranked higher thanPRIORITY, which motivates the choice of the non-default allomorph when thenon-reduplicated form has a [@]. I assume that [@] is generally epenthesized atLevel 2 to ensure a well-formed prosodic word (i.e., [@] is typically absent in atthe first stratum).(128) *COMPLEXONSET (*COMPLEX): Syllables do not have complex onsets.(Blake, 2000, p.137, from McCarthy & Prince 1993)Given that /i/ is a fixed segment, as opposed to a floating prosodic unit, Iinclude the constraint MAX, defined in (129), which penalises the deletion of inputsegments. MAX sits in a comparable position to MAX-FLOAT in the constraintranking.(129) MAX: All segments in the input have a correspondent in the output.Assign a violation mark for every segment in the input that does not havea correspondent in the output.(McCarthy & Prince, 1995, p.16)149The tableau in (130) for example (109d) above shows the ranking of theseconstraints that allows for the selection of the non-preferred allomorph. Thesubscript numbers in the candidates correspond to which allomorph was inserted.The attested candidate (130a) violates PRIORITY, but candidates with the preferred(i.e., default) affix are ruled out because they either insert a vowel (130b violatesDEP-V) or create a complex onset (130c violates *COMPLEX).12 Deletion of asegment to satisfy *COMPLEX is ruled out under MAX, as shown in (130d).(130)/(µ1 ą i2) + Tˇjapuqw/ MAX DEP-V *COMPLEX PRIORITY PREFIX INT-C a. Ti2Tjˇapuqw ˚ ˚ ˚b. T@T1 jˇapuqw ˚! ˚ ˚c. Tjˇay1puqw ˚! ˚ ˚d. jˇay1puqw ˚! ˚ ˚In order to ensure that a consonant is reduplicated to provide an onset for theprefixed fixed-segment affix, ONSET, defined in (131a), must be ranked higherthan PREFIX and INT-C. The constraint MAX-CONTIGUITY, defined in (131b), isalso needed to ensure /i/ does not migrate into clusters to ensure an onset. MAX-CONTIGUITY penalises the loss of contiguity (immediate precedence) relations,such that if there is some segment x that immediately precedes a segment y, thenthere exists some segment x’ (corresponding to x in the input) that immediatelyprecedes a segment y’ (corresponding to y in the input) in the output.13,14(131) a. ONSET: Syllables have onsets (Blake, 2000, p.244).b. MAX-CONTIGUITY (MAX-CONTIG): If x, y P S1 and x immediatelyprecedes (Ñ)y, then Dx’, y’ such that xRx’ and yRy’ and x’immediately precedes (Ñ)y’ (Heinz, 2005, p.204).The tableau in (132) shows that the correct candidate wins when ONSET and MAX-CONTIGUITY are ranked above INT-C: it is better to reduplicate a consonant to12Recall from Section 4.1.1 that [jˇ] alternates with [y] based on syllable position: the [y] in (130c)results from fission of /jˇ/.13xRx’ and yRy’ in (131b) mark a relationship between input and output segments.14Heinz (2005) motivates MAX-CONTIGUITY and DEP-CONTIGUITY as alternatives toLINEARITY constraints. I adopt MAX-CONTIGUITY because LINEARITY would be violated by boththe attested diminutive in (132a) and the infixing diminutive in (132b) because fission and metathesisboth result in a mismatch between linear order in the input and output.150provide an onset (132a) than to infix /i/ (132b). Infixing removes two immediateprecedence relations present in the input (iÑT and TÑjˇ), resulting in two violationsof MAX-CONTIG. The onsetless candidate (132c) fatally violates ONSET.(132)/(µ1 ą i2) + Tˇjapuqw/ ONSET MAX-CONTIG PRIORITY PREFIX INT-C a. Ti2Tjˇapuqw ˚ ˚ ˚b. Ti2 jˇapuqw ˚!˚ ˚ ˚c. i2Tjˇapuqw ˚! ˚To account for the monosyllabic pattern, in which the affix surfaces as Ci- inwords such as pipukw ‘little book’, an additional markedness constraint is needed.(*COMPLEX ensures the fixed-segment allomorph would be selected where a roothad no underlying vowel, but this will not apply when the root comes with amoraic vowel.) I rule out unattested candidates with the -C- reduplicant (fromthe µ) by adopting a constraint violated by monomoraic outputs. I follow Black(2006, p.62) by adopting a constraint on stem binarity, modified to be specific tothe level of the syllable and to specify a minimum number of syllables. I furthermodify the constraint to be about the prosodic word, rather than a morphologicalor phonological stem. The definition of MIN=2σ is given in (133).(133) MIN=2σ : The prosodic word should be minimally two syllables.The tableau in (134) for example (110) above shows that MIN=2σ is ranked abovePRIORITY, which motivates the selection of the non-priority allomorph where itwould provide a second syllable (134a). The subscript x marks epenthesis, whilethe numbers correspond to the inserted allomorph. The constraint PREFIX/σ rulesout a candidate where the prefixed i- migrates further into the root.(134)/(µ1 ą i2) + pukw/ DEP-V MIN=2σ PREFIX/σ PRIORITY a. pi2pukw ˚b. pix,1pukw ˚!c. pupi2kw ˚! ˚d. pup1kw ˚!Further, I rank DEP-V and INT-V above MIN=2σ to allow for monosyllabic wordsto emerge faithfully as a single syllable (outside of reduplication). This is shown151for pukw ‘book’ in (135). MIN=2σ will only affect the outcome when an inputvowel is available.(135)/pukw/ DEP-V INT-V MIN=2σ a. pukw ˚b. p@xpukw ˚!c. pupukw ˚!Preliminary Level 1 rankings are summarised in Table 4.3.15 Note that not allpair-wise rankings are reflected in the table: the rightmost column includesconstraints that are never violated and/or outrank either multiple constraints (e.g.,*FLOAT). The columns show rankings that can be established between constraints.For example, while PREFIX/µ and PREFIX must be ranked beneath DEP-V andINT-V, it is unclear where PREFIX/µ is ranked in relation to ONSET. The affixlevel constraints and REALIZEMORPHEME are excluded here, but are included aspart of the Level 1 summary given in Section 4.1.3.3. Though PREFIX/σ is notcrucially ranked relative to the other constraints considered, it is included in therightmost column of Row A because it is never violated. Appendix C includes flatlinear rankings for each stratum; these flat linear rankings can be used to createtableaux.Table 4.3: Preliminary Level 1 Grammar: DiminutiveA DEP-V, ONSET *FLOAT,INT-V MAX,MAX-FLOAT,PREFIX/σ ,DEP-C,*COMPLEXONSET,MAX-CONTIGB MIN=2σ PREFIX/µ PREFIXC PRIORITYD INT-C15This constraint ranking will be updated in Section 4.1.3.2.2 to account for epenthesis in property-denoting C1C2 reduplication, which shows that DEP-V is ranked lower than INT-V.1524.1.3.1.3 Plural C1 ReduplicationPlural C1 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon can have either a -C- or Ca- shape.Examples with the Ca- allomorph of the plural are given in (136). These have thesame distribution as the Ci- allomorph of the diminutive: they occur with wordsthat would otherwise have [@] as a first vowel and monosyllabic inputs.(136) a. pa„px. it (cf. p@x. it ‘torn’)C1.PL„rip-STAT‘all torn in pieces’ (BW)b. x. a„x.ň-it (cf. x. @ňit ‘it is broken’)C1.PL„break-STAT‘They are broken.’ (BW)c. ’ta„’tl[i] ’k-awus (root: ’tl ’k-)C1.PL„make.hole-eye‘piercing eyes’ (EP)d. ’pa„ ’pu ’qw (cf. ’pu ’qw ‘grey’)C1.PL„grey‘grey things’ (EP/FL)Examples of the -C- allomorph of the plural, which occurs with multisyllabic inputswith an underlying vowel, are given in (137). When plural reduplication has the-C- shape, it is homophonous with the µ allomorph of diminutive C1 reduplicationbecause both are evaluated under the same constraints and ranking (the Level 1grammar).(137) a. ’tuă’tąì-it (cf. ’tuìit ‘something is on top’)on.topăC1.PLą-STAT‘A bunch of things are up top.’ (FL/KG)b. PaăPąmut (cf. Pamut ‘be home’)be.homeăC1.PLą‘Everybody is home.’ (PD)c. x. iăx.ąm-us (cf. x. imus ‘scratched face’)scratchăC1.PLą-face‘scratched on face (more than one scratch)’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.376)1534.1.3.1.4 Analysis of Plural C1 ReduplicationThe -C- allomorph of the C1 plural occurs with multisyllabic words that have amoraic vowel as their first vowel. The Ca- allomorph occurs with monosyllabicinputs or words with [@] as their first vowel. The lexical entry for C1 reduplicationand the preferential order of allomorphs is provided in (138).16 Subscript numbersrefer to the order of listed allomorphs.(138) Comox-Sliammon C1 Plural:(µ1 ą a2) ô xC1.PLyThe same constraint ranking established for the diminutive also predicts the C1plural: the only difference is the vowel quality. The ranking that allows for thediminutive /i/ to be selected also allows /a/ to win, as shown in (139) for example(136a) above. The subscript numbers refer to which allomorph was selected.(139)/(µ1 ą a2) + px˙+ it/ DEP-V ONSET PRIORITY INT-C a. pa2p.x. it ˚ ˚b. p@p1.x. it ˚! ˚c. a2p.x. it ˚! ˚The mora is selected under the same conditions as was shown for the diminutive,which means no additional constraints or changes to the ranking are needed.4.1.3.1.5 Unclear C1 ReduplicationThere are cases of C1 reduplication which cannot be clearly classified on thebasis of meaning: examples are given in (140). However, on the basis of form,these cases must involve C1 reduplication at Level 1: if (140b) had Level 2C1 reduplication, the expected form would be *PiPimasˇas (see description ofprogressive reduplication in Section 4.1.4.1.1).(140) a. hihiw=cˇxwreally=1SG.SUBJxwaNEGqi„qkw-am-axw (cf. q@kw@m ‘stop’)C1„stop-MID-2SG.SUBJ’Sit down, you never keep still.’ (EP/FL)16I set aside the lexicalised subset of plural C1 forms with a Ci- shape that were given at the outsetof Section 4.1.3.1 in examples (107) and (108). However, this pattern can be derived if an /i/ replacesthe /a/ as an input where lexically specified.154b. xwa PiăPąm-asˇ-as (cf. Pimasˇ ‘walk’)NEG walkăC1ą-INTR-3SUBJ‘He never walks.’ (EP/FL)The two productive types of Level 1 C1 reduplication mark either diminutivity orplurality, but neither meaning directly fits with the examples in (140). C1 pluralreduplication marks plurality with states, which is distributed across participantsor space (see examples in Section 4.1.3.1.3); though negated events are states, it isunclear why these would be marked for plurality.This type of C1 reduplication may represent an additional function associatedwith Level 1 C1 reduplication, with a very limited distribution: it occurs undernegation (i.e., with xwa). The translation of these sentences into English usuallyincludes the word “never”.As the form of this unclear C1 reduplication is consistent with the Level 1grammar, I conclude that it does not pose a challenge for my analysis of Comox-Sliammon reduplication and leave an exploration of its semantics to future work.4.1.3.2 Level 1 C1C2 ReduplicationThere is one type of C1C2 reduplication at Level 1 in Comox-Sliammon.17 Asummary of Level 1 reduplication (repeated from earlier in this section) is providedin Table 4.4.Table 4.4: Level 1 Reduplicative AffixesUnderlying Form Surface PositionDiminutive C1 µ , i Prefix or InfixPlural C1 µ , a Prefix or InfixProperty-Denoting C1C2 σN`µ Prefix17On the basis of form, there are two types of C1C2 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon: one typeof reduplication is at Level 1 and the other is at Level 2. See Section 4.1.4.2.1 for more on Level2 C1C2 reduplication. However, in Chapter 5 (Section 5.5.10.2), I argue on the basis of meaningand multiple reduplication that there are actually three types of C1C2 reduplication. Plural C1C2reduplication (with nouns) and property-denoting reduplication must happen at Level 1; pluractionalC1C2 reduplication (with verbs) happens at Level 2.1554.1.3.2.1 Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationProperty-denoting C1C2 reduplication copies the first two consonants of the rootwith an intervening vowel, which is usually [@] rather than a faithful copy of theroot vowel. The examples in (141) show examples of the C@C form of C1C2reduplication.(141) a. t@ ’w„tiwsˇ (tiwsˇam ‘learn’)PDEN„smart‘fast learner, smart’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.398)b. ’ň@ ’m„ ’ňam (root: ’ňam- ‘square’)PDEN„square‘square (shaped basket, object)’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.398)c. ’t@ ’w„’tuw (cf. ’tugut ‘recognise them’)PDEN„remember‘s.o. who remembers well’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.398)d. g@ ’y„gay-aì-t@n (cf. gayat ‘ask them’)PDEN„ask-CONNECT-instrument‘curious’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.398)Watanabe (2003, p.397) states that property-denoting C1C2 reduplication isrestricted to roots with a sonorant segment as their second consonant, whichallows him to establish a phonological diagnostic that differentiates property-denoting reduplication from C1C2 plural reduplication (described in Section4.1.4.2.1); glottalisation falls on the first of the matching sonorants in C2 positionin property-denoting forms (142a), and on the second in plural denoting forms(142b).(142) a. sˇ@ ’m„sˇam (cf. sˇa ’mat ‘dry it’)PDEN„dry‘dry’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.398)b. ’t@m„’t@ ’mxw ( ’ta ’mxw ‘gooseberry’)C1C2.PL„gooseberry‘gooseberries’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.372)156However, glottalisation of sonorant consonants alone is not a reliable cluefor identifying property-denoting reduplication. Sonorant glottalisation isnotoriously variable in Salish: it may be realised with a range of differentacoustic correlates (e.g., creaky voicing or changes in pitch), even within thesame language (Bird, Caldecott, Campbell, Gick, & Shaw, 2008). This diagnosticfor identifying property-denoting reduplication is further complicated by thefact that glottalisation on sonorant segments is falling out of use in modernComox-Sliammon (Watanabe, 1994a; Caldecott & Mellesmoen, 2018). Further,there are examples of C1C2 reduplication with an obstruent in C2 position thatare property-denoting rather than plural, which therefore suggests that property-denoting C1C2 reduplication is not actually restricted to roots with a sonorantsegment as their second consonant. Examples are provided in (143).(143) a. ì@x.„ì@x. -t@n (cf. ì@x. ‘bad’)PDEN„bad-instrument‘mischievous, misbehaved’ (WJF/MV)b. ì@x.„ì@x. -jˇIm (cf. ì@x. ‘bad’)PDEN„bad-susceptible‘clumsy’ (WJF/MV)c. g@’tT„g@’tT (root: g@ ’tT- ‘tease’)PDEN„tease‘someone always teasing’ (FL/KG)Where glottalisation is not present, property-denoting and plural C1C2reduplication are distinguished on the basis of meaning, context, and distribution.Property-denoting reduplication occurs with adjectives and stative verbs, whileplural/pluractional reduplication occurs with nouns and eventive verbs. None ofthese clues constitute sufficient evidence alone: for example, Huijsmans (2023b,p.184) provides g@ ’tTg@ ’tT as an example where the meaning aligns with eithera noun (‘a tease’) or an adjective (property of someone always teasing), butshows that its syntactic distribution is more consistent with that of a verb becauseunlike bare adjectives and nouns, it can occur as the predicate of a postnominalrelative clause. Distribution alone is therefore not enough to differentiate pluraland property-denoting reduplication. Further evidence beyond glottalisation for157analysing these types of reduplication at different strata is given as part of theanalysis of multiple reduplication in Chapter 5 (Section 5.5).4.1.3.2.2 Analysis of Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationProperty-denoting C1C2 reduplication involves the affixation of a monomoraicsyllable at Level 1. The lexical entry for the property-denoting morpheme containsa monomoraic syllable with a nucleus and a non-nuclear mora (σN`µ ). The lexicalentry for the property-denoting morpheme is provided in (144).(144) Comox-Sliammon Property-Denoting Reduplication:σN`µ ôăPDENąThe distinction between a σµ and σN`µ was introduced in the previous chapter(Section 3.2.3) to differentiate between an open CV and a closed C@C monomoraicsyllable. The two configurations are given again in (145). The crucial differenceis that σµ only has one (a mora), while σN`µ has two dependants (a nucleus andnon-nuclear mora). C1C2 reduplication requires an affixed σN`µ .(145)σ µ σµσN+µ σN µThe analysis of property-denoting reduplication builds on the Level 1 rankingestablished in the previous sections, given again in Table 4.5. However, this rankingwill be revised below because C1C2 reduplication motivates updating the constraintranking to account for all three Level 1 patterns.158Table 4.5: Preliminary Level 1 Ranking from Section 4.1.3.1.2A DEP-V, ONSET FLOAT,INT-V MAX,MAX-FLOAT,PREFIX/σ ,DEP-C,*COMPLEXONSET,MAX-CONTIGB MIN=2σ PREFIX/µ PREFIXC PRIORITYD INT-CI omit *FLOAT and MAX from the tableaux in this section for reasons ofspace. MIN=2σ is not included because, unlike diminutive or plural C1reduplication, C1C2 reduplication always adds a syllable to monosyllabic inputs.*COMPLEXONSET also does not need to be included in the tableaux, becauseonly a single consonant will be reduplicated; a complex onset incurs additional(and fatal) violations of DEP-C. PRIORITY is also omitted because the input forC1C2 reduplication does not have multiple allomorphs.The tableau in (146) for example (141c) above shows that ranking both ONSETand PREFIX/σ over INT-C ensures that the winning candidate in (146a) has theaffixed syllable on the left edge; fission of the C1 consonant provides an onset. Theonsetless candidate in (146b) fatally violates ONSET. A candidate with the affixedsyllable as the rightmost fatally violates PREFIX/σ . The bracketed syllables in thecandidates mark where the affixed syllable is positioned.(146)/σN`µ+’tuw/ PREFIX/σ ONSET INT-C a. (’t@ ’w)σN`µ .’tuw ˚˚b. (@ ’w)σN`µ .’tuw ˚! ˚c. ’tu.( ’w@w)σN`µ ˚! ˚As shown in (147), INT-V must be ranked above DEP-V to motivate epenthesis(147a) over fission (147b) of a vowel. A candidate with epenthesis of a consonant159in (147c) is ruled out because it fatally violates DEP-C.18(147)/σN`µ+’tuw/ DEP-C INT-V DEP-V INT-C a. (’t@ ’w)σN`µ .’tuw ˚ ˚˚b. (’tu ’w)σN`µ .’tuw ˚! ˚˚c. (P@ ’w)σN`µ .’tuw ˚! ˚ ˚A candidate with vowel epenthesis filling both the nucleus and the mora(*( ’tiN,µ ).’tuw) was not considered in (147) because this would not be compatiblewith the structure of the affixed prosodic unit, which has both a nucleus and anon-nuclear mora as separate dependants that must both be filled. This requirementarises from MAX-FLOAT in combination with the constraint DEP-LINK-µ(N),given in (148), which is modified from MAXLINK-µ(C) in Prillop (2013).DEP-LINK-µ(N) is violated whenever an association line is added between anucleus and a mora that was not in present in the input.(148) DEP-LINK-µ(N) (DEPL-µ(N)) : When a nucleus is linked to a mora in theoutput, it is also linked to a mora in the input (modified from Prillop 2013,p.22).The tableau in (149) shows that candidates (149b) and (149c) incur fewerviolations under INT-C and DEP-V, respectively, when compared to the winningcandidate because they associate both the floating nucleus and mora with thesame segment; these candidates are therefore ruled out under DEP-LINK-µ(N). Iconsider the deletion of any dependent of the floating syllable to incur a violationof MAX-FLOAT, as demonstrated by candidate (149d). The structure of σN`µmust therefore always be reflected in the output.19(149)/σN`µ+’tuw/ MAXFLT DEPL-µ (N) INT-V DEP-V INT-C a. (’t@N ’wµ )σ .’tuw ˚ ˚˚b. (’tiN,µ )σ .’tuw ˚! ˚ ˚c. (’tuN,µ )σ .’tuw ˚! ˚! ˚d. (’t@N)σ .’tuw ˚! ˚ ˚18There are some exceptional forms where the vowel matches that of the root. These must betreated separately as lexicalised or lexically-specified reduplication; see explanation of these termsin Chapter 1 (Section 1.4.3.2).19Except in /@y/ and /@w/ sequences, which are realised as [i] and [u], as discussed in Section 4.1.1.160An additional constraint is needed for the analysis of property-denotingreduplication to ensure that the epenthesized vowel is [@]. As I treat all instancesof [@] as epenthetic, these are omitted from the underlying forms. I include outputinstances of [@] in the candidates for clarity, though I assume these are inserted atsubsequent strata, aside from where required to fill the nucleus of an an affixedσN+µ .The tableau in (150) for example (143b) above shows two candidates thatdiffer in whether the empty nucleus is filled by a [@] (candidate 150a) or a moraicvowel (candidate 150b); the former is the attested form.20 As both candidates haveepenthesis, they incur the same number of violations under DEP-V. The use of ??indicates that the two options cannot be distinguished.(150)/σN`µ+ìx˙+jˇim/ DEP-V INT-C?? a. (ì@x. )σN`µ .ì@x. .jˇim ˚ ˚˚?? b. (ìix. )σN`µ .ì@x. .jˇim ˚ ˚˚I adopt the constraint DEP-Vµ in (151) to distinguish moraic vowels from non-moraic vowels.(151) DEP-Vµ : Every moraic vowel in the output must have a correspondingmoraic vowel in the input.I assume, following Blake (2000), that schwa does not have any place features ofits own, while moraic vowels do. The constraint given in DEP-Vµ should thereforebe more formally understood as DEP-V-Place, which is violated by the epenthesisof a V-Place node, in the sense of Clements and Hume (1995, p.276).21Having both DEP-Vµ and DEP-V in the grammar results in [@] being the leastmarked epenthetic vowel, which is consistent with cross-Salish phonology. The20I include the ‘susceptible’ suffix -jˇim as a Level 1 affix in (150). However, this should not betaken as an analysis of -jˇim: further work would be required to determine if -jˇim is a Level 1 or Level2 suffix.21The surface quality of schwa is conditioned by adjacent consonants, which I assume entailssharing of features, though I remain agnostic as to whether a feature geometry that differentiatesV-Place from C-Place is desirable for Salish. I refer to a V-Place node here as a catch-all for therelevant features pertaining to vowel place, but a general DEP-[Place] constraint could be used topenalise epenthesis of any place features or individual constraints targeting specific features (e.g.,those under DORSAL).161revised tableau in (152) shows the inclusion of this constraint, which now correctlypredicts the attested candidate (152a).(152)/σN`µ+ìx˙+jˇim/ DEP-Vµ DEP-V INT-C a. (ì@x. )σN`µ .ì@x. .jˇim ˚ ˚˚b. (ìix. )σN`µ .ì@x. .jˇim ˚! ˚ ˚˚The only changes needed from the preliminary Level 1 ranking established for C1reduplication include the addition of DEP-Vµ and the addition of a crucial rankingbetween INT-V and DEP-V.4.1.3.3 Summary of Level 1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1, plural C1, and property-denoting C1C2 reduplication are affixed atLevel 1 in Comox-Sliammon.The Level 1 grammar in Comox-Sliammon allows for the affix to be positionedas an infix or a prefix. In order to fill the affixed units, consonants are reduplicatedand [@] may be epenthesized, if necessary. A mora (µ) or a fixed segment (/i/ or /a/)is affixed for the diminutive C1 and plural C1 reduplication, while a monomoraicsyllable (σN+µ ) is affixed for property-denoting reduplication. The constraintrankings needed to derive Level 1 reduplication patterns are summarised in Table4.6. Constraints in the rightmost column are not violated at this stratum and maybe crucially ranked above one or more constraints on Rows B–E (e.g., ONSET isranked above PREFIX and INT-C).162Table 4.6: Comox-Sliammon Level 1 GrammarA INT-V MAXFLT,*FLOAT,MAX,PREFIX/σ ,DEP-C,*COMPLEXONSET,DEP-Vµ ,DEPL-µ (N),ONSETB DEP-VC MIN=2σ PREFIX/µ ,PREFIXD PRIORITY,MAX-CONTIGE INT-CConstraints against parsing affixes marked with a L2 (Level 2) or L3 (Level 3)diacritic are also relevant at Level 1, as argued in Chapter 3 (Section 3.5.2.3):AFFIXL2 and AFFIXL3 are ranked higher than PARSEAFFIX, as shown in Table 4.7.Table 4.7: Affix Constraints at Level 1A AFFIXL2,AFFIXL3B PARSEAFFIXIn sum, diminutive and plural C1 reduplication and property-denoting C1C2reduplication can all be analysed as Level 1 affixes in Comox-Sliammon, whichmeans that they are derived with the same constraint ranking.4.1.4 Level 2Level 2 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon includes progressive C1 and pluralC1C2 reduplication. Of all the reduplicative processes in Comox-Sliammon,the two Level 2 ones are the most productive. C1 progressive reduplication is163particularly frequent in spontaneous speech because it marks a common aspectualfunction.Progressive C1 reduplication involves the affixation of a mora; the reduplicatedsegments (a consonant and, if applicable, the following moraic vowel) arepositioned on the left-edge of the word as a prefix. Plural C1C2 reduplicationinvolves the affixation of a monomoraic syllable with a nucleus node. The firsttwo consonants of the input are copied and a [@] is epenthesized. Plural C1C2reduplication is homophonous with property-denoting C1C2 reduplication, exceptwhen a sonorant sound is in C2 position (see Section 4.1.3.2.1).The prosodic units and position of Level 2 reduplicative processes aresummarised in Table 4.8. Level 2 reduplication has the following properties:(1) the reduplicated segments are positioned as prefixes (on the left edge of theprosodic word), and (2) consonants are copied and moraic vowels may also becopied (unlike at Level 1).Table 4.8: Level 2 Reduplicative AffixesUnderlying Form Surface PositionProgressive C1 µ Prefixed or InfixedPlural C1C2 σN`µ Prefixed4.1.4.1 Level 2 C1 Reduplication4.1.4.1.1 Progressive C1 ReduplicationIn progressive C1 reduplication, the first consonant of the word is copied.22 If thevowel following the first consonant is moraic, then the vowel is copied as well, asshown in (153). If the vowel following the first consonant in the non-reduplicatedword is non-moraic (i.e., [@]), then only the first consonant is copied, as shownin (154). Though the reduplicative morpheme is analysed as a prefix in the input(see Section 4.1.4.1.2), the segments associated with the reduplicative morpheme22This type of reduplication is glossed as imperfective in other sources (e.g., Watanabe, 2003);however, H. Davis et al. (2020, p.120) argue that aspectual C1 reduplication in Comox-Sliammonmarks progressive aspect, rather than general imperfectivity.164surface as a prefix in (153) and an infix in (154).(153) a. Pa„Pa ’q-at (cf. Pa ’qat ‘chase them (sg.)’)PROG„chase-CTR‘be chasing them (sg.)’b. gu„guh-um (cf. guhum ‘bark’)PROG„bark-MID‘be barking’c. Ta„Tap-isˇ (cf. Tapisˇ ‘bathe them (sg.)’)PROG„bathe-TR‘be bathing them (sg.)’d. jˇi„jˇix. -im (cf. jˇix. im ‘fall apart’)PROG„fall.apart-MID‘be falling apart’e. ya„yaì-at (cf. yaìat ‘call them (sg.)’)PROG„call-CTR‘be calling them (sg.)’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.392)(154) a. ’cˇ@ă ’cˇąì (cf. ’cˇ@ì ‘rain’)rainăPROGą‘raining’b. ’kw@ă ’kwąq-aPam (cf. ’kw@qP@m ‘split’)splităPROGą-A.INTR‘splitting’c. n@ănąm-asˇ (cf. n@masˇ ‘throw’)throwăPROGą-TR‘throwing it’d. p@ăpąn-aPam (cf. p@nP@m ‘plant’)plantăPROGą-A.INTR‘be planting’e. ’p@ă ’pąňsˇ (cf. ’p@ňsˇ ‘surface’)surfaceăPROGą‘surfacing’ (Watanabe, 2003, pp.392–393)165When the progressive is added to a C@CC- base where one of the first twoconsonants is a sonorant, a second [@] follows the consonant associated with thereduplicative morpheme, as shown in (155). As [@] is epenthetic and epenthesis ispredicted to break up consonant clusters, I do not consider this vowel to be a copy;the reduplication in (155) and in (154) can receive the same analysis.(155) a. q@ăqą@ms-at (cf. q@msat ‘put it away’)put.awayăPROGą-CTR‘be putting it away’b. n@ăną@lxw-at (cf. n@lxwat ‘stir it’)stirăPROGą-CTR‘be stirring it’c. s@ăsą@y’t-aPam (cf. s@y ’taPam ‘throw’)throwăPROGą-A.INTR‘be throwing (something)’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.393)d. m@ămą@’t ’k-at=cˇ (cf. m@ ’t ’katcˇxw ‘Squash it.’)squashăPROGą-CTR=1SG.SUBJ‘I am squashing it.’ (FL)4.1.4.1.2 Analysis of Progressive C1 ReduplicationThe lexical entry for the progressive in Comox-Sliammon consists of a mora, asshown in (156). The mora bears an L2 diacritic to mark it as a Level 2 affix.(156) Comox-Sliammon Progressive:µL2 ô xPROGyThe constraints *FLOAT, REALIZEMORPHEME, and MAX-FLOAT are rankedhighly in the Level 2 grammar, as at Level 1.23,24 This is shown in (157) forexample (153e) above where the attested candidate violates INTEGRITY-C and23Constraint definitions can be found in Appendix D, which includes a key to where they are firstintroduced.24As proposed in Chapter 3 (Section 3.5.2.3) and discussed in Section 4.1.3.1.2, the constraintPARSEAFFIX outranks AFFIXL2 in the Level 2 grammar, which permits affixes with an L2 diacritic tobe parsed into the phonological word.166INTEGRITY-V, but none of the higher ranked constraints (*FLOAT, MAX-FLOAT,and REALIZEMORPHEME). Candidates with a floating mora (157b), no exponentof the progressive morpheme (157c), or the progressive mora associated with avowel, which would be associated with a mora regardless, all fatally violate atleast one of these constraints. *FLOAT, *MAX-FLOAT, and REALIZEMORPHEMEare omitted for the remainder of the Level 2 analysis.(157)/µ+yaì+at/ *FLOAT MAXFLT RM INT-V INT-C a. yaµ .ya.ìat ˚ ˚b. µ ya.ìat ˚!c. ya.ìat ˚!d. yaµ .ìat ˚!The first major difference between the Level 1 and Level 2 grammar is thatINTEGRITY-V is not ranked as highly at Level 2 as at Level 1. As shown in (157),the attested candidate (157a) violates INTEGRITY-V and therefore this constraintmust be ranked low enough to predict the correct form. As no vowels are copiedat Level 1, INTEGRITY-V is a higher ranked constraint there than at Level 2.The second difference between Level 1 and Level 2 is the surface positionof an affixed mora. At Level 1, the mora marking diminutivity or plurality waspositioned as an infix following the first mora in the word (see description andanalysis in Section 4.1.3.1); at Level 2, the mora marking progressive aspect is thefirst mora in the word. For example, the progressive form of yaìat ‘call someone’is yayaìat, rather than *yayìat, which reflects a difference in how an affixed mora isrealised across strata. The difference between Level 1 and Level 2 comes from theranking of PREFIX/µ , which rules out infixation of prefixed material beyond thefirst mora. PREFIX/µ , restated again in (158), will be violated if the progressivemora is not the leftmost mora in the word. This means that the progressive mustbe associated with either the first nucleus in a word (if it is a moraic vowel) or thefirst coda consonant following a non-moraic nucleus.(158) PREFIX/µ: A prefix is not preceded by a mora.As shown in (159), PREFIX/µ is ranked highly in the Level 2 grammar, whichrules out candidates where the mora is positioned as an infix (159b-c). Note that167the candidate in (159c) would be predicted at Level 1 and yayìat would be theexpected form for a C1 plural or diminutive.(159)/µ1+yaµ2.ìaµ3tµ4/ PREFIX/µ INT-V INT-C a. yaµ1.yaµ2.ìaµ3tµ4 ˚ ˚b. yaµ2.yaµ1.ìaµ3tµ4 ˚! ˚ ˚c. yaµ2yµ1.ìaµ3tµ4 ˚! ˚The third major difference between Level 1 and Level 2 is the fact that bothconsonants and vowels can undergo fission, as in the attested candidate in (160a),which means that both INTEGRITY constraints must be ranked below DEP-C andDEP-Vµ at Level 2 to rule out candidates with an epenthetic consonant (160b) ormoraic vowel (160c). Candidate (160d), with no onset, is ruled out by ONSET.Candidate (160e), which has C1C2 reduplication, motivates ranking INT-C aboveINT-V.(160)/µ1+yaµ2ìaµ3tµ4/ DEP-C ONSET DEP-Vµ INT-C INT-V DEP-V a. yaµ1yaµ2ìaµ3tµ4 ˚ ˚b. Paµ1yaµ2ìaµ3tµ4 ˚! ˚c. yiµ1yaµ2ìaµ3tµ4 ˚! ˚ ˚d. aµ1yaµ2ìaµ3tµ4 ˚! ˚e. y@ìµ1yaµ2ìaµ3tµ4 ˚˚! ˚Next, I consider the roots without an underlying vowel, which surface with[@]. I assume that [@] is epenthesized as part of the Level 2 derivation: thisis shown for the (non-reduplicated) perfective form n@masˇ ‘throw’ in (161).25*COMPLEXONSET rules out the faithful candidate (161b), and the attestedcandidate (161a) violates only DEP-V. This example further shows that INT-V isranked above DEP-V: it is better to epenthesize /@/ than reduplicate. The subscriptnumbers in (161c) show that /a/ has undergone fission.(161)/nm+asˇ/ *COMPLEX INT-V DEP-V a. n@.masˇ ˚b. nmasˇ ˚!c. na1.ma1sˇ ˚!25Other constraints deriving syllabification and the assignment of stress are omitted here butassumed to be active in the grammar.168The derivation of a progressive form built on a root with a non-moraic vowel isshown in (162) for n@masˇ ‘throw it’ from (154c) above. The attested candidate(162a) violates DEP-V and INTEGRITY-C. Candidate (162b), which inserts afull vowel, fatally violates DEP-Vµ ; candidate (162c), which resembles a C1C2reduplicated word, receives a second (and fatal) violation under INT-C. Candidate(162d), which reduplicates further into the word than the other candidates, fatallyviolates PREFIX/µ . A potential candidate [n@n@masˇ] with CV reduplication isnot considered in this tableau; [@] is non-moraic and therefore there would be nosegmental content to associate with the progressive mora. Subscript numbers areused to mark the position of input moras in the output.(162)/µ1+nm+aµ2sˇ/ PREFIX/µ DEP-Vµ INT-C DEP-V a. n@nµ1.maµ2sˇµx ˚ ˚b. niµ1maµ2sˇµx ˚! ˚c. n@mµ1n@maµ2sˇµx ˚˚! ˚d. n@maµ2mµ1sˇµx ˚! ˚ ˚Progressive forms built on a C@CC root with a sonorant as one of the first twoconsonants do not appear to have an additional mora on the surface, contrary to thelexical entry in (156). However, progressive forms such as q@q@msat ‘be putting itaway’ are not counterexamples to the analysis given thus far and in fact providefurther evidence for a sequential (stratum-based) model of phonology. This isbecause all the roots which take the “mora-less” C@ progressive have a sonorant astheir second consonant. Clusters of the shape CCC are rare in Comox-Sliammon;clusters with a sonorant as a middle segment (Watanabe, 2003, p.393), since theyviolate the sonority hierarchy (Parker, 2011). If the second [@] was not presentin the word q@q@msat, this would create an illicit cluster *qms in the expectedprogressive form *q@qmsat, which could not surface as it would violate constraintsat a subsequent point in the derivation (i.e., Level 3) and trigger epenthesis ofanother [@] at a later stratum than Level 2.Thus, though on the surface, the number of moras in q@msat and q@q@msat isthe same: as shown in (163) for example (155) above, they each have three morasdespite the progressive affix itself being a mora (i.e., adding an additional mora).However, the progressive mora is affixed and filled at Level 2, while subsequent169epenthesis and resyllabification at a later stratum motivated by violations of thesonority hierarchy results in the loss of a mora. The situation is summarised inTable 4.9.26(163)Perfectiveq@msatσq @µmσsµaµtProgressiveq@q@msatσq @σq @µmσsµaµtTable 4.9: Number of Underlying and Surface Moras (C@SC Base)Form Number of MorasInputLevel 1 qmsat N/AOutputLevel 1 qmsaµ tµ 2InputLevel 2 µ + qmsaµ tµ 3OutputLevel 2 and InputLevel 3 q@qµmµsaµ tµ 4OutputLevel 3 q@q@mµsaµ tµ 3The reduplication of C@CC roots provides an argument against a parallel OTderivation: an additional stage of derivation following the affixation of theprogressive mora is needed to explain why the progressive and perfective formshave the same number of moras, despite the fact that reduplication occurs to fill anadditional (affixed) mora in the progressive forms.Table 4.10 summarises the constraint ranking needed to derive progressivereduplication in Comox-Sliammon. As this ranking proves sufficient for the26I do not include a mora associated with the vowel in the input in Table 4.9, though one maybe there underlyingly. Given that any vowel aside from /@/ will be moraic and only moraic vowelsare present in underlying forms in Comox-Sliammon, having moras either in the underlying formsor assigned by the phonological grammar at the point of syllabification will yield similar results. Inthe bigger picture, it is not clear if the underlying form of vowels should contain a mora. This is aquestion I intend to pursue in for future work as it has broader implications for the analysis of vowelsin Salish, particularly in languages that reduce moraic vowels to [@].170analysis of the other Level 2 reduplication process (discussed in the subsequentsection), this ranking will not need to be revised.Table 4.10: Comox-Sliammon Level 2 GrammarA PREFIX/µ , REALIZEMORPHEME,DEP-Vµ , *FLOAT,DEP-C, *COMPLEX,ONSET MAX-FLOATB INT-CC INT-VD DEP-V4.1.4.2 Level 2 C1C2 Reduplication4.1.4.2.1 Plural C1C2 ReduplicationIn plural C1C2 reduplication, the first two consonants of the root are copied with[@] positioned between the first instance of C1 and C2. Examples are provided in(164). Descriptively, plural C1C2 reduplication can be characterised as a prefixedC@C- reduplicant.(164) a. ’kw@xw„ ’kwaxwa (cf. ’kwaxwa ‘box’)C1C2.PL„box‘boxes’ (JF)b. jˇ@sˇ„jˇ@sˇ@n (cf. jˇ@sˇ@n ‘foot’)C1C2.PL„foot‘feet’ (JF)c. P@s„Pasxw (cf. Pasxw ‘seal’)C1C2.PL„seal‘seals’ (JF)Plural C1C2 reduplication is productive, as evident by its application to loanwords,such as in (165). The example in (165a) comes from rum, with the addition of thelexical suffix -aya ‘container’; (165b) comes from the English word cherries.171(165) a. l@m„lam-aya (cf. lamaya ‘bottle’)C1C2.PL„bottle‘bottles’ (JF)b. cˇ@l„cˇ@las (cf. cˇ@las ‘cherry’)C1C2.PL„cherry‘cherries’ (JF)According to Watanabe (2003), the only formal difference between Level 1property-denoting C1C2 reduplication and Level 2 plural C1C2 reduplication isin the glottalisation of sonorants. When the second consonant of the root is aglottalised sonorant, only one of the matching sonorants will be glottalised in theoutput. Glottalisation in property-denoting reduplication falls on the first of twomatching sonorants (as in t@ ’wtiwsˇ ‘smart’), while glottalisation in the plural formsfalls on the second (166).(166) a. ’t@m„’t@ ’mxw (cf. ’t@ ’mxw ‘gooseberry’)C1C2.PL„gooseberry‘gooseberries’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.373)b. cˇ@y„cˇu ’y (cf. cˇu ’y ‘child’)C1C2.PL„child‘children’ (EP)However, glottalisation is only relevant for sonorants, and as mentioned earlier, itis unreliable in modern Comox-Sliammon as a cue due to its variability.4.1.4.2.2 Analysis of Plural C1C2 ReduplicationPlural C1C2 reduplication happens at Level 2 to fill a syllable with a nucleus and anon-nuclear mora, as shown in (167). The lexical entry has a L2 diacritic to markit as a Level 2 affix. The strata where different types of C1C2 reduplication happenare revisited in the analysis of multiple reduplication in Chapter 5. See Section 5.5for a revised classification that distinguishes between plural diminutive verbs (atLevel 2) and nouns (at Level 1).(167) Comox-Sliammon Plural Reduplication (Word Level):(σN`µ )L2 ô xPLy172The constraint ranking established for the progressive also predicts the attestedform for plural C1C2 reduplication, as shown in the tableau in (168) for example(164c) above. The parentheses in the input to Level 2 correspond to syllables builtat Level 1. The attested candidate (168a) violates DEP-V and INT-C. Candidate(168b), which copies a vowel, fatally violates INT-V; candidate (168c), whichinfixes the affixed syllable, violates PREFIX/σ . A candidate with an epentheticfull vowel fatally violates DEP-Vµ (168d).(168)/σN`µ1 + (P aµ2 sµ3 xwµ4)/ PREFIX/σ DEP-Vµ INT-C INT-V DEP-V a. P@sµ1.Paµ2sµ3xwµ4 ˚˚ ˚b. Paµxsµ1.Paµ2sµ3xwµ4 ˚˚ ˚!c. Paµ2sµ3.P@sµ1xwµ4 ˚! ˚˚ ˚d. Piµxsµ1.Paµ2sµ3xwµ4 ˚! ˚˚ ˚*PaN,µPasxw is not considered as a candidate in the tableau above because it wouldnot satisfy the affixed prosodic unit: there must be at least one moraic segmentassociated with the syllable that is not the nucleus. The relevant constraint DEP-LINK-µ(N) is given in (169), restated from Section 4.1.3.2.2.27 It is violatedwhenever an association line is added between a nucleus and a mora that was notpresent in the input.(169) DEP-LINK-µ(N): When a nucleus is linked to a mora in the output, it isalso linked to a mora in the input.The tableau in (170) shows that a high ranking of either DEP-LINK-µ(N) or INT-Vrules out candidate (170a), which re-associates the mora with the nucleus to allowfor an open syllable to fill the affixed monomoraic syllable. Candidate (170a),which respects the structure of the input syllable, does not violate DEP-LINK-µ(N)nor INT-V; the attested candidate wins.2827This candidate would also be ruled for independent reasons: it fatally violates INT-V.28DEP-LINK-µ(N) is not strictly necessary for Comox-Sliammon at Level 2, given that anycandidates which associate the nucleus and the mora with the same (moraic) vowel would alsoviolate DEP-Vµ or INT-V; it is not possible to supply a moraic vowel through epenthesis or fission. Iinclude DEP-LINK-µ(N) here to pre-empt questions about whether a similar analysis can be extendedto other languages that allow vowels to be copied in C1C2 reduplication, such as Lushootseed(see Section 6.5.3.1). Specifically, this constraint is needed to ensure that an affixed σµ`N willyield CVµCµ rather than CVµ ,N because a moraic vowel undergoes fission in Lushootseed C1C2reduplication. If there is a possible source of a moraic vowel, then constraints like DEP-Vµ orINT-V alone are not sufficient to rule out candidates that associate N and µ with the same vowel.173(170)/σN`µ1 + (P aµ2 sµ3 xwµ4)/ DEP-LINK-µ (N) INT-C INT-V DEP-Va. PaN,µ1 .Paµ2sµ3xwµ4 ˚! ˚ ˚ b. P@sµ1.Paµ2sµ3xwµ4 ˚˚ ˚The form and position of plural C1C2 reduplication can therefore be derivedwith the same grammar as progressive C1 reduplication, provided PREFIX/σ andDEP-LINK-µ(N) are included as high-ranked constraints.4.1.4.3 Summary of Level 2 GrammarIn the last two sections, we have seen that plural C1C2 and progressive C1reduplication occur at Level 2 in Comox-Sliammon. Reduplication at Level 2 isphonologically regular and productive. The constraint rankings at Level 1 andLevel 2 are summarised in (171).(171) a. Level 1 Ranking:A INT-V MAXFLT,*FLOAT,MAX,PREFIX/σ ,DEP-C,*COMPLEXONSET,DEP-Vµ ,DEPL-µ (N),ONSETB DEP-VC MIN=2σ PREFIX/µ ,PREFIXD PRIORITY,MAX-CONTIGE INT-C174b. Level 2 Ranking:A PREFIX/µ , REALIZEMORPHEME,DEP-Vµ , *FLOAT,DEP-C, *COMPLEX,ONSET, MAX-FLOATPREFIX/σ DEP-LINK-µ(N)B INT-CC INT-VD DEP-VEvery type of Level 2 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon involves fission ofconsonants, but only progressive C1 reduplication allows a vowel to be copiedas well. The prosodic units for reduplication are prefixed in the input, thoughthe segment associated with the prosodic affix may surface in an infixed position,as shown in (172) for n@nmasˇ ‘throwing it’ from (154c) above. However, theaffixed mora remains the leftmost mora in the output due to the high ranking ofPREFIX/µ . In other words, the affixed mora remains on the left edge in the outputon the prosodic tier (i.e., the first mora), but it will not be the leftmost consonantin the phonological string because onset consonants are not moraic.(172) a. Input to Level 2: µ PROG + nm + asˇb. Output of Level 2:σn @µ PROGnσmµaµsˇThe constraints pertaining to diacritics on the affixes, introduced and motivatedin Chapter 3 (Section 3.5.2.3), are summarised for both strata in Table 4.11. Thedifference between the two rankings is that AFFIXL2, which is violated when anaffix with an L2 diacritic is parsed into prosodic structure, is now ranked lower thanPARSEAFFIX, which is violated by unparsed affixes. This motivates the integrationof Level 2 affixes into the prosodic word during the Level 2 derivation.175Table 4.11: Affix Constraints at Level 1 vs. Level 2Level 1 Level 2A AFFIXL2, AFFIXL3AFFIXL3B PARSEAFFIX PARSEAFFIXC AFFIXL2Level 1 and Level 2 affixes include five of the seven reduplicative processes foundin Comox-Sliammon. The last two reduplicative morphemes are discussed in thenext section.4.1.5 Level 3All reduplication at the third stratum in Comox-Sliammon copies a vowel. Thesegments associated with the affixed prosodic unit associated with the reduplicativemorpheme surface in an infixed position.The two types of reduplication that occur at Level 3 are change-of-state C2 andplural V1 reduplication. Change-of-state C2 reduplication involves the affixationof a syllable (without any pre-associated mora or other structure); plural V1reduplication involves the affixation of a mora and a floating constricted glottisfeature ([c.g.]). Properties of reduplication at Level 3 include (1) reduplication ofboth moraic and non-moraic vowels and (2) infixation of segments associated withreduplication, despite the morphemes being prefixes at the point of morphologicallinearisation.Table 4.12: Level 3 ReduplicationUnderlying Form Surface PositionPlural V1 µ [c.g.] InfixChange-of-State C2 σ Infix1764.1.5.1 Level 3 C2 Reduplication4.1.5.1.1 Change-of-State C2 ReduplicationA change of state is marked by the doubling of the second consonant of the rootand the preceding vowel, with the copy positioned immediately following the firstconsonant of the root. The copied vowel may be moraic (as in 173a–e), or non-moraic vowel (as in 173f).(173) a. ’pău ’qwąu ’qw (root: ’pu ’qw- ‘grey’)greyăCOSą‘It is fading.’ (EP)b. ’kwăasąas=cˇ (root: ’kwas- ‘hot’)hotăCOSą=1SG.SUBJ‘I am getting warm.’ (MV/WJF)c. ’kwăasąas-aPaq (root: ’kwas- ‘hot’)hotăCOSą-wind‘It is getting warm.’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.349)d. qw@lcome’ňăi ’qąi ’qiwdarkăCOSą(root: ’ňi ’qiw ‘dark’)‘It is starting to get dark.’ (FL)e. qw@’l ’ňăax.ąax. (root: ’ňax. - ‘old’)come oldăCOSą‘He’s getting to be grown/older.’ (FL)f. ’ňă@ ’qą@ ’q (root: ’ň ’q- ‘rot’)rotăCOSą‘It has gotten rotten.’ (EP/FL)4.1.5.1.2 Analysis of Change-of-State C2 ReduplicationChanges of state in Comox-Sliammon are formed via the affixation of a syllablewith no segmental content or pre-associated structure. The lexical entry is given in(174), which bears a diacritic specifying it as a Level 3 affix.177(174) Comox-Sliammon Change-of-State Reduplication:σL3 ô xCOSyWhile reduplicated segments in examples such as ’ňi ’qi ’qiw ‘it got dark’ in (173d)above and ’kwasasaPaq ‘it is getting warm’ in (173c) are positioned on the surfaceas infixes, I analyse the affixed syllable as a prefix, like all reduplicative morphemesin Comox-Sliammon. The proposed structure for ’kwasasaPaq is given in (175).The onset of the word remains in the initial position, but becomes the onset for theaffixed syllable, regardless of word length.(175) a.σ COS +Level 3 Input:σ’kwµaσsµaσPµaµqσ + ’kwasaPaqb.Level 3 Output:σ COS’kwµăaσsąµaσsµaσPµaµq’kwasasaPaqThe constraint PREFIX/σ is crucial at Level 3 to ensure the affixed syllable surfacesas the leftmost syllable in the output, despite the fact that the associated segmentsappear as infixed (violating PREFIX). PREFIX/σ , first given in Section 4.1.3.1.2, isrestated in (176).(176) PREFIX/σ : A prefix is not preceded by a syllable.The other constraint needed to derive C2 reduplication is one that preventsfission of the first segment in a word. I adopt the insights of Casali (1997) with178respect to the position-sensitive faithfulness and special status of word-initialsegments. Casali proposes a family of MAX constraints that make reference todifferent positions, and I extend this proposal to the set of INTEGRITY constraints.INTEGRITYWORD-INITIAL is defined in (177).29(177) INTEGRITYWORD-INITIAL (INT-WI): No word-initial element of the inputhas multiple correspondents in the output.The tableau in (178) gives the derivation of ’ň@ ’q@ ’q ‘it has gotten rotten’ from (173f)above.30 The subscript syllable shows the output position of the syllable thatcorresponds to the change-of-state morpheme. Both PREFIX/σ and INTEGRITY-WI must be highly ranked to rule out candidates including one that infixes thesyllable (178a), and one that copies the initial segment (178b). Candidates (178c-d)have epenthesis and fatally violate the DEP constraints. Finally, candidate (178e),which avoids reduplicating the initial segment by creating an onsetless syllable, isruled out by ONSET. The attested candidate (178f) only violates INT-V and INT-C,which means these are crucially ranked beneath the other constraints.(178)/σ+ ’ň@ ’q/ INT-WI PREFIX/σ ONSET DEP-V DEP-C INT-V INT-Ca. ’ň@. ’q@ ’qσ ˚! ˚ ˚b. ’ň@σ .’ň@ ’q ˚! ˚ ˚c. ’ňiσ . ’q@ ’q ˚! ˚d. P@σ1.’ň@ ’q ˚! ˚e. @σ .’ň@ ’q ˚! ˚ f. ’ň@σ . ’q@ ’q ˚ ˚The tableau in (179) for ’ňi ’qi ’qiw ‘got dark’ in example (173d) above shows that theconstraints and ranking given thus far also predict fission of the correct consonantin multi-syllabic words. ONSET, DEP-V, and DEP-C are omitted from this tableaubecause they are not violated by any of the candidates considered.29While INTEGRITYWORD-INITIAL could be split into INTEGRITY-VWORD-INITIAL and INTEGRITY-CWORD-INITIAL as I have done for INTEGRITY (motivated in Section 4.1.3.1.2), this does not impactthe analysis because ONSET is ranked high enough that the first segment of a word will always be aconsonant. INTEGRITYWORD-INITIAL will only affect consonants.30*FLOAT, MAX-FLOAT, and REALIZEMORPHEME are undominated across all strata aretherefore not included in this tableau or the others for Level 3.179(179)/σ+ ’ňi. ’qiw/ INT-WI PREFIX/σ INT-V INT-C a. ’ňiσ . ’qi. ’qiw ˚ ˚b. ’ňi. ’qiσ . ’qiw ˚! ˚ ˚c. ’ňiσ .’ňi. ’qiw ˚! ˚ ˚d. ’ňi. ’qi.wiwσ ˚! ˚ ˚The preliminary rankings needed at Level 3 to predict the correct position andshape of the change-of-state C2 reduplication are summarised in Table 4.13.Table 4.13: Comox-Sliammon Level 3 Grammar (Preliminary)A DEP-V DEP-C, REALIZEMORPHEME,ONSET *FLOAT,MAX-FLOATPREFIX/σ ,INT-WIB INT-V INT-C4.1.5.2 Level 3 V1 Reduplication4.1.5.2.1 Plural V1 ReduplicationPlural V1 reduplication copies the initial vowel of the word. A glottal stop separatesthe two matching vowels (180).(180) a. ìăuPąuăìą’t-ut (root: ìu ’t- ‘sip’)sipăV1.PLąăDIMą-CTR‘sipping’ (EP/FL)b. jˇăuPąuăyą-Tut (root: jˇuT- ‘push’)pushăV1.PLąăDIMą-CTR+REFL‘pushing over and over’ (JF)c. cˇăiPąiăcˇąì-@m (root: cˇiì- ‘dance’)danceăV1.PLąăDIMą-MID‘dancing here and there’ (EP)180d. ’tăuPąuă’tąìaì (cf. ’tuìaì ‘bed’)bedăV1.PLąăDIMą‘little beds’ (EP)e. săuPąuăsąpayu (cf. supayu ‘axe’)axeăV1.PLąăDIMą‘little axes’ (PD)Plural V1 is limited in its distribution and is found only in contexts with multiplereduplication.31 Even though V1 reduplication does not occur outside of multiplereduplication, I include it in this chapter because it merits a separate lexical entry,for two reasons. First, it occurs with more than one other type of reduplication: inparticular, it co-occurs with both diminutive C1, as shown above in (180), and withplural C1C2 reduplication as shown in (181) below.32(181) a. năaPąax.„n@x. -at-as (root: nx. - ‘cut a line’)C1C2.PLăV1.PLą„cut.line-CTR-3ERG‘They (sg.) are cutting lines (intermittent/right now).’ (BW)b. ìăaPąa ’kw„ìu ’kw (root: ìu ’kw- ‘fly’)C1C2.PLăV1.PLą„fly‘flying around’ (BW)c. jˇăaPąa ’ň„jˇ@ ’ňC1C2.PLăV1.PLą„runt@=cˇ@y„cˇuy (root: jˇ ’ň- ‘run’)DET=C1C2.PL„child‘The children are running around.’ (BW)Second, words with V1 and another prosodic affix can be given a compositionalsemantic analysis where each morpheme contributes its own meaning. V1reduplication typically marks temporal pluractionality with verbs (Mellesmoen etal., 2020), as shown in (180a–d) and (181) above, though it also denotes pluralentities when it occurs on diminutive nouns, as shown in (180e).31My analysis does not fully explain this distributional fact. This is a topic of broader relevanceto Salish that deserves further study; for example, the diminutive in Halkomelem always co-occurswith imperfective aspect, which is also a reduplicative morpheme (see Section 5.3.1.2).32The examples in (181) are built on C1C2 reduplicated forms that have an additional change invowel quality, which is discussed in Chapter 5 (Section 5.5.6.1). The input at Level 3 for jˇaPa ’ňjˇ@ ’ň in(181c) is µ + jˇa ’ňjˇ@ ’ň (not µ + jˇ@ ’ňjˇ@ ’ň).181V1 reduplication is productive within its restricted domain (multiplereduplication). Loanwords are also attested with V1, which supports theinclusion of V1 reduplication as a part of the synchronic grammar. For example,the diminutive plural of the loanword cˇikins ‘chicken’ is formed with V1reduplication, as shown in (182).33(182) cˇăiPąiăcˇąkin[i]s-uì (cf. cˇikins ‘chicken’)chickenăV1.PLąăDIMą-young‘small chickens’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.401)Treatments of V1 reduplication differ across the literature: for example,(Watanabe, 2003, pp.401–404) treats these forms as single reduplication (e.g.,a CVPV process), rather than multiple reduplication. However, the fact thatV1 reduplication occurs with more than one type of reduplication and has anidentifiable semantic contribution requires an independent lexical entry.While the focus of this chapter is on individual reduplication patterns, thefact that V1 reduplication must combine with a word that already has Level 1 C1reduplication or Level 2 C1C2 reduplication provides evidence for it being a Level3 affix, because it must apply after Level 2 reduplication.4.1.5.2.2 Analysis of Plural V1 ReduplicationPlural V1 reduplication involves affixation of a µ at Level 3 together with a floatingconstricted glottis feature ([c.g.]), which is realised as a glottal stop. The lexicalentry for V1 reduplication is provided in (183). The lexical entry bears an L3diacritic, requiring the affix to be parsed during the Level 3 derivation.(183) Comox-Sliammon V1 Reduplication:(µ [c.g.])L3 ô xV1.PLyI assume the least marked consonants in Comox-Sliammon are the glottalconsonants (/h/ and /P/); [h] is the default in intervocalic environments (Blake,2000, p.45). I adopt the feature specifications for place in Table 4.14 from Blake33The [i] in square brackets is epenthetic.182(2000, pp.56–59). Both epenthetic consonants have a place node with a dependentpharyngeal feature ([PHAR]) in her analysis.34,35Table 4.14: Place FeaturesLAB COR DOR PHARLabial ✓Coronal ✓Alveopalatal ✓Velar (Plain) ✓Velar (Round) ✓ ✓Uvular (Plain) ✓ ✓Uvular (Round) ✓ ✓ ✓Glottal ✓The difference between /P/ and /h/ is that /P/ has a laryngeal node with aconstricted glottis feature ([c.g.]); this is why [P] is epenthesized instead of [h]in V1 reduplication, despite [h] being the default epenthetic consonant in anintervocalic environment.Turning to the position of V1 reduplication, an example of the prosodicstructure is provided in (184) for example (180e) above. The affixed prosodic unitoccurs on the left edge (in a prefixed position), and the fissioned segments areinfixed. The epenthetic glottal stop is positioned between the fissioned vowels.34These are phonological features: [P] and [h] are not pronounced as pharyngeal consonants.35In order to correctly predict that [PHAR] is the least marked place feature, I assume theconstraint ranking in (i).(i) DEP[LAB], DEP[COR], DEP[DOR] ąą DEP[PHAR]183(184) a. µV1.PL [c.g.] +Level 3 Input:σsµuµsσpµaσyµuµ , [c.g.] + suspayub.Level 3 Output:σxsµV1.PLăuσPąµuµsσpµaσyµusuPuspayuThe tableau in (185) shows how the V1 forms fare under the constraint rankingestablished for the derivation of C2 reduplication.36 I assume that PREFIX/µand PREFIX/σ are both ranked high at Level 3, but I omit PREFIX/σ in thissection for space. Epenthesis of the expected default consonant [h] fatally violatesMAX-FLOAT (185b), as the [c.g.] feature is absent (i.e., [h] is has no [c.g.]feature). A candidate where the affixed mora is not the leftmost one fatally violatesPREFIX/µ (185c); a candidate with vowel hiatus is eliminated by ONSET (185d).The glottalisation of a sonorant later in the word is therefore blocked by the needfor an onset.36Though the flat linear ranking for the Level 3 grammar has DEP-C ąą INT-V/INT-C, a pair-wise ranking was not established between DEP-C and INT-V. This is reflected in the tableau withthe dotted line.184(185)/µ1 [c.g.] + sus.pa.yu/ PREFIX/µ MAXFLT ONSET DEP-C INT-V a. suµ1.Pus.pa.yu ˚ ˚b. suµ1.hus.pa.yu ˚! ˚ ˚c. su.Puµ1s.pa.yu ˚! ˚ ˚d. suµ1.us.pa. ’yu ˚! ˚ ˚With the current ranking, there is indeterminacy between candidates with aglottal stop as the onset of the first syllable (unattested) and the second syllable(attested). This can be resolved with a constraint from the ANCHORING familyof faithfulness constraints (e.g., McCarthy & Prince, 1994, p.37). The constraint,given in (186), is violated when the first segment of the output word does not havea corresponding segment in the same position in the input.(186) ANCHOR-L(Word, Segment):Any segment at the left periphery of a word in the output has acorrespondent at the left periphery of an input word.The tableau in (187) shows how ANCHOR-L rules out a candidate with a word-initial [P].(187)/µ1 [c.g.] + suspayu/ ANCHOR-L DEP-C INT-V a. suµ1Puspayu ˚ ˚b. Puµ1suspayu ˚! ˚ ˚The C2 and V1 reduplication patterns appear to pose a ranking paradox: DEP-C needs to be below INT-C for epenthesis to occur for V1 reduplication, while C2reduplication needs the reverse ranking for fission to occur. The tableau in (188)shows that the ranking needed for C2 reduplication (DEP-C ąą INT-C) predictsthe wrong candidate if [c.g.] can target a different segment in the word in additionto fission of a consonant.(188)/µ1 [c.g.] + sus.pa.yu/ MAXFLT DEP-C INT-V INT-C/ a. suµ1.Pus.pa.yu ˚! ˚b. suµ1.sus.pa.yu ˚! c. suµ1.sus.pa. ’yu ˚ ˚185The ranking paradox can be solved by ensuring the faithfulness constraint thatpenalises changes to the [c.g.] specification of a segment is ranked above DEP-C.IDENT-IO[C.G.] is defined in (189).37(189) IDENT-IO[C.G.] (IDENT[C.G.]): The specification (or lack ofspecification) for the feature [c.g.] of an input segment must bepreserved in its output correspondent.When IDENT-IO[C.G.] is ranked above DEP-C, candidate (190a) – with fissionproviding an onset and glottalisation of a sonorant – can be ruled out. Thisallows for the attested candidate (190b) to win. This solution does not affectC2 reduplication because DEP-C remains above INT-C, which permits fission tooccur in the absence of [c.g.].(190)/µ [c.g.] + sus.pa.yu/ MAX[C.G] IDENT[C.G.] DEP-C INT-V INT-Ca. suµ .sus.pa. ’yu ˚! ˚ ˚ b. suµ1Puspayu ˚ ˚c. suµ .sus.pa.yu ˚!The revised constraint ranking for the Level 3 grammar is given in Table 4.15.Table 4.15: Comox-Sliammon Level 3 Grammar (Updated)A ONSET, DEP-V REALIZEMORPHEME,IDENT[C.G.] *FLOAT,ANCHOR-L,INTEGRITY-WI,PREFIX/σ ,PREFIX/µ ,MAX-FLOATB DEP-C INT-VC INT-C37IDENT-IO[C.G.] would be lower ranked at the previous two strata: when a glottalised sonorantundergoes fission in C1C2 reduplication, only one of the sonorants in the output is glottalised (seeSection 4.1.4.2.1).1864.1.5.3 Summary of Level 3 GrammarChange-of-state C2 and plural V1 reduplication are Level 3 affixes. The C2 processinvolves the affixation of an empty syllable, while the V1 process involves theaffixation of an empty mora and a constricted glottis feature. Similar to Level2 reduplication, the Level 3 reduplicative processes are phonologically regular,though V1 reduplication is highly restricted in distribution, because it is restrictedto contexts of multiple reduplication.At Level 3, vowels undergo fission to fill affixed prosodic units, which may beaccompanied by fission of a consonant (C2 reduplication), or the epenthesis of aconsonant (V1 reduplication). Segments reduplicated at this stratum are positionedas infixes, though the affixed mora or syllable remains leftmost in the output. Theconstraint ranking across all three strata is summarised in (191).(191) a. Level 1 Ranking:A INT-V MAXFLT,*FLOAT,MAX,PREFIX/σ ,DEP-C,*COMPLEXONSET,DEP-Vµ ,DEPL-µ (N),ONSETB DEP-VC MIN=2σ PREFIX/µPREFIXD PRIORITY,MAX-CONTIGE INT-C187b. Level 2 Ranking:A PREFIX/µ , REALIZEMORPHEME,DEP-Vµ , *FLOAT,DEP-C, *COMPLEX,ONSET, MAX-FLOATPREFIX/σ DEP-LINK-µ(N)B INT-CC INT-VD DEP-Vc. Level 3 Ranking:A ONSET, DEP-V REALIZEMORPHEME,IDENT[C.G.] *FLOAT,ANCHOR-L,INTEGRITY-WI,PREFIX/σ ,PREFIX/µ ,MAX-FLOATB DEP-C INT-VC INT-CLevel 3 reduplicative processes differ from Level 1 and Level 2 processes becausethey not only allow for the reduplication of vowels (in contrast to what occursat Level 1), but they also always have a reduplicated vowel (in contrast to whatoccurs at Level 2). The vowel copied at Level 3 may be [@], which does not happenat earlier strata.The constraints pertaining to affix-parsing diacritics, introduced and motivatedin Chapter 3 (Section 3.5.2.3), are summarised in Table 4.16 for all three strata.In the Level 3 grammar, PARSEAFFIX is ranked higher than AFFIXL2 and AFFIXL3,which ensures that all affixes in the input are parsed into the prosodic word; inother words, if a given AFFIX constraint is ranked above PARSEAFFIX, then anyaffix marked for the level denoted by the AFFIX constraint is left unparsed in theoutput of that stratum.188Table 4.16: Comox-Sliammon Affix ConstraintsLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3A AFFIXL2, AFFIXL3 PARSEAFFIXAFFIXL3B PARSEAFFIX PARSEAFFIX AFFIXL2,AFFIXL3C AFFIXL24.1.6 Summary of Reduplication in Comox-SliammonIn this section, I consider the full set of constraints introduced throughout thediscussion of all three strata. These will be presented in batches that allow forcomparison; batches represent partial rankings and constraints in the top row maydominated by other constraints not given in a particular table. I focus on stratathat are relevant for reduplication; the total number of strata in the language is notlimited to three.In Table 4.17, the constraints relevant to parsing affixes are consideredalongside the constraints that motivate reduplication. In the Level 1 grammar,both AFFIXL2 and AFFIXL3 must be above *FLOAT and PARSEAFFIX, while onlyAFFIXL3 is above them in the Level 2 grammar. The re-ranking allows for theLevel 2 affixes to be parsed into the prosodic word and for their associatedprosodic units to be filled at Level 2. At Level 3, both AFFIXL2 and AFFIXL3 areranked below the other constraints, which allows for all affixes to be parsed intothe prosodic word. MAXFLOAT, MAX, and REALIZEMORPHEME are ranked highacross all strata as they are not violated in the reduplicated examples considered.189Table 4.17: Constraints Motivating Parsing and FillingLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3A REALIZEMORPHEME, REALIZEMORPHEME, REALIZEMORPHEME,MAX, MAX, MAX,MAXFLT MAXFLT, MAXFLT,AFFIXL2, AFFIXL3 PARSEAFFIX,AFFIXL3 *FLOATB *FLOAT, *FLOAT, AFFIXL2,PARSEAFFIX PARSEAFFIX AFFIXL3C AFFIXL2Next, I compare constraints motivating fission and epenthesis in Table 4.18.Across all three strata, *FLOAT, *COMPLEX, and DEP-Vµ are highly rankedrelative to the other constraints.38 All three strata tolerate violations of INT-C,which means consonants may be reduplicated. A difference between the stratais that INT-V outranks DEP-V in the Level 1 grammar, but not in the Level 2 orLevel 3 grammars. Vowels are only reduplicated at the later two strata. Finally,only the Level 3 grammar permits epenthesis of a consonant, which is reflected inthe lower ranking of DEP-C at Level 3, relative to the other strata.38DEP-Vµ does not crucially outrank DEP-V at Level 1 because anything that violates DEP-Vµalso violates DEP-V; Dep-Vµ is in Row A because it is never violated, while DEP-V may be.190Table 4.18: Constraints Motivating Fission and EpenthesisLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3A *FLOAT, *FLOAT, *FLOAT,*COMPLEX, *COMPLEX, *COMPLEX,DEP-Vµ , DEP-Vµ , DEP-Vµ ,ONSET, ONSET, ONSET,DEP-C, DEP-C, DEP-VDEPL-µ(N), DEPL-µ(N)INT-VB DEP-V INT-C DEP-C,INT-VC INT-C INT-V INT-CD DEP-VUnclear DEPL-µ(N)Constraints that deal with consonant epenthesis and a floating [c.g.] featureare given in Table 4.19. As there are only two rows needed to display theserankings, I use the labels ”high” and ”low” in this table. MAX-FLOAT is rankedhigh across all three strata: an input [c.g.] feature must be realised.39 However,when a glottalised sonorant undergoes fission at Level 1 and Level 2, only oneof the resulting sonorants is glottalised, meaning IDENT[C.G.] is not ranked ashighly as it is at Level 3. Further, there is no epenthesis of consonants at Level1 and Level 2, so DEP-C is ranked high. In contrast, DEP-C may be violated atLevel 3, allowing for glottal stop epenthesis.Table 4.19: Constraints Related to Consonant FeaturesLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3High MAXFLT, MAXFLT, MAXFLT,DEP-C, DEP-C, IDENT[C.G.],Low IDENT[C.G.] IDENT[C.G.] DEP-C39MAX-FLOAT can be violated at later strata, however. A floating [c.g.] feature has been proposedas part of the underlying representation of the past tense marker -Pì; a [P] or glottalised sonorant isoften absent in past tense forms (Blake, 2000, p.43).191The constraints that relate to alignment and the position of the reduplicativemorpheme are summarised in Table 4.20. Across all strata, PREFIX/σ is neverviolated; reduplicative morphemes always occur as part of the first syllable of theword. Further, PREFIX/µ is not violated at Level 2 or Level 3; it is only rankedlow enough to allow infixation beyond the first mora at Level 1. INTEGRITY-WI isonly ranked high in the Level 3 grammar; the first consonant of a word can undergofission at Level 1 or Level 2, but not at Level 3. Finally, ANCHOR-L is necessarilyranked high at Level 3; it can also be ranked high at Level 1 or Level 2 because itis not violated by any attested type of reduplication.Table 4.20: Constraints Related to Alignment and PositionLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3High PREFIX/σ PREFIX/σ , PREFIX/σ ,ANCHOR-L PREFIX/µ PREFIX/µ ,ANCHOR-L INTEGRITY-WI,ANCHOR-LLow PREFIX/µ , PREFIX PREFIXPREFIX INTEGRITY-WIINTEGRITY-WIFinally, the constraints MIN=2σ and PRIORITY are considered alongsideDEP-V and INT-V. The only stratum where a ranking between all four constraintscan be established is Level 1. There are no Level 2 or Level 3 reduplicativemorphemes with listed allomorphs, which means PRIORITY cannot be ranked.Given that monosyllabic progressive forms are possible at Level 2 (e.g., ’cˇ@ ’cˇì‘raining’), MIN=2σ cannot be ranked above DEP-V and INT-V at either Level1 or 2. MIN=2σ cannot be evaluated at Level 3: both reduplicative processesat this stratum add a syllable. However, MIN=2σ is likely ranked low in theLevel 3 grammar as well. I assume all words pass through all strata; if MIN=2σwere ranked higher than DEP-V, then epenthesis should be triggered to avoidmonosyllabic words.192Table 4.21: Allomorph Selection and Vowel/Syllable ConstraintsLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3A INT-V INT-V DEP-VB DEP-V DEP-V INT-VC MIN=2σ MIN=2σD PRIORITYUnclear PRIORITY PRIORITY,MIN=2σI do not compare DEP-LINK-µ(N) across strata as I assume it is highly rankedacross strata, though other constraints ensure the same outcome at Level 1 andLevel 2, which have reduplicative morphemes with σN+µ as an input. DEP-LINK-µ(N) is not relevant for Level 3, which only has µ and σ as input units.Overall, the differences between reduplicative morphemes in Comox-Sliammon arise from different constraint rankings at each stratum, in addition to arange of different inputs (lexical entries), as summarised in Table 4.22.Table 4.22: Lexical Entries in Comox-SliammonLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3µ-type µ1 ą i2 µL2 (µ [c.g.])L3µ1 ą a2σ -type σN+µ (σN+µ )L2 σL34.2 Case Study II: LillooetThe second case study in this chapter concerns reduplication in Lillooet. In Section4.2.1, I first present some relevant facts about the general phonological grammarof the language, followed by a preview of the grammar of reduplication in Section4.2.2. Description, data, and analysis are then presented for reduplication at Level1 (Section 4.2.3) and Level 2 (Section 4.2.4). A triplication pattern found at a laterstratum is described in Section 4.2.5.1934.2.1 Lillooet PhonologyKey aspects of Lillooet phonology that pertain to reduplication include (i) stressassignment, and (ii) the behaviour of schwa (in comparison to the full vowels /a/,/i/, and /u/).Feet in Lillooet are optimally binary (Van Eijk 1981; Roberts 1993;Revithiadou 1999). Stress assignment interacts with constraints on syllablestructure, which determine the distribution of [@]. For example, [@] is usually notstressed if a moraic vowel is available.40 This is a common cross-Salish pattern(see, e.g., Dyck’s 2004 analysis of stress in Squamish).Matthewson (1994) argues that the distribution of [@] is predictable andtherefore does not need to be included in underlying representations. Herarguments are similar to the ones that Blake (2000) later makes for Comox-Sliammon; however, the phonological grammar of each language yieldsdifferences in the distribution of [@] and stress assignment. In contrast tofixed-initial stress in Comox-Sliammon, where the position of stress and edge ofthe prosodic word invariably coincide (see Section 4.1.1), Lillooet has a morecomplicated stress system. Not only is there stress assignment and shift withindifferent domains, but the grammar that governs these domains is also different(i.e., the position of stress can be different at Level 2 than it was at Level 1). Stressis discussed alongside Level 2 reduplication in Section 4.2.4.4.2.2 Preview of Lillooet ReduplicationLillooet has three types of C1 reduplication (initial, plural, and diminutive),one type of C1C2 reduplication (plural/property-denoting), and one type of C2reduplication (change-of-state). There is also a pattern of C22 reduplication (i.e.,triplication). The types of reduplication considered in Lillooet are previewed inTable 4.23.40A stressed schwa surfaces regardless of other vowels with diminutive reduplication, as discussedin Section 4.2.4.2.3, however.194Table 4.23: Preview of Lillooet Reduplicative AffixesStratum Type Affix SectionLevel 1 Initial C1 σ 4.2.3.1Plural/Property-Denoting C1C2 σN`µ 4.2.3.2.1Level 2 Change-of-State C2 σ 4.2.4.1.1Pluractional C1 µ [c.g.] 4.2.4.2.1Diminutive C1 µ [stress] [c.g.] 4.2.4.2.3Level 2+n Triplication C22 Ft 4.2.54.2.3 Level 1There are two types of Level 1 reduplication in Lillooet: (i) initial C1 reduplication,and (ii) plural/property-denoting C1C2 reduplication. Initial C1 reduplication fillsan affixed syllable (unspecified for structure), and plural/property-denoting C1C2reduplication fills an affixed monomoraic syllable (with an empty nucleus). Level1 reduplication in Lillooet is summarised in Table 4.24.Table 4.24: Level 1 Reduplicative AffixesUnderlying Form Surface PositionInitial C1 σ PrefixPlural/Property-Denoting C1C2 σN`µ Prefix4.2.3.1 Level 1 C1 Reduplication4.2.3.1.1 Initial C1 ReduplicationInitial C1 reduplication copies the first consonant of the root. There is a [@]epenthesized between the two matching consonants, as shown in (192).(192) a. k@„k’la´xw (cf. k ’laxw ‘muskrat’)C1.INIT„muskrat‘muskrat(s)’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56)195b. n-x.@„x. zu´m-anaP (root: x. zum ‘big’)LOC-C1.INIT„big-ear‘big ears’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57)c. s-qw@„qw ’lı´p (cf. sqw ’lip ‘black tree moss’)NMLZ-C1.INIT„black.tree.moss‘lots of black tree moss’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57)d. qw@„qw ’lı´t-a ’z (cf. qwlı´ta ’z ‘jackpine’)C1.INIT„jackpine-tree‘jackpines’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.58)e. c@„cı´txw (cf. citxw ‘house’)C1.INIT„house‘houses (collective)’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.58)There is variability in the meaning of initial C1 reduplication: it shows a higherdegree of lexicalization in both form and function than the other C1 reduplicationprocesses in Lillooet (see description of diminutive and plural C1 reduplication inSection 4.2.4.2). Initial C1 reduplication is most often associated with plurality,as shown in the examples in (192) above; in contrast, the examples in (193) markcontinuative aspect. The label “initial” refers to form (prefixed to the left edge) ofC1 reduplication rather than function.(193) a. xw ı´„xwit@n (cf. xwit@n ‘whistle’)C1.INIT„whistle‘keep whistling’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.27)b. P@s-ta´„taì-l@x (cf. P@sta´ìl@x ‘standing’)STAT-C1.INIT„stand-AUT‘keep standing’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56)Initial C1 reduplication is restricted to certain lexical items (H. Davis &Mellesmoen, 2023, p.27): however, the examples in (193) above exemplify afurther lexicalised pattern where the first vowel of the root is a copy (instead ofan epenthetic [@]). I assume that vowels are not copied in any productive Lillooetreduplication process. I treat these CV forms as lexically-specified reduplication196patterns at Level 1.41 The following analysis focuses on [@] forms.While initial reduplication has a restricted distribution, it is phonologicallyregular (see discussion of phonologically regular and active reduplication inSection 1.4.3.2); the [@] forms can be derived with the same set of constraints asLevel 1 C1C2 reduplication (see Section 4.2.3.2.2). In Chapter 5, I further showthat multiple reduplication patterns with initial C1 reduplication are also consistentwith reduplication being present as an active Level 1 phonological process (seeSection 5.4).4.2.3.1.2 Analysis of Initial C1 ReduplicationInitial C1 reduplication in Lillooet is an affixed σ that receives segmental contentat Level 1. The lexical entry is given in (194). As an affix parsed at Level 1, thereis no diacritic needed on (194).(194) Lillooet Initial Reduplication:σ ô xINITyThe affix parsing constraints and their ranking across strata are given in Chapter3 (Section 3.5.2.3). As the rankings of PARSEAFFIX and AFFIXL2 are determinedby the stratum, there is no need to discuss them for any individual pattern; I willdiscuss them as part of the summary of Level 1 (Section 4.2.3.3), Level 2 (Section4.2.4.4), and the overall grammar (Section 4.2.6).As in the analysis of Comox-Sliammon in Section 4.1, REALIZEMORPHEME,MAX-FLOAT, and *FLOAT are relevant for ensuring that floating prosodic unitsor features in the input are associated with segmental content in the output. Theconstraints, first defined in Section 4.1.3.1.2, are restated in (195).41The function and form of the CV realisation of Initial C1 reduplication resemble the CentralSalish C1 aspectual reduplication, discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.5.3.2); these may be borrowingsfrom Squamish, while the [@] forms likely have an old plural marker (H. Davis, p.c.). It occurs withfewer than five roots in Lillooet.197(195) a. REALIZEMORPHEME (RM): Let α be a morphological form,β be a morphosyntactic category, and F(α) be the phonologicalform from which F(α+β ) is derived to express a morphosyntacticcategory β . Then RM is satisfied with respect to β iff F(α+β )‰F(α)phonologically.(Kurisu, 2001, p.39)b. MAX-FLOAT (MAXFLT): All prosodic units or features that arefloating in the input have output correspondents.(modified from Wolf, 2005, p.370)c. *FLOAT: @p P O, where p is a prosodic unit or phonological feature:Ds, where s is a segment, and p dominates or is associated with s.(modified from Saba Kirchner 2013, p.232)The constraints in (195) will only be shown in the first tableau for Lillooet; theywill only be mentioned afterwards in summaries of the constraint rankings orwhere further discussion is needed (e.g., in relation to MAX-FLOAT in the contextof glottalisation in Section 4.2.4.3). REALIZEMORPHEME and MAX-FLOAT areundominated in the Level 1 grammar; *FLOAT is dominated by constraints againstparsing affixes with diacritics (e.g., *AFFIXL2). As in Comox-Sliammon, thechoice of segments to fill the affixed prosodic unit is determined by the relativeranking of faithfulness constraints. The relevant constraints, first defined inSection 4.1.3.1.2, are restated in (196). DEP is violated by epenthesis; INTEGRITYis violated by fission. DEP and INTEGRITY are each separated into two constraints:one assesses consonants and the other vowels.(196) a. DEP Constraints:i. DEP-V: A vowel in the output must have an input correspondent.ii. DEP-C: A consonant in the output must have an inputcorrespondent.b. INTEGRITY Constraints:i. INTEGRITY-V: A vowel in the input must not have multiplecorrespondents in the output.198ii. INTEGRITY-C: A consonant in the input must not have multiplecorrespondents in the output.While [@] is the default epenthetic vowel, I use [i] to represent an epentheticmoraic vowel when necessary to rule out unattested candidates. I use [P] torepresent epenthetic consonant in unattested forms in tableaux for consistencyacross languages (see explanation in Section 4.1.3.1.2); however, note that thedefault epenthetic consonant in Lillooet is /h/.The tableau in (197) for example (192) above shows that the attested candidate(197a), with fission of a consonant and epenthesis of a vowel, violates DEP-Vand INT-C. DEP-C is above INT-C to rule out epenthesis (e.g., 197b); INT-V isranked above DEP-V to rule out vowel reduplication (e.g., 197c). Further, DEP-V and INT-C must be ranked lower than *FLOAT and MAX-FLOAT to ensurethat the affixed prosodic unit is not floating or deleted, as in candidates (197d)and (197e), respectively. Candidate (197f) fatally violates REALIZEMORPHEMEbecause it cannot be distinguished from the output of the same derivation withoutthe reduplicative morpheme (i.e., the root segments will be parsed into a syllableregardless of whether one was present in the input). While a candidate with C1C2reduplication fills the affixed syllable (candidate 197g), it incurs an additionalviolation under INT-C. The attested candidate with fission of a single consonantonly incurs a single violation; the candidate which fills the affixed prosodic unitwith the fewest violations of the relevant faithfulness constraints will always win.Periods mark the syllable boundaries; I use parentheses and the σ in candidates toshow where the floating σ surfaces in the output.(197)/σ1 + citxw/ MAXFLT *FLOAT RM DEP-C INT-V DEP-V INT-C a. (c@)σ .citxw ˚ ˚b. (P@)σ .citxw ˚! ˚c. (ci)σ .citxw ˚! ˚d. σ citxw ˚!e. citxw ˚!f. (citxw)σ ˚!g. (c@t)σ .citxw ˚ ˚˚!In order to ensure the affixed syllable remains as the leftmost syllable, I use theconstraint PREFIX/σ , first defined in Section 4.1.3.1.2, which is restated in (198).199(198) PREFIX/σ : A prefix is not preceded by a syllable.(modified from McCarthy 2003, p.94)The tableau in (199) shows how PREFIX/σ rules out any candidate where theaffixed syllable is not the first. Candidate (199a) wins over candidates (199b–c)because it does not incur a fatal violation under PREFIX/σ .(199)/σ + citxw/ PREFIX/σ INT-C DEP-V a. (c@)σ .citxw ˚ ˚b. cit(xw@xw)σ ˚! ˚ ˚c. cit(xw@)σ ˚! ˚A preliminary constraint ranking for Level 1 is summarised in Table 4.25.Table 4.25: Lillooet Level 1 Grammar (Preliminary)A DEP-C INT-V REALIZEMORPHEME*FLOATPREFIX/σMAX-FLOATB INT-C DEP-V4.2.3.2 Level 1 C1C2 Reduplication4.2.3.2.1 Plural/Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationC1C2 reduplicated forms in Lillooet denote plurality (including pluractionality)or a property.42 While these two meanings are distinct, both types of C1C2reduplication occur at Level 1.The first two consonants are doubled in C1C2 reduplication; [@] is insertedbetween the first instance of C1 and the first instance of C2. Examples withC1C2 reduplication marking plurality are given in (200), and examples with C1C2reduplicated forms denoting a property are given in (201).42See H. Davis (2011) and the discussion in Chapter 2 (Section 2.9.4) for the argument thatproperty-denoting C1C2 reduplication is semantically vacuous and serves the syntactic function ofcreating an adjective.200(200) a. s-G@p„Ga´p (cf. sGap ‘tree’)NMLZ-C1C2.PL„tree‘trees’(Van Eijk, 1997, p.56)b. s-n@ ’kw„nu´ ’kwaP (cf. snu´ ’kwaP ‘friend/relative’)NMLZ-C1C2.PL„friend/relative‘friends/relatives’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56)c. s-qw@´m„qw@m (cf. sqw@m ‘mountain’)NMLZ-C1C2.PL„mountain‘mountain range’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56)(201) a. l@´x.„l@x. (cf. l@x. p ‘get smart’)PDEN„clear‘clever’ (CA)b. s@´x„s@x (cf. s@xp ‘get numb’)PDEN„silly‘silly’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.20)c. c@qw„cı´qw (cf. ciPqw ‘turn red’)PDEN„red‘red’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.82)A secondary -C@C- pattern is found when property-denoting reduplication co-occurs with the affix -t, as shown in (202). This type of reduplication surfacesas -CC- if [@] is omitted (202b–c); this combination occurs with roots that have amoraic vowel.(202) a. ’kı´n„ ’k@n-t (root: ’kin- ‘dangerous’)dangerous„PDEN-IMMED‘dangerous’b. kı´x„kx-@t (root: kx- ‘lively, active’)lively/active„PDEN-IMMED‘lively, active’201c. qwa´m„qwm-@t (root: qwam- ‘funny’)funny„PDEN-IMMED‘funny’(H. Davis, in prep, Ch.49)With roots without an underlying vowel that would take -t, -m is used instead of -tin combination with C1C2 reduplication.43 As shown in (203), a word with -m andC1C2 reduplication does not have [@] between the consonants of the second C1C2sequence.(203) a. ’c@´x.„ ’cx. -@m (root: ’cx. - ‘clean’)PDEN„clean-CHAR‘clean’b. ’ň@´p„ ’ňp-@m (root: ’ňp- ‘deep, dark’)PDEN„deep-CHAR‘deep, dark’c. kw@´z„kwz-@m (root: kwz- ‘smooth’)PDEN„smooth-CHAR‘smooth’d. ’ň@´Qw„ ’ňQw-@m (root: ’ňQw- ‘hard, tough’)PDEN„hard/tough-CHAR‘hard, tough’e. c@´ì„cì-@m (root: cì- ‘bright, sober’)PDEN„bright/sober-CHAR‘bright/sober’43Van Eijk (1997, p.72) states that these affixes have an “elusive function” and may refer to acontinued state. While it is possible that these affixes could use the same gloss (e.g., CHAR), I followH. Davis (2011) and gloss -t as intermediate IMMED and -m as CHAR; he notes that the combination ofthe immediate suffix -t and C1C2 reduplication appears to have a “distinct quasi-causative meaning”(p.37), which is not shared by forms with the characteristic suffix -m and C1C2 reduplication.202f. ’ň@´ ’k„ ’ň ’k-@m (root: ’ň ’k- ‘silent’)PDEN„silent-CHAR‘silent’(H. Davis, in prep, Ch.44)Reduplication in words with -m can be analysed as prefixed (C@C-), which is thesame as in the plurals and the other property-denoting forms, such as those givenin (201) above; only -t forms correspond to a non-initial syllable (-C@C-).44 Itherefore assume that the infixed pattern is motivated by the presence of the -taffix.4.2.3.2.2 Analysis of Plural/Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationThe plural and property-denoting C1C2 reduplication processes in Lillooet resultfrom parsing σN`µ at Level 1. This a light syllable (i.e., a syllable associated withan empty nucleus and a non-nuclear mora) in the input. For forms such as ’kı´n ’k@nt‘dangerous’, I assume that the input consists of a property-denoting morphemeand -t, where a fixed segment /t/ is already associated with the property-denotingsyllable; this combination is linearised as a suffix in the morphology.45 The lexicalentries are provided in (204).46(204) Lillooet Level 1 C1C2 Reduplication:a. σN+µ ô xPLyb. σN+µ ô xPDENyc. σN+µ+t ô xPDEN+IMMEDy44The word ’c@´z ’c@z ’k@t ‘scary’ in H. Davis (2011, p.37) is an exception to the generalisation thatreduplication surfaces as a prefix with -t, just like the words with -@m. It is built on a root without anunderlying vowel ( ’cz ’k). It is also the only example I have been able to find with a CVCC root.45While allomorphy is handled with listed allomorphs in Comox-Sliammon in Section 4.1.3.1,this represents a different type of allomorphy: σN`µ`t is selected prior to the phonology.46I based this analysis around the assumption that -m and -t were separate morphemes and assumedthe form in (204c) could be analysed as a portmanteau; however, H. Davis (p.c.) points out that thesethey are better analysed as part of PDEN with respect to the syntax and semantics. Though this hasimplications for lexical insertion, it does not necessarily affect the analysis in this section (aside frompotentially requiring an analysis of -m in future), I leave the specifics of these combination as an areafor future investigation.203C1C2 reduplication can be derived using the same constraint ranking that was usedfor initial C1 reduplication with the addition of DEP-Vµ , which is restated in (205).DEP-Vµ is violated when any vowel aside from [@] is epenthesized.(205) DEP-Vµ : Every moraic vowel in the output must have a correspondingmoraic vowel in the input.The tableau in (207) for c@qwcı´qw ‘red’ from example (201c) above shows thatDEP-Vµ rules out candidate (207a), which epenthesizes a full vowel to providesegmental content to the affixed monomoraic syllable. Candidate (207b), whichpositions the affixed syllable as an infix, fatally violates PREFIX/σ . The attestedcandidate in (207c) only violates DEP-V and INT-C. Candidate (207d), whichreduplicates the vowel, fatally violates INT-V. Candidate (207d) is also badbecause it creates a new link between the mora and the nucleus. The relevantconstraint from Section 4.1.4.2.1 is restated in (206). I assume this is ranked highin Lillooet at Level 1 to protect the reassociation of an input mora with a nucleusthat was also present in the input.(206) DEP-LINK-µ(N): When a nucleus is linked to a mora in the output, it isalso linked to a mora in the input. (modified from Prillop 2013, p.22)(207)/σN`µ + ciqw/ PREFIX/σ INT-V DEP-V INT-C DEP-Vµa. (ca´qw)σ .ciqw ˚ ˚˚ ˚!b. cı´qw.(c@qw)σ ˚! ˚ ˚˚ c. (c@qw)σ .cı´qw ˚ ˚˚d. (ci)σ .cı´qw ˚! ˚In order to handle examples such as ’c@´x. ’cx. @m ‘clean’ in example (203) above,which surfaces without [@] in what would have been the second syllable, I followMatthewson (1994) in assuming that the distribution of [@] follows from sonority-related constraints. I use the label SONORITY in the simplified tableau in (208)as a stand-in for the constraints that influence where a [@] must be inserted. Thebest candidate is the attested one, given in (208a), which inserts the fewest vowelsrequired to ensure that the requirements for sonority sequencing and prosody aremet.204(208)/σN`µ + ’cx˙+ m/ SONORITY DEP-V a. ’c@´x. ’cx.@m ˚˚b. ’c@´x. ’c@x.@m ˚˚˚!c. ’c@´x. ’cx. m ˚! ˚For reduplicated adjectives without the -m suffix, such as l@´x. l@x. ‘clever’ in example(201) above, [@] is needed in both the first and second C1C2 sequence, following thegeneral phonological patterns of the language. The ranking of SONORITY aboveDEP-V again allows for the attested candidate to win, as shown in (209). Theposition of the inserted [@] differs from in (208) because the number and type ofconsonants in the input is different, which determines which distribution of [@] willsatisfy SONORITY.(209)/σN`µ + lx˙/ SONORITY DEP-V a. l@´x. l@x. ˚˚b. l@´x. lx. ˚! ˚For adjectives with the suffix -t, such as ’kı´n ’k@nt ‘dangerous’ in example (202)above, I assume the input contains σN+µ+t, with the structure in (210).(210) σN µ µtThe -C@C-t sequence is motivated by general constraints on prosodic structure.Constraints pertaining to stress in the language, given in (211), predict the defaultposition of an affixed syllable. *STRUC-FT motivates building as few feet aspossible; at least one foot will be built to ensure the output meets the requirementfor a prosodic word.47 Building feet is also motivated by PARSE-SYLL, which isviolated by syllables that are not parsed into a foot. Feet in Lillooet are trochaic,which means the leftmost syllable bears stress; iambic feet violate TROCHEE.47See Section 4.2.4.1.2 for more on stress-related constraints and reduplication in Lillooet.205(211) a. *STRUC-FT: No feet. Assign a violation mark for every foot.(modified from Zoll 1997)b. PARSE-SYLL: Syllables are parsed by feet.(Kager, 1999, p.153)c. TROCHEE: Feet are L-dominant. One violation per R-dominant foot.(Prince & Smolensky, 2004, as cited in Bosworth 2017)The tableau in (212) shows the derivation of ’kı´n ’k@nt ‘dangerous’. Square bracketsmark foot boundaries, while rounded ones mark the output correspondent ofthe affixed syllable in the input. Given that the affixed syllable is not a prefix,basic constraints on prosodic structure are sufficient to predict its position. Theattested candidate, given as (212a), builds a trochaic foot and therefore onlyviolates *STRUC-FT. Candidate (212b) leaves a syllable unparsed, which fatallyviolates PARSE-SYLL. Candidate (212c), with the affixed syllable as the leftmost,fatally violates TROCHEE. Candidate (212d) builds two feet, which results in afatal violation of *STRUC-FT. Candidate (212e), which satisfies TROCHEE and*STRUC-FT by building no feet, fatally violates PARSE-SYLL. PARSE-SYLLmust be ranked above *STRUC-FT to motivate building feet.48(212)/ ’kin + σN`µ`t / PARSE-SYLL TROCHEE *STRUC-FT a. [ ’kı´n( ’k@nt)σ ] ˚b. [ ’kı´n]( ’k@ntσ ) ˚! ˚c. [( ’k@nt)σ’kı´n] ˚! ˚d. [ ’kı´n][( ’k@`nt)σ ] ˚˚!e. ’kin( ’k@nt)σ ˚˚!The Level 1 constraint ranking is provided in Table 4.26.48I do not include [ ’kı´n( ’k@t)σ ]Ft as a candidate in (212), but MAX-µ would rule out the associationof /t/ with the empty mora as it would result in the loss of the mora associated with the /t/underlyingly.206Table 4.26: Lillooet Level 1 Grammar (Updated)A DEP-C INT-V, TROCHEE, *FLOAT,SONORITY PARSE-SYLL REALIZEMORPH,MAX-FLOAT,PREFIX/σ ,DEP-VµB INT-C DEP-V *STRUC-FT4.2.3.3 Summary of Level 1 GrammarI analyse initial C1 reduplication and plural/property-denoting C1C2 reduplicationas Level 1 morphemes in Lillooet. The lexical entries for Level 1 reduplication aresummarised in (213): the difference between C1 and C1C2 reduplication reflectsthe difference between affixing a syllable (σ ) and a monomoraic syllable with anempty nucleus (σN+µ ).(213) Lillooet Level 1 Reduplication:a. σ ô xINITyb. σN+µ ô xPLyc. σN+µ ô xPDENyShared properties of Level 1 reduplication in Lillooet emerging from the rankinggiven in Table 4.26 above include the following: the reduplicant remains on the leftedge (except when C1C2 reduplication is part of a portmanteau with the suffix -t),consonants are readily copied, and [@] is epenthesized where a vowel is required.Constraints against parsing affixes marked with L2 (Level 2) are also relevantat Level 1 as argued in Chapter 3 (Section 3.5.2.3): AFFIXL2 is ranked higher thanPARSEAFFIX, as shown in Table 4.27. AFFIXL2 must also be ranked higher thanPARSE-SYLL to allow Level 2 affixes to remain unparsed at Level 1.Table 4.27: Lillooet Affix ConstraintsA AFFIXL2B PARSEAFFIX2074.2.4 Level 2Lillooet has three types of Level 2 reduplication: (1) change-of-state C2reduplication (Section 4.2.4.1.1), (2) pluractional C1 reduplication (Section4.2.4.2.1), and (3) diminutive C1 reduplication (Section 4.2.4.2.3). Change-of-state reduplication occurs to fill an affixed syllable, while pluractional anddiminutive reduplication occur to provide segmental content for an affixed mora.Both types of C1 reduplication have a floating [c.g.] feature, which is discussed inSection 4.2.4.3.Pluractional and diminutive C1 reduplication are differentiated because thediminutive mora carries a [stress] feature, while the pluractional mora does not.Lexical entries for Level 2 reduplication and the surface position of the copiedsegments are previewed in Table 4.28.Table 4.28: Level 2 Reduplicative AffixesUnderlying Form Surface PositionChange-of-State C2 σ InfixPluractional C1 µ [c.g] InfixDiminutive C1 µ [stress] [c.g.] Infix4.2.4.1 Level 2 C2 Reduplication4.2.4.1.1 Change-of-State C2 ReduplicationC2 reduplication marks a change of state in Lillooet. The consonant following thestressed vowel is doubled with [@] between the two matching consonants, as shownin (214).(214) a. ìı´ăl@ąl (root: ìı´l- ‘sprinkle’)sprinkleăCOSą‘to sprinkle, be sprinkling’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56)b. pu´ăì@ąì (root: puì-)boilăCOSą‘boiling’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56)208c. ’plı´ăx. w@ąx. w (root: ’plix. w-)flow.overăCOSą‘flowing over’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56)d. qa´ăxw@ąxw (root: qaxw-)breakăCOSą‘to break’(Van Eijk, 1997, p.59)e. z@wa´ăt@ąt-s (root: zwat)be.knownăCOSą-CAUS‘have learned how to do something’ (H. Davis et al., in prep)f. w@. l.ı´ă ’k@ą ’k (root: wl. ’k-)croakăCOSą‘to croak (frogs)’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.349)The pairs in (215) and (216) show that the presence of [@] between the matchingconsonants is sensitive to the general composition of the word: with the sameroots, [@] is between the doubled consonants when the change-of-state morphemeis added to a bare root, as in (215a) and (216a), but there is no [@] in thisposition in other forms, as in (215b) and (216b). The [@] between the matchingconsonants is required to provide a nucleus for an affixed syllable in change-of-state reduplication, but it may be omitted at a subsequent stratum if the grammardoes not require a vowel in that position.(215) a. ’pa´ăw@ąw (root: ’paw-)echoăCOSą‘to echo’b. ’pa´ăwą ’w-@c49echoăCOSą-mouth‘echoing voice’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.34)(216) a. k@ă ’n@ą ’n (root: k ’n-)bumpăCOSą‘got bumped’49The second /w/ is glottalised by the glottalising lexical suffix -c.209b. k@ă ’ną ’n-a´lqwbumpăCOSą-hulk/mass‘to bump against something hard/to crash’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.90)The position of the C2 reduplicant is sensitive to the position of stress assigned atthe first (Level 1) stratum. When additional affixes are added to the word as in(217b), primary stress shifts to the right while the C2 reduplicant remains alignedto the earlier position of stress, which is shown in (217a).(217) a. z@wa´ăt@ąt-s (root: zwat-)be.knownăCOSą-CAUS‘have learned how to do something’ (H. Davis et al., in prep)b. waP z@waăt@ąt-s-twı´tasIPFV be.knownăCOSą-CAUS-3PL.ERG‘They learned how to do it.’ (S. Mitchell, 2022, p.163)When the change-of-state morpheme is added to a word with lexical suffixes, whichare “substantival suffixes that have semantic content analogous to freestandingnominals of the same meanings” (Hinkson, 1999, p.1). The copied segment istypically positioned relative to where stress would fall if there were no lexicalsuffix (218). For example, compare pu´ì@ì in (214b), above, with (218a). In otherwords, C2 reduplication is sensitive to the prosodic structure, but does not considerlexical suffixes.(218) a. puăìąì-a´tqwaP (root: puì-)boilăCOSą-water‘water boils’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.11)b. ciăx. wąx. w-a´nwas (root: cix. w-)stream.downăCOSą-inside‘to feel sad (as if one is crying inside)’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.76)c. ’cu.ă’l˙ą’l˙-a´ìm@x (root: ’cu.’l.-)sourăCOSą-belly‘to have a sour stomach from eating too many berries’ (Van Eijk, 2013,p.88)210d. qaăxwąxw-a´lt@xw (root: qaxw-)breakăCOSą-rib‘to break one’s rib’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.432)e. qaăxwąxw-a´wì (root: qaxw-)breakăCOSą-conveyance‘break down (car)’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.263)f. n- ’qiă ’pą ’p-a´ ’nk-x@n (root: ’qi ’p-)LOC-stuckăCOSą-belly-foot“mud or snow cakes on shoes or boots, or on wagon’s wheels, or onhorse’s hoofs.’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.270)There are some exceptions to the generalization that C2 reduplication overlooksthe stress shift related to the addition of lexical suffixes: there are some forms withstress on a lexical suffix in which C2 reduplication may target content from thelexical suffix and be positioned within the lexical suffix (219). These examplesall have CC-shaped roots. However, it is possible that the examples in (219) arelexicalised with the lexical suffix as part of the root: the combination of root andlexical suffix is not straightforwardly compositional (H. Davis, p.c.).(219) a. ’ňqw-a´ă ’wą ’w@s (root: ’ňqw-)bang-togetherăCOSą‘get together’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.59)b. m@ ’c-uăsąs-@m (root: m ’c-)deceive.cheat-faceăCOSą-MID‘cheat’ (H. Davis et al., in prep)c. t@q-a´ăp@ąp (root: tq-)touch-back.partăCOSą‘get dammed, jammed, or blocked by logs, ice, or a slide’ (H. Davis etal., in prep)A final set of exceptions is given in (220), which shows variation with the samelexical suffix with respect to the position of C2 reduplication. A consonant in thesuffix -anaP ‘ear’ in (220) is reduplicated in some words (a–b), but not in others211(c–e). Negative judgments come from fieldwork conducted by Henry Davis (seediscussion of fieldwork sources in Section 1.4.1).(220) a. ’q@mp-a´ănąnaP (root: ’qmp-)get.plugged-earăCOSą‘ears get plugged’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.271)b. c@kw-a´ănąnaP=ìkan (*c@kw@kwa´naPìkan) (root: ckw-)pull-earăCOSą=1SG.SUBJ‘My ear got pulled.’ (CA)c. n-l@ă ’p(@)ą ’p-a´naP (*l@ ’pa´nnaP) (root: l ’p-)LOC-buryăCOSą-ear‘get completely buried’ (CA)d. Qw@ă’l@ą’l-a´naP (*Qw@’la´nnaP) (root: Qw ’l-)bubbleăCOSą-ear‘get bubbles in your ears’ (CA)It is not possible to predict the form of words with C2 reduplication with certainlexical suffixes: for example, the words in (220b-d) all have a CC root. The analysisproposed in the following section will account for the phonologically predictableexamples in (214-218), while the forms in (219-220) are set aside.4.2.4.1.2 Analysis of Change-of-State C2 ReduplicationChange-of-state reduplication involves the affixation of an empty syllable, asshown in (221). The syllable is marked as a Level 2 affix.(221) Lillooet Change-of-State Reduplication:σL2 ôăCOSąWhen the change-of-state σ is parsed into a word, the number of syllables increasesby one, while the number of moras remains unchanged. The difference betweenthe input and output is shown in (222) for example (214b) above.212(222)σ1 +FOOTσ2pµu´µìLevel 2Input:σ + pu´ìFOOTσ2pµu´σ1ì @µìLevel 2Output:pu´ì@ìAs discussed above, C2 reduplication is sensitive to prosodic structure and theposition of stress (in the root). I assume, following H. Davis (in prep) and VanEijk (1997), that the position of stress changes over the course of the derivation.50A simplified overview of stress assignment and shift across strata is given in Table4.29. The change-of-state C2 and diminutive C1 reduplication are filled at Level 2,and they are combined with the output of Level 1.50Regular stress shift can result in C2 reduplication appearing to be aligned to the word edge, ratherthan stress. For example, a word-final sequence of VCC at Level 2 will cause stress to shift awayfrom the position of C2 reduplication (e.g., -awì in qaxwxwa´wì ‘break down (car)’). The constraint*UNSTRESSEDσµµµ in (i) motivates this shift in combination with *CLASH, which bans adjacentstressed syllables.(i) a. *UNSTRESSEDσµµµ : Unstressed syllables are maximally bimoraic. Assign a violationmark for any unstressed syllable associated with three (or more) moras.b. *CLASH: rhythm is alternating; no two adjacent stressed syllables. (Alber, 2005, p.504)213Table 4.29: Stress AssignmentStratum Morphology Stress ReduplicationLevel 1 [root] First Vµ Plural C1C2(first [@] if Property-Denoting C1C2no Vµ ) Initial C1Level 2 [[Level 1output] + Shift to Vµ Change-of-State C2lexical suffixes] if in σµµµ Diminutive C1(and other affixes Pluractional C1not at Level 3)Level 3 [[Level 2output] + Shift to Vµtransitivizers/pronouns] if 2+ unstressed σfrom right edgeLevel 4 [[Level 3output] + clitics] Shift to Vµif 3+ unstressed σfrom right edgeSample derivations are provided in Table 4.30 and Table 4.31 for examples (218e)and (220c) above. These show that stress is assigned at Level 1 (to the bareroot) and then lexical suffixes and the change-of-state affix are added at Level 2.Descriptively, the position of the segments associated with reduplication dependson the position of stress in the input to Level 2. My analysis is that the affixedsyllable is integrated into the existing foot. The epenthetic [@] is deleted at a laterstratum if required by the phonological grammar.51Table 4.30: Stress and Reduplication: qaxwxwa´wì ‘break down’Stratum Input OutputLevel 1 qaxw qa´xwLevel 2 σ + qa´xw + awì qaxw@xwa´wìLevel 3 - qaxw@xwa´wìLevel 4 qaxw@xwa´wì qaxwxwa´wì51There are also cases where [@] may be omitted in fast speech (H. Davis, p.c.), which suggeststhat the vowel may also be lost due to phonetic reduction (see Section 6.7.1 for further discussion).214Table 4.31: Stress and Reduplication: nl@Ĳp@Ĳpa´naP ‘get completely buried’Stratum Input OutputLevel 1 l ’p l@´ ’pLevel 2 σ + n + l@´ ’p + anaP nl@´ ’p@ ’panaPLevel 3 nl@´ ’p@ ’panaP nl@ ’p@ ’pa´naPLevel 4 - nl@ ’p(@) ’pa´naPThe figures in (223) show a comparison of the structure of pu´ì@ì ‘boiling’ andpuì@ìa´tqwaP ‘water boils’ for examples (214b) and (218a) above.(223) a. pu´ì@ìσpµu´σ COSì @µìb. puì@ìa´tqwaPσpµuσ COSì @σìµa´µtσqwµaµPWhile a full analysis of Lillooet stress is beyond the scope of this dissertation,the constraints in (224) capture the basics of stress assignment as it pertains tothe position of reduplication.52 The constraint PRWD=GRWD requires at leastone foot in the output, while *STRUC-FT incurs a violation for every foot in theoutput.53 The constraint PARSE-SYLL incurs a violation for every syllable that isnot parsed into a foot.52See Roberts (1993) or Caldecott (2009) for analyses of Lillooet stress.53PRWD=GRWD was not discussed at earlier in Section 4.2.3 because it does not affect the formof reduplication at Level 1 because Level 1 reduplication is edge-aligned, not prosody-aligned.215(224) a. PRWD=GRWD: A grammatical word must be a prosodic word.(Kager, 1999, p.152)b. *STRUC-FT: No feet. Assign a violation mark for every foot.(modified from Zoll 1997)c. PARSE-SYLL: Syllables are parsed by feet.(Kager, 1999, p.153)In the Level 1 grammar, PRWD=GRWD is ranked above *STRUC-FT, whichmeans building at least one foot is required. This is shown in (225), where thecandidate that builds a foot wins over the one that leaves the root unfooted. Squarebrackets are used to mark edges of a foot.(225)/puì/ PRWD=GRWD *STRUC-FT PARSE-SYLL a. [pu´ì] ˚b. puì ˚! ˚The output from Level 1 is the input to Level 2 in (226). The combination of*STRUC-FT and PARSE-SYLL motivate parsing a syllable into an existing foot, ifpossible. The attested candidate in (226a) only violates *STRUC-FT once; it winsagainst candidates with one syllable left unparsed (226b-c), and the candidate withtwo feet (226d).54(226)/σ + [pu´ì]/ *STRUC-FT PARSE-SYLL a. [pu´ì@ì] ˚b. [pu´ì]@ì ˚ ˚!c. pu[ì@´ì] ˚ ˚!d. [pu´][ì@`ì] ˚˚!The position of feet in the input is protected by highly ranked ANCHOR constraints(McCarthy & Prince, 1995). I use the constraint ANCHORFOOT in (227) as a stand-in to represent the two anchor constraints used by O¨zc¸elik (2014, p.238) to ensurefaithfulness at the edges of a foot.55 ANCHORFOOT is violated when a segment on54There are other prosodic constraints that are not given here, but that play a role in selecting acandidate (see, e.g., Caldecott 2009).55The ranking of the two constraints is not relevant at present and therefore they are combined tosave space.216the left/right edge in the input does not have the same position (relative to a foot)in the output.(227) ANCHORFOOTa. ANCHOR-R: If α is at the right edge of a foot and αRβ , then β is atthe right edge of a foot.b. ANCHOR-L: If α is at the left edge of a foot and αRβ , then β is at theleft edge of a foot.(McCarthy, 1995, p.23)ANCHORFOOT is therefore violated if affixation causes stress shift. In cases wherean input segment on the edge of a foot corresponds to multiple segments in theoutput, ANCHORFOOT merely requires that one of the output segments is in thesame position relative to the edge of a foot.The tableau in (228) shows that building an additional foot violates *STRUC-FT twice (228a), while leaving three syllables unparsed incurs three violations ofPARSE-SYLL (228b). The winning candidate retains a single foot which beginsand starts with the same segments as in the input (228c). This shows PARSE-SYLLmust be ranked lower than *STRUC-FT. Candidates (228a) and (228c) differ withrespect to where the right boundary of the first foot is placed: I show Candidate(228a) with resyllabification of /ì/ into an onset of the second foot. However, evenif the /ì/ remained in a coda and satisfied ANCHORFOOT, building a second footwould still result in a fatal violation of *STRUC-FT.(228)/σ + [pu´ì] + atqwaP/ *STRUC-FT ANCHORFOOT PARSE-SYLLa. [pu`ì@σ ][ìa´tqwaP] ˚˚! ˚b. [pu´ì]@σ ìatqwaP ˚ ˚˚˚! c. [pu´ì@ìσ ]atqwaP ˚ ˚˚Unparsed syllables in the output at Level 2 may be parsed into feet at a laterstratum. For example, if there are two or more unparsed syllables on the rightedge in the input to Level 3, they will be parsed into feet; primary stress will thenshift to this new foot. A tableau showing a Level 3 derivation is given in (229).The attested candidate builds a second foot in (229a). The candidate that does notbuild an additional foot fatally violates PARSE-SYLL (229b).217(229)/[pu´ì@ì]atqwaP/ PARSE-SYLL *STRUC-FT ANCHORFOOT a. [pu`ì@][ìa´tqwaP] ˚˚ ˚b. [pu´ì@ì]atqwaP ˚!˚ ˚The candidate [pu`ì@][ìa´tqwaP] in (229a) is the input to Level 4, and optionaldeletion of the unstressed [@] may occur. This allows for the derivation of bothattested forms (pu`ì@ìa´tqwaP and pu`ììa´tqwaP). The tableaux above in (225-229)show the relationship between stress, lexical suffixes, and the position of C2reduplication. C2 reduplication occurs at Level 2, as was shown in (228).In order to predict fission of a consonant and epenthesis of a vowel at Level2, the relative rankings of INTEGRITY and DEP must be similar to their rankingat Level 1, but PREFIX/σ must be ranked low to allow for infixation. In order tocapture the position of the reduplication relative to stress (such that the affixedsyllable follows the stressed syllable), the constraints TROCHEE and *P/@ areneeded. TROCHEE is violated by any foot where stress does not fall on the leftmostelement (mora or syllable); *P/@ is violated when stress falls on a schwa.(230) a. TROCHEE: Feet are L-dominant. One violation per R-dominant foot.(Prince & Smolensky, 2004, as cited in Bosworth 2017)b. *P/@: Do not associate schwa with a prosodic head.(definition paraphrased from Prince & Smolensky, 2004)The constraint *P/@ is part of a hierarchy of segment sonority with universalrankings of constraints pertaining to the best prosodic peak. The hierarchy forsyllables adapted from Prince and Smolensky (2002) is given in (231a), andthe version for metrical feet from Kenstowicz (1994) that Dyck (2004) uses forSquamish is given in (231b). The first constraint in the hierarchy correspondsto the most marked peak and will be universally ranked above the others (e.g., alanguage may allow [@] to bear stress, but it will always more marked than anothervowel). The other constraints on prosody in the language mediate when and where[@] will be stressed, such as in the absence of other vowels (DEP-Vµ yy *P/@ inLillooet) or when stress has a fixed position (TROCHEE, ALLFEETLEFT yy *P/@in Comox-Sliammon).218(231) a. Peak Hierarchy:*P/t yy *P/d yy ... yy *P/@ yy *P/i yy *P/a(adapted from Prince & Smolensky, 2004, p.45)b. Peak Prominance for Metrical Feet:*P/@ yy *P/i,u yy *P/e,o yy *P/a(Kenstowicz 1994, as cited in Dyck 2004, p.15)The tableau in (232) shows the ranking needed to predict the attested form of C2reduplication in the word ìı´l@l ‘to sprinkle, be sprinkling’ from (214a) above. Acandidate with fission of a vowel (232b) fatally violates INT-V, while candidatesthat maintain the input order fatally violate either *P/@ (232c) or TROCHEE (232d),depending on whether stress falls on the [@].(232)/σ + [ì´il] / TROCHEE *P/@ INT-V DEP-V INT-C PREFIX/σ a. [ìı´l@lσ ] ˚ ˚ ˚b. [ìı´lilσ ] ˚! ˚ ˚c. [ì@´σ ìil] ˚! ˚ ˚d. [ì@σ ìı´l] ˚! ˚ ˚There is a final consideration in the analysis of C2 reduplication in Lillooet; theGeneralised Nonlinear Affixation (GNLA) approach does not provide a clear wayto specify which consonants are copied (direction of fission/copying). This must bedetermined by other constraints in the grammar, as demonstrated by the ambiguityin (233). Though the given constraints motivate fission and account for the positionof the affixed syllable, candidate (233b) which copies the first consonant incurs thesame violations as the attested candidate in (233a).(233)/σ1 + [ì´il] / TROCHEE *P/@ INT-V DEP-V INT-C PREFIX/σ?? a. [ìı´l@lσ1] ˚ ˚ ˚?? b. [ìı´ì@lσ1] ˚ ˚ ˚The direction of fission and which segment is copied in GNLA is a problemthat has not received much attention in other analyses of reduplication. There are anumber of ways for the grammar to categorically rule out copying in one direction.For example, the constraint INTEGRITY-WI in the analysis of Comox-Sliammon219C2 reduplication in Section 4.1.5.1.2 penalises fission of a word-initial segment,resulting in copying the second consonant of the root. It is not possible to adopt thesame strategy for Lillooet because C2 reduplication is stress-aligned and thereforeit is not sufficient to reference to a fixed position in the word.The directionality problem illustrated by the ranking ambiguity in (233) hastheoretical implications beyond the present analysis. For the present analysis, I usethe constraint INT¨EDGE-(σ ), defined in (234).(234) INT¨EDGE-(σ ): If two output segments correspond to the same inputsegment, then they are in the same σ .The constraint INT¨EDGE-(σ ) is modelled after constraints in the CC¨EDGE familyof constraints, which come from the literature on surface correspondence andharmony (Bennett, 2013). A CC¨Edge constraint identifies a domain; any outputconsonants in correspondence with each other must be within the same domain.The tableau in (235) shows how the inclusion of INT¨EDGE-(σ ) correctlypredicts the attested candidate.56 Syllable boundaries are marked with periods.(235)/σ + [ì´il] / INT¨EDGE-(σ ) DEP-V INT-C a. [ìı´ .l@xl] ˚ ˚b. [ìı´.ì @xl] ˚! ˚ ˚The ranking needed to derive C2 reduplication in Lillooet is summarised inTable 4.32. This ranking will be updated following the analysis of Level 2 C1reduplication in the next section.56An additional constraint will be needed to handle directionality of fission for C1 reduplication(see Section 4.2.4.2).220Table 4.32: Lillooet Level 2 Grammar (Preliminary)A PRWDGRWD INT-V, *P/@, REALIZEMORPHEME,DEP-C TROCHEE *FLOAT,MAX-FLOAT,INT¨EDGE-(σ ),ANCHORFOOTB *STRUC-FT, DEP-V, PREFIX-σINT-CC PARSE-SYLL4.2.4.2 Level 2 C1 ReduplicationThere are two types of Level 2 C1 reduplication in Lillooet: (i) a pluractional C1reduplication process, and (ii) a diminutive C1 reduplication process.The key difference between the two reduplicative processes is in the treatmentof the stressed vowel. In the diminutive form in (236a), the stressed vowel reducesto a [@]. The form in (236b), which has the pluractional type of Level 2 C1reduplication, does not reduce to [@].(236) a. ’kws-a´ăsą’li ’caP (root: ’kws-)singe-outer.coverăC1.PLą‘burn hair or feathers off an animal or a bird’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen,2023, p.21)b. t@´ătąp-@ ’n=ìkan (root: tup-)punchăDIMą-TR=1SG.SUBJI hit them (sg.) lightly.’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.17)I follow H. Davis and Mellesmoen (2023) in distinguishing these two C1reduplicative processes; previous studies treated them as a single, variable C1reduplication process (e.g., Van Eijk, 1997).4.2.4.2.1 Pluractional C1 ReduplicationPluractional C1 reduplication copies the consonant before the stressed vowel,resulting in identical consonants on either side of it. There are no changes in221vowel quality between the input and output. Examples are given in (237). Thistype of reduplication is only with verbs. Fissioned consonants may cross intocertain suffixes, including the autonomous marker and lexical suffixes, as shownin (237e–f) and (237g–h), respectively.57 Glottalisation of a sonorant accompaniespluractional reduplication and is discussed further and analysed in Section 4.2.4.3.(237) a. n-ka´ăką@ ’m-xal (root: ka ’m-)LOC-pick.upăC1.PLą-A.INTR‘pick things up here and there’b. n-ka´ăką@’l-xal (root: kal-)LOC-followăC1.PLą-A.INTR‘follow s.o. around’c. ’ňa´.ă ’ňą’l.-@ ’n (root: ’ňa. l.-)biteăC1.PLą-TR‘gnaw something’d. ’ca´ă ’cąq-@ ’n (root: ’caq-)pull.outăC1.PLą-TR‘pluck something (a bird)’e. xw@lp-ı´ăpą’l@x (root: xwlp-)turnăC1.PLą-AUT‘turn around and around’f. ì@Qw-ı´ăQwą’l@x (root: ìQw-)bounceăC1.PLą-AUT‘jump up and down’g. c ’w-u´ă ’wąsaP (root: c ’w-)kick-round.thingăC1.PLą‘play soccer’57The affix -ilx/-l@x has been classified as an intransitivizer by H. Davis (in prep), and a lexicalsuffix (meaning ‘body’, often with a reflexive function, by Van Eijk 1997, p.105). Steiner (in prep)reconciles these two positions in Thompson River Salish by treating the autonomous marker as asomatic lexical suffix with a zero middle marker. I assume that the autonomous marker in Lillooethas the phonology (w.r.t. stress) of a lexical suffix. Crucially, I assume that -ilx/-l@x is parsed at Level2, and therefore that it may be targeted by diminutive reduplication, which other in/transitivizerscannot.222h. ’kws-a´ăsą’li ’caP (root: ’kws-)singe-outer.coverăC1.PLą‘burn hair or feathers off an animal or a bird’(H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, pp.20–21)4.2.4.2.2 Analysis of Pluractional C1 ReduplicationPluractional C1 reduplication in Lillooet involves the affixation of a mora; itslexical entry is given in (238). The lexical entry bears the diacritic L2 (Level2). The constricted glottis feature [c.g.] is set aside until Section 4.2.4.3 whereI analyse glottalisation associated with both pluractional and diminutive C1reduplication.(238) Pluractional C1 Reduplication:(µ [c.g.])L2 ô xPL.C1yThe derivation of ìu´. ìt@ ’n ‘to squish it all up’ is shown in (239).58 Stress is assignedto the root in the Level 1 derivation in (239a), followed by the addition (and filling)of the pluractional C1 mora at Level 2 in (239b). The transitivizer is parsed at Level3 (239c).(239) Derivation of ìu´. ìt@ ’n ‘to squish it all up’(cf. ìu´. tu. ’n ‘to squish something soft’)a. Level 1i. Input: ìu. tii. Output: ìu´. t58There is retraction, marked with a dot beneath the segment, on the root vowel in (239). SeeBessell (1993b, pp.291–294) for a discussion of retraction in Lillooet.223b. Level 2i. Input: µ + ìu´. tii. Output: ìu´. ìt Ftσìµu´.µìµtc. Level 3i. Input: ìu´. ìt + @ ’nii. Output: ìu´. ìt@ ’nThe tableau in (240) shows that the constraints established for C2 reduplicationin Section 4.2.4.1.2 can also account for the fission of a consonant to fill a mora(240a). A candidate with fission of a vowel and a consonant fatally violates INT-V(240b), while epenthesis of a vowel or a consonant to fill a mora fatally violateDEP-V or DEP-C, respectively (240c,d).(240)/µ + [ìu´˙t]/ INT-V DEP-C DEP-V INT-C a. [ìu´. ìµ t] ˚b. [ìu´. ìu. µ t] ˚! ˚c. [ìu´. ìiµ t] ˚! ˚d. [ìu´.Pµ t] ˚!An example of pluractional C1 reduplication with the autonomous suffix is given in(241), using the word ì@Qw ı´Qw ’l@x ‘jump up and down’ from (237f) above. Thoughthe [@] is stressed at Level 1, it is left unfooted at Level 2 when -ilx is integrated.(241) a. Level 1i. Input: ìQwii. Output: [ì@´Qw]224b. Level 2i. Input: µ + [ì@´Qw] + ilxii. Output: ì@[Qw ı´Qw ’lx] Wordσì @FtσQwµı´µQwµ’lµxc. Level 3i. Input: ì@[Qw ı´Qw ’lx]ii. Output: ì@[Qw ı´Qw ’l@x]The fact that stress shifts from [@] when -ilx is added means that the constraintHEAD-MATCH may be violated. The definition of HEAD-MATCH is given in(242): the prosodic head in the input should correspond to the prosodic head in theoutput. HEAD-MAX, with the same definition as the one given for HEAD-MATCHin (242), was used by Dyck (2004) for an analysis of Squamish stress, integratingthe insight of Alderete (1996:6): “the prosodic category relevant to the meaning ofHEAD-MAX is the moraic head [and] therefore, HEAD-MAX asserts that, for everyunderlying segment dominated by a stressed mora which has a correspondent in theoutput, the related output segment will also be dominated by a stressed mora”.(242) HEAD-MATCH:If α is the prosodic head of the word and αℜβ , then β is the prosodic headof the word.(McCarthy, 1995, p.23)The tableau in (243) shows how ranking *P/@, which is violated by any stressed[@], above HEAD-MATCH correctly predicts that stress will shift to the full vowelin -ilx.59 Candidate (243a), which builds a trochaic foot with the [i] as the head59In the absence of other vowels, [@] will remain stressed due to the high-ranked constraintPRWD=GRWD which requires a word to have a stressed syllable.225of the stressed syllable, wins against candidates which either retain stress on [@](243b), or keep the foot aligned with the left edge of the word while assigningstress to [i] (243c).(243)/µ + [ì@´Qw] + ilx/ TROCHEE *P/@ HEAD-MATCH a. ì@[Qw ı´Qw ’lx] ˚b. [ì@´QwiQw]’lx ˚!c. [ì@Qw ı´Qw]’lx ˚! ˚In order to ensure that the copied segment appears in the correct position(immediately after the stressed vowel), two additional constraints are needed:PARSE-µ and *-△FT y △FT. These two constraints, defined in (244), ensurethe affixed pluractional mora will be integrated into the head syllable of a foot.PARSE-µ is violated by every mora that is not parsed into a foot, and *-△FTy △FT is violated by bisyllabic feet where the head syllable is lighter than thenon-head syllable.60 Together, these constraints favour candidates where theaffixed mora is integrated into the head syllable of a foot.(244) a. PARSE-µ:Moras are parsed by feet.(modified from Kager 1999, p.153)b. *-△FT y△FT:Assign a violation for every non-head syllable in a foot with a greaterweight than the corresponding head syllable.PARSE-µ ensures that the pluractional mora is parsed into a foot, as shown in(245). The winning candidate integrates the mora into the the stressed syllable(245a). Candidates which reduplicate the initial segment fatally violate *STRUC-FT (or *P/@) by building a second foot, or PARSE-µ by leaving the pluractionalmora unparsed (245b vs. 245c).60The notation used in this constraint name draws inspiration from the constraints used byCaldecott (2009) to compare the sonority of a non-head with the sonority of a segment (e.g., *-△FTy SCHWASUFFIX). △ is used to refer to a head.226(245)/µ1 + [ì@´Qw] + ilx / *STRUC-FT *P/@ ANCHORFOOT PARSE-µ HEAD-MATCH a. ì@[Qw ı´Qw ’lx] ˚ ˚ ˚b. [ì@´ì][Qw ı`’lx] ˚˚! ˚! ˚c. ì@ì[Qw ı´’lx] ˚ ˚ ˚! ˚An affixed mora increases the weight of a syllable. With bisyllabic roots withtwo full vowels, such as ’qı´ìil ‘run’, *-△FT y △FT ensures that the pluractionalmora will be parsed into the stressed syllable (246a), rather than an unstressed one(246b).(246)/µ1 + [ ’q´iìil]/ *-△FT y△FT *STRUC-FT PARSE-µ HEAD-MATCH a. [ ’qı´ ’q.ìi’l] ˚ ˚b. [ ’qı´.ìiì’l] ˚! ˚ ˚Finally, the issue outlined in Section 4.2.4.1.2 concerning directionality of fissionin C2 reduplication is also relevant for pluractional reduplication: there is nothingthus far in the analysis that decides between fission of C1 or C2 to fill an affixedmora. An additional constraint is needed to select between a potential candidate*[ìu. tt] and the right form [ìu. ìt], for example, for the word ìu´. ìt@ ’n ‘to squish it allup’, as in (240) above.61In order to rule out fission of a C2 consonant to fill the pluractional mora, aconstraint banning two identical adjacent consonants is needed. This is possiblewith reference to the Obligatory Contour Principle, which has roots in the analysisof suprasegmental phonology and gemination (e.g., Leben, 1973; McCarthy,1986). The Obligatory Contour Principle forbids adjacent identical elements. Thiscan be integrated into Optimality Theory as a constraint named OCP, which isgiven in (247).(247) OCP: Adjacent identical elements are prohibited. Assign a violation foreach sequence of identical elements.(Myers, 1997)The inclusion of OCP allows for the grammar to select the attested candidate (248a)61The constraint INT¨EDGE-(σ ), used for C2 reduplication in 4.2.4.1.2, is not sufficient where thefissioned consonants will be in the same syllable, which is the case when the output is monosyllabic(e.g., [ìu. ìt]).227over the unattested candidate (248b), despite each incurring the same violationsunder INT-C and INT¨EDGE-(σ ).62(248)/µ1 + [ìu´˙t]/ INT-C OCP INT¨EDGE-(σ ) a. [ìu´. ìt] ˚b. [ìu´. tt] ˚ ˚!An updated Level 2 constraint ranking, which now accounts for pluractional C1reduplication, is given in Table 4.33. This will be updated again in the followingsections covering diminutive reduplication (Section 4.2.4.2.4) and glottalisation(Section 4.2.4.3).Table 4.33: Lillooet Level 2 Grammar (Preliminary - Second Version)A PRWDGRWD INT-V, *P/@, REALIZEMORPHEME,DEP-C TROCHEE *FLOAT,MAX-FLOAT,INT¨EDGE-(σ ),PARSE-µ ,*-∆FT ą ∆ FTANCHORFOOT,OCPB *STRUC-FT, DEP-V, PREFIX/σINT-C HEADMATCHC PARSE-SYLL62MAX, defined in (i), penalises the deletion of input segments. MAX is ranked above OCP toprotect identical consonants in the input; in other words, identical consonants may surface in theoutput outside of a reduplicative context. The ranking of OCP relative to MAX will vary acrossstrata. H. Davis (p.c.) points out that OCP is violated with lexical suffixes, including -t@n or -m@n(e.g., n-Qwu ’yt-t@n ‘bed’ and n-q@´m-m@n ‘kettle’), but not with morphemes at later levels (e.g., the [t]in na ’qw-c-xi[t]-twa ’l ‘steal food from each other’ and cixw-xi[t]-ta´ni=ìkan ‘I took it to them’ doesnot surface).(i) MAX: All segments in the input have a correspondent in the output. Assign a violation markfor every segment in the input that does not have a correspondent in the output.(McCarthy & Prince, 1995, p.16)2284.2.4.2.3 Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutivity in Lillooet is marked with C1 reduplication. The consonantimmediately before a stressed vowel is doubled, resulting in the stressed vowelbeing surrounded by the fissioned consonants. The stressed vowel is usuallyby [@], as shown in (249), which is a marked pattern because the languagetypically avoids stressed schwa due to *P/@ being highly ranked (see discussion inSection 4.2.4.2.2). Glottalisation, as shown in (249a–e), accompanies diminutivereduplication (as well as pluractional reduplication discussed in the previoussection) and is discussed further and analysed in Section 4.2.4.3.(249) a. sG@ă ’Gąp (cf. sGap ‘tree’)NMLZ-treeăDIMą‘little tree, sapling’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13)b. xw@ă ’wąì (cf. xwaì ‘road, trail’)roadăDIMą‘little road, trail’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13)c. t@´ătąp@. ’l. (cf. tı´.p@. l. ‘table, desk’)tableăDIMą‘little table, desk’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13)d. lapl.@´.ă’l˙ąs (cf. lapl.a´. s ‘plank, board’)plankăDIMą‘little plank or board’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.15)e. kl.@´.ă’l˙ąsi (cf. kl. ı´.si ‘crazy’)crazyăDIMą‘a little crazy’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.15)f. z@´ă ’ząxt-an (cf. za´xtan ‘lengthen s.t.’)longăDIMą-TR‘lengthen s.t. a bit’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13)g. c@´ăcąs-@p (cf. c@sp ‘got stretched’)stretchăDIMą-INCH‘stretched a bit’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.15)The examples in (250) show that the vowel is not replaced with a [@] when the229doubled consonant is /P/ (250a–d) or /h/ (250e).(250) a. Pı´ăPąmac (cf. Pı´mac ‘grandchild’)grandchildăDIMą‘little grandchild’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.60)b. Pı´ăPąì@ ’n (cf. Pı´ì@n ‘eat’)eatăDIMą‘eat a bit’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13)c. Pu´ăPąqwaP (cf. Pu´qwaP ‘drink’)drinkăDIMą‘drink a bit’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13)d. Pı´ăPą ’q-@ ’m (cf. Pı´ ’q@m ‘scrape’)scrapeăDIMą-MID‘scrape hair off a bit’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.17)e. P@mh-a´ăhą@ ’m (cf. P@mha´m ‘be good at s.t.’)good-MIDăDIMą‘to improve, get better, to get a bit better’ (H. Davis et al., in prep)As with other types of reduplication in Lillooet, a reduplicated word may surfacewith an additional [@] after the fissioned consonant, as shown in (251a–b). Whilereduplication creates the sequences that will require epenthesis at a later stratum forsonority purposes, this is independent of reduplication. For example, the unstressed[@] in (251c) occurs in a position consistent with the general phonology of thelanguage (i.e., codas should have falling sonority).(251) a. x. z@´ăzą@ ’m (cf. x. zum ‘big’)bigăDIMą‘a bit bigger’b. m@´ămą@ ’w (cf. maw ‘cat’)catăDIMą‘kitten’230c. z@´ă ’ząx@t (cf. zaxt ‘long’)longăDIMą‘a bit longer’(H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13)The examples in (252) show that diminutive reduplication may cross into a stressedlexical suffix.(252) a. ql.-@´.ă’l˙ąkaP (cf. ql.a´. kaP ‘clumsy’)bad-handăDIMą‘a bit clumsy’b. s-p@q- ’m@´ă ’mąx (cf. sp@q ’mı´x ‘swan’)NMLZ-white-excessăDIMą‘little swan’ (U)c. s- ’k@. l.-@´.ă’l.ą ’caP (cf. ’k@. l. ı´ ’caP ‘item of buckskin clothing’)NMLZ-buckskin-outer.coverăDIMą‘small (item of) buckskin clothing’(H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.15)4.2.4.2.4 Analysis of Diminutive C1 ReduplicationThere are two related aspects of the diminutive that require additional explanation:(1) what determines when a stressed vowel is replaced by [@]?; and (2) why doesthe diminutive create/allow such a marked structure (i.e., stressed [@])? The answerto the first question lies in the phonological grammar, where [@P] and [@h] are notpermissible sequences within a syllable; the second lies in the lexical entry for thediminutive.Diminutive C1 reduplication must differ from pluractional C1 reduplicationin its lexical entry because by hypothesis both are subject to the same constraintranking (the Level 2 grammar), but the stressed vowel matches the correspondingvowel in the input for pluractional C1 reduplication, and becomes [@] in diminutiveC1 reduplication. As we saw in Section 4.2.4.2.2, pluractional C1 reduplication231happens following the affixation of a mora. Here I propose that diminutive C1reduplication happens following the affixation of a mora marked for lexical stress.The lexical entry for diminutive reduplication is given in (253). The lexicalentry bears the diacritic L2 (Level 2). The constricted glottis feature [c.g.] isdiscussed in Section 4.2.4.3 below.(253) Diminutive C1 Reduplication:(µ [stress] [c.g.])L2 ô xDIMyI adopt the privative feature [stress] to mark lexical stress in the input (de Lacy,2020). Any segment or prosodic unit which has [stress] in the input will correspondto or be associated with a designated terminal element (DTE) in the output of thatsame stratum, unless blocked by other competing pressures (e.g., two elementsmarked for lexical stress).63 More specifically, a unit “that bears [stress] in theoutput must also be [associated with] the ‘designated terminal element’ (DTE) of aprosodic word” de Lacy (2020, p.1). In other words, the diminutive mora in (253)must be the head mora of the head syllable of the head foot of a prosodic word.The diminutive is represented as µ [stress] in the input, while a superscript + isused to indicate the head mora in the output.64 I diverge from de Lacy (2020) inproposing that the feature [stress] is not present in the output, which only encodesthe prosodic structure. This allows for a distinction between prosodic structurebuilt at an earlier stratum than the given one and lexical stress: an input [stress]feature will not be visible in the output, which means later strata cannot know thata morpheme was lexically stressed.A prediction of this approach is that lexical stress must be assigned at thestratum where the lexical item is parsed into the word; later strata will not be ableto distinguish between lexical stress and phonologically regular stress as both willhave identical prosodic structure in the output. The head mora associated withthe diminutive cannot be distinguished from any other head mora after it has beenparsed into the phonological word.The input and output of Level 1 and Level 2 are shown in (254) for sp@´. p’l.@xw63DTE refers to the lowest element in prosodic structure which is dominated exclusively by heads.64As mentioned in Chapter 3 (Section 3.2.2), the leftmost mora in a stressed syllable is the headmora.232‘to stick out a bit’ to demonstrate how [stress] and prosodic structure are related.The lexical stress feature is marked with the label [stress], while head moras aremarked with a superscript +. The input to Level 1 has no prosodic structure; theoutput of the Level 1 grammar has prosodic structure because there must be a well-formed foot in the output. This is fed into Level 2, where the diminutive affix isadded. The lexical entry for the diminutive is a mora with an associated [stress]feature. Crucially, the Level 1 output has no [stress] feature, just prosodic structure.Similarly, the [stress] feature is not present in the output of the Level 2 derivation.(254) Derivation of sp@´. p’l.@xw ‘to stick out a bit’(cf. sp@. l.xw ‘to stick out’) (Van Eijk, 2013, p.14)a. Level 1i. Input: p@. l.xwii. Output: [p@´. l.xw] Ftσpµ+@´. l.µxwb. Level 2i. Input: µ [stress] + [p@´. l.xw]µDIM[stress]+Ftσpµ+@´. l.µxwii. Output: [p@´.p.’l.@xw] Ftσpµ+@´. pσ’l. @µxw233The mapping between lexical stress in the input and the appropriate prosodicstructure in the output is checked by the constraint STRESSSTRESS, defined in(255a), which ensures a head in the output corresponds to a unit marked with thefeature [stress] in the input. The constraint MAX-µ , defined in (255b), is alsoneeded for diminutive reduplication. MAX-µ is violated when a mora present inthe input is not present in the output.65(255) a. STRESSSTRESS (STRESS2): Assign a violation mark for any prosodicunit with a [stress] feature in the input that does not correspond to ahead in the output.b. MAX-µ: All moras in the input have a correspondent in the output.Assign a violation mark for every mora in the input that does not havea correspondent in the output.The constraint CULMINATIVITY-µ+, defined in (256), is also needed to accountfor the loss of an input head mora, defined here as the head mora of a head foot.CULMINATIVITY-µ+ is violated whenever a candidate has more than one headmora. CULMINATIVITY-µ+ rules out words with two primary stresses (whichwould each be part of a head foot with a head mora), as well as a stressed bimoraicsyllables where both moras are equally accented (two head moras).66(256) CULMINATIVITY-µ+ (CULMIN):Every word has exactly one head foot with one head mora.(modified from Alderete, 2001 and Hayes, 1995)The tableau for xw@ ’wì ‘little road, trail’ in (257) from (249) above shows thatSTRESSSTRESS and CULMIN must be ranked above MAX-µ: the head mora inthe input is absent in the attested candidate (257a). The subscript numbers track65MAX-µ is needed in addition to MAX-FLOAT because MAX-FLOAT is not violated when a moraassociated with segmental content in the input is deleted.66There are larger questions for future work concerning the relationship between head moras inthe phonology and phonetic correlates of stress. Caldecott (2009, p.128) finds that acoustic correlatesof primary and secondary stress in Lillooet were only significantly different for most speakers for/u/, not /a/ and /i/. As CULMINATIVITY-µ+ requires a single mora to be the head of a prosodicword (which is in the head syllable of the head foot), the acoustic facts may indicate that phoneticimplementation rules equally apply to head moras in non-head feet.234input moras. Candidate (257b) fatally violates CULMIN because both the inputhead mora and the affixed mora are stressed. Candidate (257c) retains all threeinput moras, but does not assign stress to the affixed mora, which fatally violatesSTRESSSTRESS. Subscript numbers are used to show the relationship betweenmoras in the input and output; the + is used to mark a head mora (of a head foot).(257)/µ [stress]1 + [xwa´µ`2ìµ3]/ CULMIN STRESS2 MAX-µ INT-C a. [xw@´ ’wµ+1ìµ3] ˚ ˚b. [xwa´µ+2 ’wµ+1ìµ3] ˚! ˚c. [xwa´µ+2 ’wµ1ìµ3] ˚! ˚STRESSSTRESS and CULMIN ensure that the affixed mora will replace an existinghead mora. They account for why diminutive reduplication yields a stressedsyllable with a non-moraic nucleus when combined with core assumptions aboutstress in Lillooet.Lillooet has trochaic feet where the leftmost syllable is the head syllable ofa foot, which also means that the leftmost mora of the head syllable is the headmora. I modify the definition of the constraint TROCHEE, used first in the analysisof C1C2 reduplication in Section 4.2.3.2.2, to specifically refer to the mora. Therevised constraint in (258) ensures that both the leftmost syllable and the leftmostmora in a word will be the most prominent. The constraint TROCHEE is violatedwhenever the head mora of a foot is not the leftmost. TROCHEE checks that thehead is leftmost at both the level of the mora and of the syllable. If the leftmostmora is the head mora of a foot, the syllable dominating the head mora will also bethe head syllable of the foot.(258) TROCHEE (revised):Feet are L-dominant at the level of the mora. Assign one violation per footwhere the head is not the leftmost mora.The tableau for sG@ ’Gp ‘little tree’ in (259) from (249a) above shows the constraintranking needed to predict the shift from a stressed moraic vowel to a [@].67 Theattested candidate (259a) replaces the stressed vowel with [@], which violates *P/@,67A number of constraints are omitted for space, including CULMIN and MAX-µ .235the constraint against a stressed non-moraic vowel. *P/@ must be ranked lowerthan DEP-Vµ (259b), STRESS2 (259c), and TROCHEE (cf. 259d).(259)/µ [stress]1 + [sGa´µ`2pµ3]/ STRESS2 TROCHEE DEP-Vµ *P/@ DEP-V INT-C a. [sG@´x ’Gµ+1pµ3] ˚ ˚ ˚b. [sGı´xµ+1pµ3] ˚! ˚c. [sGa´µ+2 ’Gµ1pµ3] ˚! ˚d. [sGa´µ2 ’Gµ+1pµ3] ˚! ˚The combination of STRESSSTRESS and CULMIN ensures that the diminutivemora is the only stressed mora in the output, while TROCHEE ensures that thisstressed mora is the leftmost in the foot. Associating the diminutive mora withthe vowel whose input correspondent is already stressed is not a possibility, asreduplication would not happen and therefore the diminutive and non-diminutivewords would be identical; having no clear exponent of the diminutive in the outputviolates REALIZEMORPHEME. Furthermore, the ranking of *P/@ between DEP-Vµ and DEP-V is crucial to ensure that a /@/ will be epenthesized, rather than a fullvowel (which would be a better nucleus for a stressed syllable).If the consonant that undergoes fission is an /h/ or /P/, the stressed vowel isretained, rather than being replaced with schwa. The vowel-retaining forms showthat STRESS2 may be violated. A markedness constraint *@CP/h]σ , given in (260),bans the sequence [@P] or [@h] within the same syllable.(260) *@CP/h]σ (*@P]σ ): Sequences of @P or @h within a single syllable are notpermitted.The tableau in (261) for ‘little grandchild’ from (250a) above shows that STRESS2must be ranked beneath *@P]σ , REALIZEMORPHEME, and CULMIN to allow forthe attested candidate in (261a), where the lexically stressed diminutive mora is notthe head mora in the output, to win.(261)/µ [stress]1 + [P´iµ`2maµ3cµ4]/ *@P]σ CULMIN RM STRESS2 a. Pı´µ+2Pµ1maµ3cµ4 ˚b. P@´Pµ+1maµ3cµ4 ˚!c. Pı´µ+2maµ3cµ4 ˚!d. Pı´µ+2Pµ+1maµ3cµ4 ˚!236The constraint OCP, introduced in Section 4.2.4.2.2, bans identical adjacentconsonants; OCP motivates the reduplication of the consonant before the stressedvowel in both types of Level 2 C1 reduplication. Therefore, OCP must also beranked above STRESS2 to rule out a candidate which avoids violating *@P]σ byreduplicating the consonant following the stressed vowel (262c).(262)/µ [stress] + [P´imac]/ OCP *@P]σ STRESS2 a. Pı´Pmac ˚b. P@´Pmac ˚!c. P@´mmac ˚!Table 4.34 provides a summary of the Level 2 constraint ranking needed for thederivation of all three Level 2 reduplicative morphemes in Lillooet. This will beupdated one final time in Section 4.2.4.4 to include glottalisation.Table 4.34: Lillooet Level 2 Grammar (Preliminary - Version 3)A *@P]σ , PRWDGRWD DEP-Vµ , INT-V, REALIZEMORPHEME,OCP, TROCHEE DEP-C *FLOAT,CULMIN MAX-FLOAT,INT¨EDGE-(σ ),PARSE-µ ,*-∆FT ą ∆FT,ANCHORFOOTB STRESS2 *STRUC-FT *P/@ DEP-V,INT-CC MAX-µ PARSE-SYLL PREFIX/σ ,HEADMATCH4.2.4.3 Glottalisation and C1 ReduplicationBoth pluractional and diminutive C1 reduplication trigger glottalisation on asonorant. As the position of this glottalisation is the same for both processes, Ianalyse them together in this section. I first describe the distribution and positionof glottalisation accompanying C1 reduplication in Section 4.2.4.3.1. I revise bothlexical entries (first stated in Section 4.2.4.2.2 and Section 4.2.4.2.4) to includea floating [c.g.] feature. I provide a phonological analysis that accounts for bothtypes of C1 reduplication in Lillooet in Section 4.2.4.3.2.2374.2.4.3.1 Distribution of Glottalisation in C1 ReduplicationThere is a process of glottalisation accompanying both Level 2 C1 processes ofreduplication: a sonorant consonant is glottalised. Examples with diminutive C1reduplication are provided in (263); examples with pluractional C1 reduplicationare provided in (264). The segment that may be glottalised includes any sonorantthat falls between the position of stress and the right edge (at the output of Level 2),including the reduplicated consonant itself (e.g., in 263a). As shown in (263b–c)and (264b), it is only the rightmost sonorant that is glottalised when there is morethan one available.68(263) Diminutive C1 Reduplicationa. s-m@´ă ’mąìac (cf. smu´ìac ‘woman’)NMLZ-womanăDIMą‘girl’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13)b. x. z@´ăzą@ ’m (cf. x. zum ‘big’)bigăDIMą‘a bit bigger’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13)c. m@´ămą@ ’w (cf. maw ‘cat’)catăDIMą‘kitten’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13)(264) Pluractional C1 Reduplicationa. ’qı´ă ’qąìi’l (cf. ’qı´ìil ‘run’)runăPLą‘run around’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.20)b. ’qw@m„ ’qwm-ı´ămą’l@x (cf. ’qw@´m ’qw@m ‘get cramped in a small spot’)PL„curl.upăPLą-AUT‘curl up’ (H. Davis et al., in prep)When no sonorants are available for glottalisation, reduplication occurs withoutany glottalisation, as shown in (265) and (266): obstruents are not made ejective,nor does epenthesis occur. While /P/ behaves as a sonorant in Lillooet, it is already68The example in (264c) has both C1C2 and C1 reduplication marking plurality.238a glottal consonant. There is therefore no change resulting from the glottalisationassociated with reduplication in (266a). A sonorant to the left of stress is also nota potential target for glottalisation: the /n/ in (265b) occurs before stress and is notglottalised.(265) Diminutive C1 Reduplicationa. c@´ăcąs-@p (cf. c@sp ‘stretch’)stretchăDIMą-INCH‘stretched a bit’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.15)b. nax. w@´ăx. wąt (cf. nax. w ı´t ‘snake’)snakeăDIMą‘worm’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.12)(266) Pluractional C1 Reduplicationa. ’qwut-a´ătąkaP (cf. ’qwuta´kaP ‘one hand’)(one.)sideăPLą-hand‘one hand, use’ (H. Davis et al., in prep)b. ’ňı´ă ’ňąqw@t (cf. ’ňı´qwt ‘crackle or explode in fire’)spark.fliesăPLą‘sparks fly up’ (H. Davis et al., in prep)If a sonorant is already glottalised in the input, the [c.g.] feature is associated withanother available sonorant between stress and the right edge, as shown in (267).(267) Diminutive C1 Reduplicationn@´ă ’ną@ ’m-p (cf. n@ ’mp ‘get blind’)blindăDIMą-INCH‘get a little blind’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.15)The domain for glottalisation matches that of reduplication: sonorants in lexicalsuffixes and the autonomous suffix -ilx may both be glottalised, as shown in (268)and (269), respectively.239(268) a. s- ’k@. l.-@´.ă’l.ą ’caP (cf. s ’k@. l. ı´ ’caP ‘item of buckskin clothing’)NMLZ-buckskin-outer.coverăDIMą‘small item of buckskin clothing’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023,p.14)b. ql.-@´.ă’l.ąkaP (ql.a´. kaP ‘clumsy’)bad-handăDIMą‘a bit clumsy’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.14)c. ’c@x. -m-a´ămą’lus (cf. ’c@´x. @m ‘sting’)sting-MID-eyeăPLą‘to get blinded (from facing the sun or anything bright’ (Van Eijk,2013, p.438)d. xwu´ăxwą ’ň-x@ ’n (cf. xwu´ ’ňu ’n ‘to take smth. off’)take.offăPLą-foot’barefooted’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.438)(269) a. qw@c-@´ăcą’l@x (cf. qw@cı´lx ‘move (oneself)’)move-AUTăDIMą‘wriggle’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.16)b. xw@lp-ı´ăpą’l@x (cf. xw@lpı´lx ‘turn around’)turn-AUTăPLą‘turn around and around’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.21)c. ì@Qw-ı´ăQwą’l@x (cf. ì@Qw ı´lx ‘jump’)bounce-AUTăPLą‘jump up and down’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.21)The middle suffix -m may also be glottalised in words with diminutive C1reduplication.69. Examples are given in (270).69As with many processes of glottalisation, glottalisation on the middle marker can be variable.There are exceptions where the middle marker is not glottalised and places where the middle markerand a second sonorant are glottalised; an example of each is provided in (i).(i) a. Pa´.ăPą@. ’l.s-@m (cf. Pa´. l.s@m ‘sick’)sickăDIMą-MID‘a little bit sick’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.60)240(270) a. xw@´ăxwą ’k-@ ’m (cf. xw ı´ ’k@m ‘cut fish’)butcherăDIMą-MID‘cut a bit of fish / cut small fish / small people cut fish’ (H. Davis &Mellesmoen, 2023, p.17)b. Pı´ăPą ’q-@ ’m (cf. Pı´ ’q@m ‘scrape’)scrapeăDIMą-MID‘scrape hair off a bit’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.17)Unlike the middle marker, the active intransitivizer suffix -xal is outside of thedomain for glottalisation: the /l/ in -xal is never glottalised with C1 reduplication,as shown in (271).(271) a. n-ka´ăką@’l-xal (cf. nka´lxal ‘follow s.o. or s.t.’)LOC-followăPLą-A.INTR‘follow s.o. around’b. n-ka´ăką@ ’m-xal (cf. nka´ ’mxal ‘pick s.t. up’)LOC-pick.upăPLą-A.INTR‘pick things up here and there’(H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.20)Further, diminutive reduplication is typically avoided with -xal. (H. Davis &Mellesmoen, 2023, p.16) note that -xal can be replaced with the middle marker- ’m in these forms. The middle marker is glottalised in these forms, as shownin (272b). The middle marker must therefore be parsed in the word at the samestratum as C1 reduplication; the active intransitivizer -xal is not parsed into theprosodic structure until the following stratum. This analysis is supported by thefact that these two intransitivizer suffixes can co-occur (i.e., they are not in strictcomplementary distribution); examples are given in (273).(272) a. p@kw-xa´l=ìkanpour.solids-A.INTR=1SG.SUBJPi= ’cx. wu´t=aPL.DET=gravel=EXIS‘I poured out the gravel.’b. Qı´ă ’Qąc@ ’m (cf. Qı´cxal ‘to gnaw, intr.’)biteăPLą-MID‘gnaw a hole, intr.’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.328)241b. p@ă ’pąkw-@ ’m=ìka´npour.solidsăDIMą-MID=1SG.SUBJPi= ’kwi ’kw@nP=aPL.DET=few=EXIS’cx. wutgravel‘I poured out a bit of gravel.’(H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.16)(273) ma´ ’nx-@m-xal (cf. ma´ ’nx@m ‘smoke tobacco’)smoke-MID-A.INTR‘give somebody a smoke’ (H. Davis et al., in prep)Glottalisation with C1 reduplication also does not cross into pronominal markers,as shown in (274).(274) a. Qw@ăQwą ’y@t=ka´n (cf. Qwu ’yt ‘sleep’)sleepăDIMą=1SG.SUBJ‘I slept a little bit.’b. m@´ă ’mącaPq=ìkan (cf. mı´caPq ‘sit’)sităDIMą=1SG.SUBJ‘I sat for awhile.’(H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.19)Glottalisation is sometimes observed on transitivizers with C1 reduplication,as shown in (275). Transitivizers are parsed at Level 3 and do not participatein reduplication. I analyse the glottalisation in (275) as an independentproperty associated with the transitivizer morpheme, rather than triggered byreduplication.70 I follow Caldecott (2009) in assuming that the underlying form ofthe transitivizer is / ’n/, but this is deglottalised when left unfooted or in the head ofa foot.71 I assume that glottalisation on the transitivizers with C1 reduplication is afaithful realisation of the underlying form.70It is common to get glottalisation on the transitivizer independent of C1 reduplication: e.g., nı´’ki ’n‘cut it’ in Caldecott (2009, p.249).71Caldecott (2009, p.251) also describes overapplication of deglottalisation; there is variationbetween lexical items and across different documentation that cannot be explained by regularphonological processes.242(275) a. c@´ăcąkw-@ ’n (cf. c@´kw@n ‘pull s.t.’)pullăDIMą-TR‘pull s.t. a bit’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.70)b. su´ăsą ’qw-@ ’n (cf. su´ ’qw@n ‘skin an animal’)skinăPLą-TR‘skin pl. animals’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.20)If glottalisation on the transitivizer is independent of C1 reduplication, it shouldbe possible to find forms with C1 reduplication and the transitivizer whereglottalisation falls on a sonorant to the left of the transitivizer. Examples are givenin (276). If the transitivizer were in the domain for glottalisation, the /n/ shouldbe glottalised in each example. Even in (276g), where /n/ is the only availablesonorant that glottalisation could target, it is not glottalised.(276) a. qw@´ăqwą ’w-@n (cf. qw ı´win ‘stick s.t. out’)stick.outăDIMą-TR‘stick s.t out a bit’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13)b. z@ă ’ząxt-a´n (cf. za´xtan ‘lengthen s.t.’)lengthenăDIMą-TR‘lengthen s.t. a bit’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13)c. s@w„s@´ăsą ’w-@n (cf. sa´w@n ‘ask s.o. s.t.’)PL„askăPLą-TR‘ask s.o. a lot of questions’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.22)d. ’k@´.ă ’ką’l.-@n (cf. ’k@´. l.@n ‘to make a mark by scratching’)scratch-TR‘to scratch it a little bit’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.203)e. G@´ă ’Gąp-@n (cf. G@´p@n ‘to stand it up’)uprightăDIMą-TR‘to stand it up a little bit’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.251)f. pa´ăpąx. -usa´P-@n (cf. pa´x. a ’n ‘to scrape s.t.’)scrapeăPLą-fruit-TR‘to peel fruit’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.22)243Finally, the presence of glottalisation is also somewhat variable. For example,if the rightmost sonorant is already glottalised, Caldecott (2009, p.14) states thatthis sonorant “will absorb the glottalisation”, rather than having the [c.g.] featureassociate with a preceding sonorant. While this holds for some examples, such asin (277a), it is not observed in other forms, such as in (277b).(277) a. n-mı´ămą’l-@n (cf. mi ’l ‘get shared out or divided’)LOC-shareăPLą-TR‘share things out’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.20)b. n- ’cmı´ă ’mąxw-laqi ’n (cf. n ’cmı´xwlaqi ’n ‘peak on roof’)LOC-peakăPLą-top.of.head‘peaked roof’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.83)The analysis proposed in the following section focuses on the places whereglottalisation occurs, but I set aside a potential absorption or blocking effect of aglottalised sonorant or glottal stop at present.4.2.4.3.2 Analysis of Glottalisation in C1 ReduplicationThe lexical entries for Level 2 C1 reduplicative morphemes are provided in (278).Both include a floating [c.g.] feature. [c.g.] is a unary feature.(278) a. Pluractional C1 Reduplication:(µ [c.g.])L2 ô xPLUyb. Diminutive C1 Reduplication:(µ [stress] [c.g.])L2 ô xDIMyThe constraint ranking established through Section 4.2.4.2 ensures that thecorrect consonant is reduplicated and that the vowel is replaced with schwa withdiminutive reduplication. The analysis thus far accounts for how the mora is filled;the analysis requires the modification of an existing constraint and additionalconstraints to account for glottalisation associated with the [c.g.] feature.*FLOAT makes reference to phonological features, as well as prosodic units,which means it plays a role in determining how a floating [c.g.] feature is realised.Additional constraints needed to account for the association of [c.g.] with asegment include MAX[C.G.] and DEP-LINK[C.G.], defined in (279). MAX[C.G.] is244violated if an input [c.g.] feature is not also present in the output, regardless ofwhether the feature is floating or associated with a segment.72 *DEP-LINK[C.G.]is violated by any association lines between a feature and a segment that werenot present in the input. This type of DEP-LINK constraint comes from More´n(1999, p.40), who adapted DEP-LINK-MORA[SEG] from NOSPREAD (see, e.g.,McCarthy, 2000).(279) a. MAX[C.G.]: Any [c.g.] feature must have an output correspondent.b. DEP-LINK[C.G.] (DEPL[C.G.]): Any association line between asegment and a phonological feature in the output must have an inputcorrespondent.The tableau in (280) for ’qı´ ’qìi ’l ‘run around’ in (264a) above shows that *DEP-LINK[C.G.] must be ranked lower than *FLOAT and MAX[C.G.] in order forthe attested candidate (280a), with glottalisation of the final sonorant, to win.Candidates (280b) and (280c), where the [c.g.] is either absent or left floating,fatally violate MAX[C.G.] and *FLOAT, respectively.(280)/µ [c.g.] + [ ’q´iìil]/ *FLOAT MAX[C.G.] DEP-LINK[C.G.] a. [ ’qı´ ’qìi’l] ˚b. [ ’qı´ ’qìil] ˚!c. [c.g] [ ’qı´ ’qìil] ˚!Where more than one consonant is available, there are several factors thatdetermine which segment is glottalised. First, only sonorant segments areglottalised: plain obstruents are never made into ejectives. Second, glottalisationalways falls on a sonorant on the right side of the stressed vowel. Third, if thereis more than one sonorant in the appropriate range, glottalisation will fall on therightmost one.I use the constraint DEP-LINKOBS[C.G.] to select between candidates with theglottalisation of obstruents and sonorants.73 This constraint, defined in (281), is72This is different from MAX-FLOAT, which only pertains to floating features or prosodic units.The difference between MAX-FLOAT and MAX[C.G.] will be discussed in Section 4.2.4.3.4.73I assume that [c.g.] is associated with both glottalised sonorants and obstruents. However, thereare differences in their behaviour which may reflect different feature specifications: e.g., Caldecott(2003) uses [creak] for glottalised sonorants, rather than [c.g.].245violated by the addition of an association line between a [c.g.] feature and anobstruent.(281) DEP-LINKOBS[C.G.](DEPLO[C.G.]): Any association line between anobstruent and a phonological feature in the output must have an inputcorrespondent.The position of glottalisation can be predicted with reference to two additionalconstraints: *SON[C.G] /-△FT and INT¨AGREE-[C.G.].74 *SON[C.G] /-△FT,defined in (282), is violated by any glottalised sonorant outside of a head foot.The definition of INT¨AGREE-[C.G.] is modeled off of INT¨EDGE-(σ ), whichwas first introduced in Section 4.2.4.1.2. Instead of defining a domain via theEDGE-(domain) format, I use the template AGREE-[F] for constraints satisfiedwhen fissioned segments share a featural specification with respect to [c.g.].INT¨AGREE-[C.G.] is violated when two output segments corresponding to thesame input segment do not share the same featural specification as each other.(282) a. *SON[C.G] /-△FT: Glottalised sonorants are only permitted in headfeet.b. INT¨AGREE-[C.G.] (INT¨AGR-[C.G.]): If two output segmentscorrespond to the same input segment, then either both or neither arespecified for [c.g.].Having DEP-LINKOBS[C.G.] and *SON[C.G] /-△FT ranked above MAX[C.G.]correctly predicts that glottalisation will not occur if there are no sonorants in thehead foot. The tableau in (283) for nax. w@´x. wt ‘worm’ (from nax. w ı´t ‘snake’) showsthat the attested form with no glottalisation in (283a) wins over candidates whichglottalise a sonorant earlier in the word (283b), glottalise an obstruent (283c), orleave the [c.g.] feature floating in the output (283d).7574*SON[C.G] /-△FT and its ranking relative to other Level 2 constraints in this section makes aprediction about the domain for C1 glottalisation that diverges from previous descriptions (e.g.,H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023): glottalisation will fall on the rightmost sonorant in a foot, notthe rightmost sonorant in a stem or word. See Section 4.2.4.3.3 for an evaluation of this prediction.75There is no /’t/ in the phonemic inventory of Lillooet. However, the identity of a specific stop isnot important here: DEPLO[C.G.] rules out the glottalisation of any obstruent, regardless of whetherit yields a phoneme in the language.246(283)/µ [c.g.] + na[x˙w i´t]/ *FLOAT SON[C.G] /-△FT DEPLO[C.G.] MAX[C.G.] DEPL[C.G.] a. na[x. w@´x. wt] ˚b. ’na[x. w@´x. wt] ˚! ˚c. na[x. w@´x. w’t] ˚! ˚d. [c.g.] na[x. w@´x. wt] ˚!INT¨AGREE-[C.G.] determines which consonant is glottalised when there is morethan one available sonorant. This is shown in (284) with the word n ’c@x. ma´m’lus‘blinded’ from (268) above, which has pluractional reduplication: the rankingmotivates selecting a sonorant further into the word than the fissioned sonorant.76The attested candidate in (284a) wins over a candidate which associates the [c.g.]feature with one of the fissioned segments (284b). A candidate which associatesa [c.g.] feature with both of the fissioned sonorants receives a second and fatalviolation of DEPL[C.G.].77(284)/µ [c.g.] + [ ’c@´x˙m] + alus/ INT¨AGREE-[C.G.] MAX[C.G.] DEPL[C.G.] a. [ ’c@x. ][ma´m’lus] ˚b. [ ’c@x. ][ma´ ’mlus] ˚! ˚c. [ ’c@x. ][ ’ma´ ’mlus] ˚˚!The constraint INT¨AGREE-[C.G.] must be ranked below DEP-LINKOBS[C.G.]and MAX[C.G.] to ensure that the fissioned consonant is associated with the [c.g.]feature when there are no other options. For example, in the diminutive wordn@´ ’n@ ’mp ‘get a little blind’, the only other sonorant is underlyingly glottalised. Theconstraint *ONSET"σ [C.G.] is also required to rule out an additional candidate whichsatisfies INT¨AGREE-[C.G.] by glottalising both of the fissioned consonants. Thisconstraint is violated by any candidate with a [c.g.] feature associated with anonset consonant in a stressed syllable.(285) *ONSET"σ [C.G.]: A segment in the onset of a stressed syllable is notassociated with a [c.g.] feature.The tableau in (286) for example (267) above shows that ranking *ONSET"σ [C.G.]above INT¨AGREE-[C.G.] correctly rules out candidate (286a), which glottalises76The prefix n- is not included in the input because it is assumed to be affixed later in the derivation.77*FLOAT, SON[C.G] /-△FT, and DEPLO[C.G.] are omitted for space, but are ranked aboveMAX[C.G.] .247two sonorants. Candidate (286b), which has associated [c.g.] with an obstruent,incurs a fatal violation under DEP-LINKOBS[C.G.]. Candidate (286c) deletesthe floating feature, which fatally violates MAX[C.G.]. Candidate (286d), theanticipated form, wins.78(286)/µ [c.g.] + [n@ ’mp]/ *ONS"σ [C.G.] DEPLO[C.G.] MAX[C.G.] INT¨AGR-[C.G.] DEPL[C.G.]a. [ ’n@´ ’n ’mp] ˚! ˚˚b. [n@´n ’mp] ˚!c. [n@´n ’m ’p] ˚! ˚ d. [n@´ ’n ’mp] ˚ ˚In order to protect sonorants glottalised in the underlying form, I assume thatboth *SON[C.G] /-△FT and *ONSET"σ [C.G.] are ranked beneath IDENT-[C.G.], aconstraint violated when a glottalised segment in the input is not also glottalised inthe output.The constraints and ranking established in this section account for sonorantglottalisation with both types of C1 reduplication.4.2.4.3.3 Is the domain of [c.g.] the foot or word?The constraint-based analysis given in Section 4.2.4.3.2 makes an empiricalprediction: the relevant domain for C1 glottalisation is the foot, not the word. InSection 4.2.4.3.1, I stated that sonorants available to host the floating [c.g.] fallbetween the stressed syllable and the right edge of the word (the output of Level2). This is achieved in the analysis by ranking *SON[C.G] /-△FT high enough tolimit [c.g.] to sonorants in the head foot, which rules out glottalisation to the leftof the stressed syllable. However, *SON[C.G] /-△FT also defines a limit on theright edge: the furthest [c.g.] can go is the last segment in the syllable followingthe stressed one, provided that the head foot is a bisyllabic foot where the secondsyllable has a sonorant in its coda.Caldecott (2009, p.14) proposes that glottalisation will generally surface onthe rightmost sonorant, defining the prosodic word as its domain. H. Davis (inprep) proposes that the domain for C1 glottalisation is the morphological stem;glottalisation will fall on the rightmost sonorant in the stem, which includes the78The attested form n@´ ’n@ ’mp ‘get a little blind’ will be generated at a later stratum following thesonority-motivated epenthesis of [@].248root and any aspectual, lexical, abstract, and in/transitive suffixes.79 In H. Davisand Mellesmoen (2023, p.14), the relevant domain for glottalisation is narrowedto exclude in/transitive suffixes. The three previous descriptions and my analysisin Section 4.2.4.3.2 converge on the fact that glottalisation is rightmost in somedomain, though the size of this domain is unclear. The four options are summarisedin (287).(287) a. Rightmost sonorant in word (Caldecott, 2009)b. Rightmost sonorant in stem (H. Davis, in prep)c. Rightmost sonorant in stem, excluding intransitive and transitivesuffixes (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023)d. Rightmost in the foot containing the head mora of the word (thisdissertation)The fact that C1 glottalisation does not cross into pronominal affixes rules out thefull prosodic word as the domain for glottalisation (e.g., 288a), while the fact thatC1 glottalisation only affects certain (in)transitivity markers (i.e., the middle -m)and not others (i.e. the active intransitivizer -xal or transitivizer -n) rules outthe morphological stem 288b–c). The only viable explanation is phonological:glottalisation targets the rightmost sonorant of the head foot in the output of Level2.(288) a. Qw@ăQwą ’y@t=ka´n (cf. Qwu ’yt ‘sleep’)sleepăDIMą=1SG.SUBJ‘I slept a little bit.’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.19)b. qw@´ăqwą ’w-@n (cf. qw ı´win ‘stick s.t. out’)stick.outăDIMą-TR‘stick s.t out a bit’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13)c. n-ka´ăką@’l-xal (cf. nka´lxal) ‘follow s.o. or s.t.’LOC-followăPLą-A.INTR‘follow s.o. around’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.20)79There are 11 abstract suffixes that are “somewhat aspectual in character” and “express notionssuch as ‘real’, ‘the very one’, ‘about to do smt.’, ‘willing to do smt.’, [and] ‘for fun, playfully’” (VanEijk, 1997, p.102).249Lillooet has trochaic feet and stress typically falls on the penultimate syllable,which means that the right boundary of the head foot and the right-edge ofthe word will often align. This tendency is even stronger when the relevantdomain is limited to the root (most often a single syllable) and lexical/abstractsuffixes. In fact, previous documentation is consistent with either a morphemeedge-based domain, as proposed by H. Davis and Mellesmoen (2023), or a (foot)prosody-based domain, as I predict. The crucial test case is a word with a syllablecontaining a sonorant that falls outside the head foot. Specifically, the relevantnon-reduplicated words must have at least three syllables with stress not fallingon the last two syllables. As an example, if H. Davis and Mellesmoen (2023) arecorrect, the diminutive form of the word za´xanis ‘long board’ will be z@´zxa ’nis.If the foot-based approach is correct, the diminutive will be z@´ ’zxanis. The twopossibilities are summarised in (289): [ ’n] is outside of the head foot; [ ’z] is withinit.80(289) a. Edge-Based: PrWdFootσz @´ zσx aFootσ’n i sb. Prosody-Based: PrWdFootσz @´ ’zσx aFootσn i sThe following examples, provided in (290), were elicited by Henry Davis todifferentiate between a morpheme-based and foot-based domain for glottalisation.Glottalisation does not occur on the rightmost sonorant if the sonorant is not partof the stressed syllable or the syllable immediately following. Note that stress80I exclude moras in these diagrams for simplicity.250shifts in (290b–c) with the addition of the EXIS =a, which is affixed at a laterstratum.(290) a. za´xanis ‘long board’xa´ ’ň-mi ’n=ìkanwant-RLT=1SG.SUBJkwu=z@´ă ’ząx-anisDET=longăDIMą-boardlapla´.sboard‘I want a slightly longer board.’ (CA, sf/repeated)b. Pu´xwalmixw ’indigenous person’pza´n=ìkanmeet+TR=1SG.SUBJta=PuăPąxwa’lmı´xw=aDET=personăDIMą=EXIS‘I met a little person.’ (CA, vf)c. xwu´ ’kwawiì ‘haul-vehicle’t@q-a´l ’k-@n=ìkantouch-string-TR=1SG.SUBJta=xw@ăxwą ’kw-awı´ì=aDET=pull-vehicle=EXIS‘I drove a little skidder.’ (CA, vf)The elicited data in (290) shows that the domain for C1 glottalisation is the foot, aspredicted by the high ranking of *SON[C.G] /-△FT established in Section 4.2.4.3.2.4.2.4.3.4 Unifying C1 and Glottalisation AnalysesThe analysis of glottalisation proposed in Section 4.2.4.3.2 focused solely on the[c.g.] component of the lexical entry, abstracting away from how this might interactwith the analysis of C1 reduplication in Section 4.2.4.2, which focused on howa µ is filled. I conclude the analysis of Level 2 C1 reduplication in Lillooet bydemonstrating that the glottalisation analysis is compatible with the analysis ofreduplication proposed in Section 4.2.4.2.One potential way to fill the mora and to associate segmental content with the[c.g.] feature would be epenthesis of a glottal stop into coda position, which couldsatisfy both parts of the input for the diminutive or pluractional affix with a singlesegment. The fact that this does not occur means that DEP-C must be ranked highenough to rule out epenthesis of a consonant.The tableau in (291) for example (264) above shows that the attested candidate’qı´ ’qìi ’l ‘run around’ in (291a), which has both reduplication and glottalisation, is251selected over one with glottal stop epenthesis (291b), as well as over those whereeither the mora or feature is not present in the output (291c–e). The constraint*FLOAT is omitted from this tableau for space, but rules out candidates whichleave either µ or [c.g.] floating in the output.(291)/µ [c.g.] + [ ’q´iìil]/ MAXµ DEP-C MAX[C.G.] DEP-LINK[C.G.] INT-C a. [ ’qı´ ’qìi’l] ˚ ˚b. [ ’qı´Pìil] ˚!c. [ ’qı´ ’qìil] ˚! ˚d. [ ’qı´ìi’l] ˚! ˚e. [ ’qı´ìil] ˚! ˚The [c.g.] feature is not present in the output when there is no available sonorant,which means DEP-LINKO[C.G.] must be ranked above MAX[C.G.] and MAX-FLOAT.This ranking ensures that [c.g.] will not associate with an obstruent. Havingboth DEP-C and DEP-LINKO[C.G.] above MAX[C.G.] correctly yields the attestedcandidate ’ňı´ ’ňqw@t ‘sparks fly up’, shown in (292a) for example (266) above.(292)/µ [c.g.] + ( ’ň´iqwt)/ DEPLO[C.G.] MAXµ DEP-C MAXFLT MAX[C.G.] DEPL[C.G.] INT-C a. ’ňı´ ’ňqw@t ˚ ˚ ˚b. ’ňı´ ’ňqw@’t ˚! ˚ ˚c. ’ňı´Pqw@t ˚!The proposed constraint ranking can account for both the floating µ and the [c.g.]associated with C1 diminutive and pluractional reduplication at Level 2.4.2.4.4 Summary of Level 2 GrammarLevel 2 reduplication in Lillooet includes C2 change-of-state reduplication, C1pluractional reduplication, and C1 diminutive reduplication. Level 2 reduplicationdiffers from Level 1 reduplication in how constraints are ranked. First, thereare more constraints relevant for predicting the attested form and position ofreduplicative morphemes at Level 2 than at Level 1 (compare 293a and 293b).252(293) a. Lillooet Level 1 Grammar:A DEP-C INT-V, TROCHEE, *FLOAT,SONORITY PARSE-SYLL REALIZEMORPH,MAX-FLOAT,PREFIX/σ ,DEP-VµB INT-C DEP-V *STRUC-FTb. Lillooet Level 2 Grammar:A *@P]σ , PRWDGRWD DEP-Vµ , INT-V, IDENT[C.G.] REALIZEM,OCP, TROCHEE DEP-C ANCHORFOOTCULMIN INT¨EDGE-(σ ),PARSE-µ ,*-∆FT ą ∆FT,*FLOAT,DEPLO[C.G.]B STRESS2 *STRUC-FT *P/@ DEP-V, *SON[C.G] /-△FT,INT-C *ONSET"σ [C.G.]C MAX-µ PARSE-σ PREFIX/σ ,HDMATCHD MAX[C.G.],MAX-FLOATE INT¨AGR-[c.g.]F DEPL[C.G.]Second, Level 2 reduplication processes in Lillooet are sensitive to prosodicstructure. This pattern emerges because constraints like HEADMATCH andANCHORL are ranked higher in the Level 2 grammar than they would be in theLevel 1 grammar to ensure that prosodic structure built at Level 1 is retainedwhere possible; in other words, it is better to integrate a floating prosodic unit intoan existing foot than build a new one on the edge of the word.While Level 2 reduplication in Lillooet cannot be analysed without alsoconsidering stress assignment, Level 1 processes do not require reference toprosodic structure. A key difference in the constraints at Level 1 and Level 2 isthat PREFIX/σ is ranked much lower at Level 2, allowing for C2 reduplicationto appear on the surface as an infix, rather than a prefix. With a high ranking ofPREFIX constraints at Level 1, reduplication defaults to edge-aligned, since theposition of stress does not matter. When PREFIX constraints have a low ranking253relative to other constraints, other properties, such as sensitivity to stress, mayemerge.At Level 2, the affixed mora (diminutive or pluractional) or syllable (change-of-state) are incorporated into existing syllables or feet to avoid incurring additionalviolations of *STRUC-FT. The position of C1 reduplication is also motivated by*-△FT y△FT, which prefers adding an additional mora to the head of a foot overadding weight to a foot non-head. Level 2 reduplication processes are thus stress-adjacent, unlike Level 1 processes, which are adjacent to the left edge.As argued in Chapter 3 (Section 3.5.2.3) and shown in Table 4.35, PARSEAFFIXmust be ranked higher than AFFIXL2 at Level 2. PARSEAFFIX motivates parsingaffixes into the prosodic word; AFFIXL2 is violated when a Level 2 affix is parsedinto the word. When PARSEAFFIX is ranked above AFFIXL2, all affixes marked withan L2 diacritic will be parsed into the word; the inverse order of the constraints isrequired for the Level 1 grammar because Level 2 affixes are left unparsed.Table 4.35: Level 2 Affix ConstraintsLevel 1 Level 2A AFFIXL2 PARSEAFFIXB PARSEAFFIX AFFIXL2Level 2 reduplicative morphemes also partially differ in underlying (input)representations from those at Level 1. The lexical entry for change-of-state C2reduplication is an affixed syllable, identical to initial C1 reduplication at Level 1,but the lexical entries for the diminutive and pluractional reduplicative morphemesconsist of a mora and a [c.g] feature. The difference between the latter two is thatthe diminutive mora carries a [stress] feature, while the pluractional mora does not.The inventory of Lillooet reduplicative morphemes is given in (294).(294) a. Lillooet Level 1 Reduplication:i. σ ôăINIT.C1ąii. σN+µ ôăC1C2.PLąiii. σN+µ ôăPDENą254b. Lillooet Level 2 Reduplication:i. σL2 ôăCOSąii. (µ [stress] [c.g.])L2 ôăDIMąiii. (µ [c.g.])L2 ôăC1.PLą4.2.5 C22 Reduplication (Triplication)In addition to Level 1 and Level 2 reduplication, there is another type ofreduplication that occurs late in the derivation (Level 2+n): C22 reduplication(triplication). While this pattern was first introduced in Chapter 2 (Section 2.6.4)as an apparent case of two instances of C2 reduplication, I reclassify it as a distinctreduplicative morpheme in this section.81I first provide examples and generalisations in Section 4.2.5.1. A full formalanalysis is not provided for this type of reduplication due to high amounts ofvariation related to the vowel source and quality, but the necessary components areexplored, including its lexical entry (Section 4.2.5.2) and level (Section 4.2.5.3).4.2.5.1 Form of C22 Reduplication (Triplication)Words with C22 reduplication are associated with semelfactive events (i.e., eventswith a short duration that are often repeated), often those that involve sensoryinformation about vision (flashing lights) or sound (noises). There are twocopies of the consonant following the stressed vowel in C22 reduplication, whichresembles two instances of C2 reduplication. While each copy is preceded by avowel, it may be a vowel of the same quality as the stressed one, as shown in(295a-b), which is unlike C2 reduplication. Words with C22 reduplication mayalso surface with [@] as the first vowel and [a] as the second, as shown in (295c-d).The [@] is epenthetic, while the source of the [a] is unclear.82(295) a. ’plăixwixwąı´xw (cf. ka ’plı´xwa ‘to boil over suddenly’)overflowăTRIPą‘to keep overflowing’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.32)81See Chapter 2 (Section 2.2.3.2.2) for a discussion of forms that appear to have two instances ofC1C2 reduplication.82It is possible that [a] comes from a process of ablaut.255b. qă@ ’kw@ ’kwą@´ ’kw-c (cf. q@ ’kwca´ ’n@m ‘mouth is shivering’)get.slammedăTRIPą-mouth‘rattle one’s teeth’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.263)c. ìă@laląı´l (cf. ìı´lin ‘to sprinkle s.t.’)sprinkleăTRIPą‘to keep sprinkling’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56)d. pă@. ta. tą@´. t (root: p(@. )t- ‘bubble’)bubbleăTRIPą‘to make a bubbling, gurgling noise’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.4)I have not been able to identify any phonological factors that condition ordistinguish between the two vowel patterns. The vowel patterns are furthercomplicated by variation. The forms in (296) show variation in whether the [a] ispresent (296a-b), as well as in which position(s) it is recorded.(296) a. ìă@. n@. ną@´.n „ ìă@. n@. nąa´n (cf. ì@. np ‘sound of things vibrating’)vibrateăTRIPą‘sound of things vibrating (e.g., a logging truck passes by)’ (H. Daviset al., in prep)b. x. wă@m@mąa´m „ x. wă@m@mą@´m „ x. wă@mamą@´mquickăTRIPą‘hurry’ (cf. x. w@m ‘quick’) (H. Davis et al., in prep)c. Qwă@lalą@´l „ Qwă@laląa´l (cf. kaQw@´la ‘get lit’)lightăTRIPą‘be flickering or blinking’ (H. Davis et al., in prep)Further elicitation is needed to explore the nature of this variation and whetherthere are any categorical patterns that predict when and where [a] occurs.Words with C22 reduplication are also notable for their prosody: they showinvariable word-final stress, which is not sensitive to vowel weight. Additionally,vowels are not copied in any of the other reduplicative patterns, while here theyare. However, given the variability in vowel identity and position in the C22reduplication, it is not possible to present a full analysis of this type of reduplication256at present. Instead, I will provide a brief sketch of what the lexical entry andgrammar must include in order for C22 reduplication to be possible.4.2.5.2 Input for C22 Reduplication (Triplication)I propose that the input for C22 reduplication is an affixed foot, as shown in (297).At present, I leave the question open as to whether this foot has further specification(e.g., two syllables or a fixed /a/). I use the diacritic L2+n for Level 2+n as aplaceholder: further work on the phonology of post-Level 2 affixes is needed todetermine the exact level of triplication.(297) Triplicating (C22) Reduplication:FtL2+n ô xTRIPyThe foot introduced by the triplicating morpheme is bolded in (298).(298) C22 ReduplicationPrWdFtσp @.σtµa.Ftσt @´.µ+tpă@. ta. tą@´. trootăTRIPą‘make gurgling orbubbling noise’(H. Davis et al., in prep)While the presence of [a] in the C22 triplicated forms is variable, it does mean thatthe foot has moraic weight. When both of the vowels associated with the foot were[@], the foot has no moraic weight.The alternative analyses to positing a single reduplicative morpheme arethat C22 reduplication involves two instances of C2 reduplication (multiplereduplication), or that the reduplicated forms are lexicalised.Multiple reduplication can be ruled out because if these forms involved theaddition of the same reduplicative morpheme twice, this should be reflected inthe meaning. For example, when applying C2 reduplication to a form already257marked with C2 reduplication, compositional semantics would predict change-of-state semantics applied to a change of state. This is not the case: C22 reduplicationis associated with repetition of a semelfactive event, not a change of state. There isalso at least one documented form, provided in (299), which has C2 reduplicationin addition to the C22 pattern. The copied consonant in the regular C2 reduplicationis different from the consonant tripled as part of the C22 process.(299) q@’lă’ląă@xw@xwą@´xw (root: q ’lxw- ‘hurry’)hurryăCOSąăTRIPą‘rushing to get s.t. done, rushing to get ready’ (H. Davis et al., in prep)The example in (299) suggests that either the input or the grammar, or both, differbetween C2 reduplication and triplication. In other words, C22 cannot be analysedas C2 reduplication added to words that already have C2 reduplication.A second possibility is that these examples are fully lexicalised. However, itshould be noted that while these forms lack phonological regularity in their vowels,they have a consistent meaning. A better interpretation is that these forms arelimited in occurrence because they are restricted to a narrow semantic domain,rather than due to lack of productivity.83C22 reduplication is best analysed as a standalone reduplicative morphemewhich affixes an empty foot.4.2.5.3 C22 Reduplication (Triplication) at a Later StratumWords with C22 reduplication have a number of phonological properties thatsuggest that the affixed foot is not filled at Level 1 or Level 2.First, the grammars proposed for Level 1 and Level 2 do not permit copyingvowels. However, with a full vowel root, the root vowel is sometimes tripled, asshown in (300).(300) ’plăixwixwąı´xw (cf. ka ’plı´xwa ‘to boil over suddenly’)overflowăTRIPą‘to keep overflowing’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.32)83Henry Davis (p.c.) suspects that new words with this type of reduplication could be elicitedprovided that the lexical item was appropriate.258If triplication occurred as a Level 1 or Level 2 process, [@] would always bepredicted by the Level 2 grammar proposed in Section 4.2.4. In addition, theinvariable presence of a vowel in these forms marks a departure from reduplicationat the early strata, which may lose an epenthetic [@] later in the derivation. Forexample, the [@] in C2 reduplication is dropped in (301). In comparison, thetriplicated forms do not lose their vowel. This suggests that triplication occursconsiderably later in the derivation, such that [@] is retained.(301) qaăxwąxw-a´wì (cf. qa´xw@xw ‘break’)breakăCOSą-conveyance‘break down (car)’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.263)The stress pattern associated with triplication is also notable. Stress remains on therightmost of the three syllables in (302), even when there is a better candidate forstress (i.e., moraic [a]). This suggests that stress assigned earlier in the derivationis retained and that the affixation of the foot does not cause stress to shift, as mightbe expected if the foot were parsed into the word earlier in the derivation.(302) Qwă@’la’lą@´’l (cf. Qw@´ ’l@m ‘a bubble’)bubbleăTRIPą‘bubbles come up when someone dives in’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.336)While I do not offer a constraint-based analysis of the patterns, I have provideda sketch of the components of a solution that would best fit the available data andthat is consistent with the larger analysis of Lillooet reduplication considered in thischapter. In Chapter 5 (Section 5.4.6), I will compare this type of reduplication withmultiple reduplication (i.e., forms exhibiting more than one type of reduplication).4.2.6 Summary of Reduplication in LillooetReduplication in Lillooet occurs at three different strata, which each has a uniqueconstraint ranking. I have proposed constraint rankings to account for Level 1 andLevel 2 reduplication in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4, respectively. In this section, Idirectly compare the Level 1 and Level 2 rankings.The constraints relevant to parsing affixes and the constraints motivatingreduplication and glottalisation are compared in Table 4.36.259Table 4.36: Constraints Motivating Parsing and FillingLevel 1 Level 2High AFFIXL2, PARSEAFFIX,REALIZEMORPHEME REALIZEMORPHEME,*FLOATLow PARSEAFFIX, AFFIXL2*FLOATThe crucial rankings of the INTEGRITY and DEP constraints are the sameacross Level 1 and Level 2 in Lillooet: consonants are copied and vowels areepenthesized.Table 4.37: Fission and Epenthesis ConstraintsLevel 1 Level 2High DEP-C, DEP-C,INT-V INT-VLow DEP-V, DEP-V,INT-C INT-CThe position of copied consonants relates to how highly PREFIX/σ (as wellas PREFIX and PREFIX/µ) and INT¨EDGE-(σ ) are ranked. At Level 1, allreduplication occurs on the left edge, which means the PREFIX constraints havea high ranking. At Level 2, reduplication is infixed, which means the PREFIXconstraints are ranked low. At Level 1, the fissioned consonants are in separatesyllables, which means INT¨EDGE-(σ ) is low; at Level 2, the copied consonantsare always in the same syllable, which means INT¨EDGE-(σ ) is high.260Table 4.38: Position of Fissioned ConsonantsLevel 1 Level 2High PREFIX/σ , INT¨EDGE-(σ )PREFIX/µ ,PREFIXLow INT¨EDGE-(σ ) PREFIX/σ ,PREFIX/µ ,PREFIXThe constraint SONORITY was used in the analysis of Level 1 to abstract awayfrom prosodic constraints that motivated building a foot but were not otherwisesignificant to the analysis. Table 4.39 shows how the constraints used in Level2 must be ranked at Level 1 to select candidates with a single foot. The maindifference between Level 1 and Level 2 is that the constraints dealing with prosodicstructure in the input (HEADMATCH and ANCHORFOOT) are not crucially ranked atLevel 1 because no segments will have been parsed into feet yet. The rankings of*-∆FT ą ∆FT and PARSE-µ relative to other constraints are also unclear at Level1.261Table 4.39: Building Prosodic StructureLevel 1 Level 2A GRWDPRWD, GRWDPRWD,TROCHEE, TROCHEE,DEP-Vµ , DEP-Vµ ,PARSESYLL *-∆FT ą ∆ FTANCHORFOOT,PARSE-µB *P/@, *P/@,*STRUC-FT *STRUC-FTC PARSESYLL,HEADMATCHUnclear HEADMATCH,ANCHORFOOT,*-∆FT ą ∆ FT,PARSE-µTable 4.40 compares the constraints motivating the assignment of lexical stressand those dealing with general phonotactics. Lexical stress is observed inmorphologically simple nouns, which suggests that STRESS2 is undominated atLevel 1. There are also no lexical items with a tautosyllabic @P (or @h) and primarystress is limited to one per word, which supports a high ranking of *@P]σ andCULMIN at Level 1, also necessary at Level 2. The rankings of OCP and MAX-µare unclear at Level 1.Table 4.40: Constraints Dealing with Lexical Stress and PhonotacticsLevel 1 Level 2A *@P]σ , *@P]σ ,CULMIN, CULMIN,STRESS2 OCPB STRESS2C MAX-µUnclear OCP,MAX-µ262The constraints pertaining to glottalisation are summarised in Table 4.41. IDENT-[C.G.] must be ranked above the two positional restrictions on [c.g.] segments(*SON[C.G] /-△FT and *ONSET"σ [C.G.]) to protect against deglottalisation ofunderlyingly glottalised sonorants. However at Level 1, the positions of the otherglottalisation constraints are unclear because the reduplicative morphemes do notcontain a floating [c.g.] feature, and therefore the constraints are all vacuouslysatisfied.Table 4.41: Glottalisation and [c.g.] ConstraintsLevel 1 Level 2A IDENT-[C.G.], IDENT-[C.G.],MAX-FLOAT DEPLO[C.G.]B *SON[C.G] /-△FT, *SON[C.G] /-△FT,*ONSET"σ [C.G.] *ONSET"σ [C.G.]C MAX-[C.G.],MAX-FLOATD INT¨AGR-[C.G.]E DEPL[C.G.]Unclear MAX-[C.G.],INT¨AGR-[C.G.]DEPLO[C.G.],DEPL[C.G.]Differences between reduplicative morphemes in Lillooet arise from differentconstraint rankings at each stratum, in addition to a range of different inputs (lexicalentries), as summarised in Table 4.42.Table 4.42: Lexical Entries in LillooetLevel 1 Level 2 Level 2+nµ-type (µ [c.g.])L2(µ [stress] [c.g.])L2σ -type σN+µ σL2σFt-type FtL2+n263Many of the key rankings are the same across Level 1 and Level 2 in Lillooet,unlike in Comox-Sliammon; the two languages differ more strongly in theunderlying form of the affixes and the stratum where each is parsed into the word.4.3 ConclusionA combination of assumptions from Stratal OT and Prosodic Morphology providesthe framework needed for an analysis of reduplicative morphemes in languageswith large inventories of reduplicative processes, such as Comox-Sliammon(seven) and Lillooet (six). Reduplicative morphemes in Comox-Sliammon andLillooet include affixed moras and syllables (σ or σN+µ ). In addition to theseprosodic units, Comox-Sliammon uses fixed segment allomorph (Section 4.1.3.1);Lillooet uses a foot (Section 4.2.5).Certain prosodic units are accompanied by a floating [c.g.] feature, whichcorresponds to glottalisation in both languages. The diminutive mora in Lillooetis also marked for lexical stress. The realization of these morphemes followsfrom the general phonological grammar of each language, resulting in differencesin the surface form (how the prosodic affix is filled). For example, the [c.g.]feature accompanies a mora in Lillooet Level 2 C1 reduplication and is realised asglottalisation on a sonorant in combination with fission of a consonant. In Comox-Sliammon, the [c.g.] feature accompanies a mora as part of V1 reduplication, butis realised as an epenthetic glottal stop alongside a fissioned vowel.The levels where reduplicative morphemes are parsed into the word alsodiffer between the two languages, While the diminutive is a Level 1 affix and theplural/pluractional C1C2 morpheme is a Level 2 affix in Comox-Sliammon, theorder of the two is reversed in Lillooet. When triplication in Lillooet is included,both languages require positing three strata where reduplication can happen.The analysis developed in this chapter (and in Chapter 5 on multiplereduplication) leads to a set of predictions about reduplication in Salish, which arefirst outlined and then evaluated against cross-Salish patterns in Chapter 6.264Chapter 5Multiple Reduplication5.1 IntroductionMultiple reduplication refers to the combination of at least two reduplicativemorphemes in the same word. Multiple reduplication in Salish has played a keyrole in providing evidence for a variety of phonological theories; for example, ithas been used to argue for subjacency in morphology (Broselow, 1983), as wellas to argue against theories with cyclicity in favour of parallel derivation (e.g.,Urbanczyk, 1999).Previous chapters laid out crucial theoretical assumptions about reduplicationand the grammar (Chapter 3), and showed how these assumptions allow for theanalysis of reduplicative morphemes in Comox-Sliammon and Lillooet (Chapter4). This chapter presents case studies and analyses of multiple reduplicationpatterns in three languages: Halkomelem, Lillooet, and Comox-Sliammon.The first case study, given in Section 5.3, focuses on multiple reduplication inHalkomelem and outlines the core proposal in this chapter: multiple reduplicationis only possible if prosodic affixes are parsed at different strata from each other.The second case study, presented in Section 5.4, confirms this prediction througha study of combinations and gaps in Lillooet multiple reduplication. I considermultiple reduplication in Comox-Sliammon as a final case study, given in Section5.5, to test an additional prediction that fixed segment affixes are exempt from therestriction on multiple reduplication.265Through the analysis of multiple reduplication in Halkomelem, Lillooet, andComox-Sliammon, this chapter explores the patterns, restrictions, and allomorphythat arise when various reduplicative morphemes are combined. These case studieshighlight potential challenges for other theoretical approaches and showcase thebenefits of adopting the theoretical framework proposed in this dissertation.5.2 BackgroundPhonological interest in Salish multiple reduplication started in the 1980s, withwork by Broselow (1983) covering Lushootseed, Thompson River Salish, andShuswap.Broselow (1983) uses multiple reduplication to argue that subjacency isrelevant not just at the level of the sentence, but also the level of the word.She proposes a cyclic derivation where reduplication can only access materialcontained in a subjacent cycle. In multiple reduplication, this means the outermostof two reduplicative morphemes is limited to copying material associated with theinnermost reduplicative morpheme, rather than the root. While Broselow (1983)takes a different theoretical approach to reduplication than I use (see Section 3.5.2for my assumptions about stratification and the phonological grammar), bothapproaches converge on a need for multiple stages of derivation to account for theempirical facts in Salish.Despite featuring prominently in arguments for particular phonologicaltheories, the description and analysis of multiple reduplication in Salish rarelyconsiders the full range of reduplicative morphemes and the full range of possiblecombinations within a single language, much less across multiple languages or thefamily as a whole. Combinations of diminutive C1 and plural C1C2 reduplicationare those best represented in the literature (see, e.g., Broselow 1983; Bjorkman2006), though some works have included the combination of C1C2 and C2reduplication as well (e.g., Urbanczyk, 2006).The survey of multiple reduplication in Chapter 2 (Section 2.8) establishedthat multiple reduplication is found in 15 Salish languages. A primary goal of thischapter is to explore possible combinations and to identify circumstances wheremultiple reduplication is ungrammatical, absent in existing documentation, or266avoided through the use of non-reduplicative allomorphs.5.3 Case Study I: Halkomelem (Allomorphy)Imperfectivity in Halkomelem can be expressed with a range of non-concatenativeprocesses, including ablaut, reduplication, metathesis, glottal stop epenthesis,sonorant aspiration, schwa deletion, and schwa insertion (see, e.g., Zimmermann2013; Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2020).Aside from imperfective C1 reduplication, the types of reduplication (and theirallomorphs) included in this case study are diminutive C1 reduplication and pluralC1C2 reduplication. An example of each is shown in (303).1(303) a. Imperfective C1 Reduplicationìa´„ì@ ’kw (cf. ìa ’kw ‘fly’)IPFV„fly‘flying’ (Hukari, 1978, p.163)b. Diminutive C1 Reduplication’kwiP„ ’kwăe´ąì-t (cf. ’kweìt ‘pouring it’)DIM„pourăIPFVą-CTR‘pouring it (dim.)’ (Hukari, 1978, p.194)c. Plural C1C2 ReduplicationT@x.„T@´x. -@t (cf. Tx. @t ‘push it’)PL„push-CTR‘push them’ (Hukari, 1978, p.189)Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2021a) propose that Halkomelem exhibitsvariable multiple reduplication. Variable multiple reduplication means that alanguage allows multiple reduplication in some instances, but blocks it in others.Halkomelem allows for combinations of reduplicative morphemes, as shownby the co-occurrence of the imperfective and diminutive in (304); note that thediminutive is marked both with C1 reduplication and the infixation of a glottal stopin these forms.1I leave ”(‘dim’)” in translations following the source because diminutive verbs may have a rangeof different meanings, including small participants or events; it is not clear what the translation wouldbe. See Chapter 1 (Section 1.4.4.3) for discussion of glossing.267(304) a. ì@„ìa´ăPą„ì@ ’kw (cf. ìa ’kw ‘fly’)DIM„IPFVăDIMą„fly‘flying (dim.)’b. ’t@„’tı´ăPą„’t@l-@m (cf. ’tı´l@m ‘to sing’)DIM„IPFVăDIMą„sing-MID‘singing (dim.)’(Hukari, 1978, p.196)Not all combinations of reduplicative morphemes are attested in Halkomelem.In the examples in (305) which include diminutive, plural, and imperfectivemorphology, an infix -l- is used instead of C1C2 reduplication to mark plurality.(305) a. ìă@ląiP„ì@„ì@´n-@ ’m (cf. ì@ì@´n@ ’m ‘weaving’)DIMăPLą„IPFV„weave-MID‘weaving (dim. pl.)’b. pă@ląiP„păaąqw-t (cf. paqwt ‘breaking it’)DIMăPLą„breakăIPFVą-CTR‘breaking them (dim.)’(Hukari, 1978, p.196)Given that Halkomelem is a language with variable multiple reduplication, ananalysis of reduplication in Halkomelem must predict attested combinations whileruling out unattested types of multiple reduplication.Unlike the case studies of Lillooet and Comox-Sliammon that follow, this casestudy relies exclusively on secondary sources. Data in this section comes from theIsland and Downriver dialects of Halkomelem.25.3.1 Single Reduplication in HalkomelemIn this section, I provide a brief summary of imperfective (Section 5.3.1.1),diminutive (Section 5.3.1.2), and plural (Section 5.3.1.3) reduplication patterns inHalkomelem.2The Upriver dialect has similar reduplication patterns, though see Section 6.7.1.2 for discussionof compensatory lengthening not found in Island or Downriver Halkomelem.2685.3.1.1 Level 1: Imperfective5.3.1.1.1 Allomorphs of the ImperfectiveMellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2020) note that phonological, morphological, andlexical factors condition the surface form of the imperfective in Halkomelem. Ifocus on the phonologically conditioned allomorphs here.3 The surface form ofthe imperfective is determined by the shape of the root (and sometimes a followingaffix), in particular whether it starts with a consonant cluster, has a moraic vowelor [@], as well as which consonants are in the root.The first set of imperfective forms, given in (306), are built on words with aCVC root with a moraic vowel, excluding those with a glottal stop or /h/ as thesecond consonant. The initial consonant and vowel are copied; there is subsequentreduction of a moraic unstressed vowel to [@] at a later stratum.(306) a. ìı´„ì@ ’c-@t (cf. ìı´ ’c@t ‘cut it’)IPFV„cut-CTR‘cutting it’b. ìı´„ì@ ’m-@t (cf. ìı´m@t ‘lick it’)IPFV„lick-CTR‘licking it’c. ye´„ ’y@ ’q (cf. ye ’q ‘topple down’)IPFV„topple‘toppling down’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2020, p.240)Glottalisation of sonorant consonants is also common in imperfective forms,such as in (306b–c) above. As the goal of this chapter is to discuss the possiblecombinations of reduplicative morphemes, I will not provide further discussion ofglottalisation with respect to the imperfective in Halkomelem.43I assume that the other forms represent morphologically conditioned allomorphy or irregularforms, which are beyond the scope of the present analysis.4There is likely a [c.g.] feature, as was proposed for Level 3 V1 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon in 4.1.5.2.2, as well as for both types of Level 2 C1 reduplication in Lillooet in Section4.2.4.3.269When the root starts with a glottal stop or an /h/, the imperfective is marked byan infixed glottal stop, as shown in (307).(307) a. Pı´ăPąm-@sˇ (cf. Pı´m@sˇ ‘walk’)walkăIPFVą-INTR‘walking’b. Pa´ăPą ’kw-@t (cf. Pa´ ’kw@t ‘hook it’)hookăIPFVą-CTR‘hooking it’c. he´ăPąs-@ ’m (cf. he´s@m ‘sneeze’)sneezeăIPFVą-MID‘sneezing’d. ha´ăPąkw-@sˇ (cf. ha´kw@sˇ ‘use/wear it’)use.wearăIPFVą-INTR‘using it, wearing it’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2020, p.240)When the word starts with a C@CC- sequence, the imperfective is formed by ablaut.As shown in (308), a moraic vowel (/a/ or /e/) surfaces instead of [@].(308) a. ìăeą ’p’tT-t (cf. ì@ ’p ’tTt ‘slurp it’)slurpăIPFVą-CTR‘slurping it’b. săeą ’w ’q (cf. s@w ’q ‘look for’)lookăIPFVą‘looking for’c. ’căaą’t ’qw-t (cf. ’c@ ’t ’qwt ‘grind it’)grindăIPFVą-CTR‘grinding it’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2020, p.241)Metathesis, shown in (309), marks the imperfective form of words which beginwith a consonant cluster comprised of obstruents. The vowel and the secondconsonant are switched in the imperfective form.270(309) a. paqw-t (cf. pqwat ‘break it’)break+IPFV-CTR‘breaking it’b. ’ta ’qw-t (cf. ’t ’qwat ‘break it’)break+IPFV-CTR‘breaking it’c. se ’q-t (cf. s ’qet ‘tear/split it’)tear.split+IPFV-CTR‘tearing/splitting it’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2020, p.241)If the word starts with a sonorant (excluding /P/) followed by a /@/, then theimperfective word has an infixed copy of that consonant; the initial consonant ofthe word surfaces as [h].5(310) a. h@´ă’ląm-@t (cf. l@´ ’m@t ‘fold it’)foldăIPFVą-CTR‘folding it’b. h@´ă ’mą ’q-@t (cf. m@´ ’q@t ‘swallow it’)swallowăIPFVą-CTR‘swallowing it’c. h@´ă ’nąq@m (cf. n@´q@m ‘dive’)diveăIPFVą-MID‘diving’d. h@´ă ’yą ’kw-@t (cf. y@´ ’kw@t ‘scrub/rub together’)scrub.rubăIPFVą-CTR‘scrubbing, rubbing together’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2020, p.241)When a word starts with an obstruent-schwa-sonorant-schwa (O@S@) sequence, itsimperfective form has a copy of the shape C@- and stress falls on the second [@], asshown in (311).5This process can be analysed as sonorant “aspiration”, devoicing, debuccalisation, spirantisation,or as some combination of these processes.271(311) a. t@„t@´ ’m-@t (cf. t@´ ’m@t ‘pound on it’)IPFV„drum-CTR‘pounding on it, beating a drum’b. ì@„ì@´’l-@t (cf. ì@´l@t ‘bail it out’)IPFV„bail-CTR‘bailing it out’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2020, p.243)Table 5.1 summarizes the phonologically conditioned allomorphs of theimperfective in Halkomelem; I use “CObs” to refer to an obstruent, while “CSon”refers to a sonorant consonant.Table 5.1: Phonologically Conditioned Allomorphs of the Imperfective(Halkomelem)Type Shape First Segments of Non-Reduplicated WordReduplication CV- CVµC... , e.g., (306)C@- CObs@CSon@..., e.g., (311)h@´- CSon@... , e.g., (310)Infix -P- CP/hVC, e.g., (307)Ablaut -a- or -e- CObs@CC..., e.g., (308)Metathesis Metathesis CObsCObsVCObs..., e.g., (309)5.3.1.1.2 Analysis of the ImperfectiveThe lexical entry for the imperfective in Halkomelem is a mora, as shown in(312). The mora is unmarked for stratum, given that it is parsed at Level 1(following the assumptions laid out in Section 3.5.2.3). This analysis is modifiedfrom Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2020) to match the phonological frameworkpresented in Chapter 3 and the analyses of reduplication given in Chapter 4.(312) Halkomelem Imperfective:µ ôăIPFVąEach surface form of the imperfective can be derived through the addition of amora. In this section, I will show where the mora is integrated into prosodic272structure for each surface pattern to show that they all can be derived from thesame input µ .6Metathesis can fill a mora, as shown in (313). When a mora is affixed to aCCVC input, as shown in (313a), switching an onset consonant with a vowel putsthe consonant into a coda position, which then can be associated with a mora, asshown in (313b). I assume no prosodic structure is associated with the root inthe input to Level 1 (aside from the fact that underlying vowels are moraic); theprosodic structure given beside the input in the following examples is strictly forcomparison and shows the structure that would be built if the imperfective were notpresent. The imperfective form must necessarily be different than this comparisonform to satisfy REALIZEMORPHEME, as defined first in Section 4.1.3.1.2. I labelthe mora as µ IPFV to show where the imperfective mora is integrated into prosodicstructure, though this is for illustrative purposes: the phonological grammar doesnot have access to information about the function associated with a particularmorpheme.(313) Derivation of paqwt ‘breaking it’a. Level 1 Input: µ IPFV + pqwa + t σ’p qwµaµtb. Level 1 Output: paqwt σ’pµaµ IPFVqwµtAblaut (moraic [e] or [a] surfacing where non-moraic [@] would otherwiseoccur) is another way the grammar provides segmental content for an affixed mora,as shown in (314).6A full constraint ranking is not provided because it is beyond the scope of this chapter andwould require a deeper dive into the phonology of Halkomelem, including a consideration of featuregeometry and the structure of sonorants and glottal segments.273(314) Derivation of se ’w ’q ‘looking for’a. Level 1 Input: µ IPFV + s@w ’q σs @µwµ’qb. Level 1 Output: se ’w ’q σsµ IPFVeµ’wµ’qCV reduplication is fission of the first consonant and vowel of the root, where thefissioned vowel fills the mora, as shown (315). The Level 1 output is shown in(315b). The intermediate stage represented by the Level 1 output has two identicalmoraic vowels; however, the unstressed vowel is reduced at a later stratum,resulting in surface [@], as shown in (315c). The reduction of an unstressed to [@]follows a general pattern in the language: root vowels typically reduce to [@] or ∅if they do not bear primary stress (see, e.g., Jones, 1976, p.27–31; Suttles, 2004,p.11).(315) Derivation of ìı´ì@ ’c@t ‘cutting it’a. Level 1 Input: µ IPFV + ìi ’c@tσ1ìµiσ2’c @µtb. Level 1 Output:σxìµ IPFViσ1ìµiσ2’c @µt274c. Output of a Later Stratum: ìı´ì@ ’c@tWhen the perfective form starts with a glottal consonant (/P/ or /h/), glottal stopepenthesis fills the mora, as shown in (316).(316) Derivation of he´Ps@ ’m ‘sneezing’a. Level 1 Input: µ IPFV + he´s@mσhµeσs @µmb. Level 1 Output: he´Ps@ ’mσhµeµ IPFVPσs @µ’mWhen the perfective form of the verb begins with a sonorant-schwa sequence,the imperfective form has reduplication with concurrent change of the first sonorantto [h]. The second sonorant is in a coda position and hosts the affixed mora, asshown in (317).(317) Derivation of h@ ’lm@t ‘folding it’a. Level 1 Input: µ IPFV + l@´ ’m@tσl @σ’m @µtb. Level 1 Output: h@´’lm@tσh @µ IPFV’lσm @µt275Finally, stems starting with the sequence O@S@- (obstruent-schwa-sonorant-schwa),surface with C@- reduplication. I analyse this allomorph as reduplication and ablautwith subsequent reduction of an unstressed vowel (i.e., Ce Ñ C@), as shown in(318). Reduction happens at a later stratum (318c), as in (315) above.(318) Derivation of t@t@´ ’m@t ‘pounding on it’a. Level 1 Input: µ IPFV + t@´ ’m@tσt @σ’m @µtb. Level 1 Output: tet@´ ’m@tσxtµ IPFVeσ1t @σ2’m @µtc. Output of a Later Stratum: t@t@´ ’m@tIn summary, the imperfective in Halkomelem across all forms can be analysed asthe affixation of a mora.75.3.1.2 Level 2: Diminutive5.3.1.2.1 Allomorphs of the DiminutiveThe diminutive in Halkomelem is marked by C1 reduplication. Diminutive verbsin Halkomelem are always build on bases with imperfective aspect (Suttles, 2004,p.178).87Though not discussed here, this is also true of morphologically and lexically conditionedallomorphy (see Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2020).8Though there is no obvious semantic reason for diminutive verbs to always be imperfective,suggesting a possible phonological motivation, diminutive nouns do not require additionalmorphology, as shown in the examples from the Downriver (h@ ’n ’q@mi ’n@ ’m) dialect of Halkomelem in(i).276Some diminutives have [@] between the matching consonants, as shown in(319a-b), and other diminutives have an epenthetic [i], as shown in (319c–e).This alternation is phonologically conditioned (Hukari, 1978, p.195): the [@] formoccurs when the unreduplicated word starts with a CVµC... sequence. There isalso an infixed glottal stop, which either follows the stressed vowel (in [@] forms)or the epenthetic vowel (in [i] forms).(319) a. ì@„ìa´ăPą„ì@ ’kw (cf. ìa ’kw ‘fly’)DIM„IPFVăDIMą„fly‘flying (dim.)’b. ì@„ìe´ăPą„ì@q-@ ’m (cf. ìeq@m ‘whisper’)DIM„IPFVăDIMą„whisper- MID‘whispering (dim.)’c. ’kwiP„ ’kwăe´ąì-t (cf. ’kw@ì ‘spill’)DIM„pourăIPFVą-CTR‘pouring it (dim.)’d. ’ňiP„ ’ňăe´ąpx. -t (cf. ’ň@px. t ‘scatter it’)DIM„sprinkleăIPFVą-CTR‘sprinkling it (dim.)’e. hiP„h@´ă’lą ’c-t (cf. l@ ’c ‘full’)DIM„fillăIPFVą-CTR‘filling it (dim.)’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2021a, p.172)5.3.1.2.2 Analysis of the DiminutiveThe lexical entry for the diminutive in Halkomelem has two components: an empty(i) a. spupt‘little boat’b. me´m@ ’n‘little father’(Suttles, 2004, p.212, Downriver Halkomelem)277syllable and a constricted glottis ([c.g.]) feature, as shown in (320). The morphemebears a Level 2 diacritic.(320) Halkomelem Diminutive:(σ [c.g.])L2 ôăDIMąThe empty syllable is parsed into the word at Level 2; the input to Level 2 alreadycontains the imperfective parsed at Level 1. Fission occurs to fill the empty syllableand the glottal stop is positioned as an infix following the first moraic (non-schwa)vowel of the word. This is shown in (321).(321) Derivation of ì@ìa´Pì@ ’kw ‘flying (dim.)’a. Input to Level 1: µ IPFV + ìa ’kw σìµa ’kwb. Output of Level 1: ìa´ìa ’kwσìµ IPFVaσìµaµ’kwc. Input to Level 2: σDIM [c.g.] + ìa´ìa ’kwd. Output of Level 2: ì@ìa´Pì@ ’kwσDIMì @σìµaµP[C.G.]σì @µ’kwThe difference between the [@] and [i] forms of the diminutive corresponds towhether a moraic vowel is copied (and then reduced to [@]) or provided throughepenthesis ([i]).2785.3.1.3 Level 2: Plural5.3.1.3.1 Allomorphs of the PluralPlurality can be marked on verbs with one of two allomorphs: C1C2 reduplication,shown in (322), or an infixed -l-, shown in (323). Hukari (1978, p.175) statesthat he is “not aware of phonological criteria distinguishing forms” with C1C2reduplication from those with an infixed -l-.(322) a. ’t@l„’tı´l-@m (cf. ’tı´l@m ‘sing’)PL„sing-MID‘they sing’b. l@m„le´m-@t (cf. le´m@t ‘look at it’)PL„look-CTR‘look at them’c. P@m„Pı´m-@sˇ (cf. Pı´m@sˇ ‘walk’)PL„walk-INTR‘walk’ (pl)d. m@ ’q„m@´ ’q-@t (cf. m@´ ’q@t ‘swallow it’)PL„swallow-CTR‘swallowing them’e. s@’t„s@´’t ’q-t (cf. s@´ ’t ’qt ‘disturb’)PL„disturb-CTR‘disturb (repeatedly)’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2021a, p.173)(323) a. ne´ăl@ą ’m (cf. ne ’m ‘go’)goăPLą‘they go’b. ’kwe´ă’l@ąs (cf. ’kwes ‘hot’)hotăPLą‘hot, warm weather’279c. te´ă’l@ąc@l (cf. te´c@l ‘arrive’)arriveăPLą‘arrive (pl.)’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2021a, p.173)Hukari (1976, p.180) notes that -l- is “productive outside the domain of actions andprocesses, where [C1C2] reduplication predominates”. Given that I am consideringverbal reduplication, I treat C1C2 reduplication as the default allomorph of theplural.5.3.1.3.2 Analysis of the PluralThe lexical entry for the plural morpheme in Halkomelem is given in (324). Thereare two allomorphs: a monomoraic syllable with a non-moraic nucleus and aninfixed -l-. These allomorphs are ordered: σN+µ form is the prioritised allomorph.(324) Halkomelem Plural:(σN+µ1 ą l2)L2 ôăPLąThe ordered allomorphs in (324) are subject to the constraint PRIORITY, first usedin the analysis of C1 plural and diminutive reduplication in Comox-Sliammonin Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.3.1.2); PRIORITY is restated in (325a). The rankingof PRIORITY relative to INTEGRITY-C, with its definition restated in (325b),determines if the preferred allomorph is selected.(325) a. PRIORITY: Respect lexical priority (ordering)Given an input containing allomorphs m1, m2,..., mn, and a candidatemi’, where mi’ is in correspondence with mi, PRIORITY assigns asmany violation marks as the depth of ordering between mi and thehighest dominating morph.(Mascaro´, 2007, p.726)b. INTEGRITY-C (INT-C): A consonant in the input does not havemultiple correspondents in the output.Ranking PRIORITY over INTEGRITY-C motivates the insertion of the monomoraicsyllable, as shown in (326). The subscript numbers correspond to the selected280allomorph. It is better to to select the preferred allomorph and fill it via fission(violating INTEGRITY-C) than to pick the fixed segment infix.(326)/(σN+µ1 ą l2)+m@´ ’q@t/ PRIORITY INTEGRITY-C a. m@ ’qm@´ ’q@t1 ˚˚b. m@´l@ ’q@t2 ˚!Though -l- is not the preferred allomorph, it is the one that will be shown to occurin multiple reduplication when two types of Level 2 reduplication would co-occur(diminutive and plural), as will be discussed further in Section 5.3.2.3.5.3.2 Multiple Reduplication5.3.2.1 Attested: Diminutive ImperfectiveCombinations involving the diminutive plus imperfective morpheme were alreadydiscussed in Section 5.3.1.2. Given that diminutive verbs are always imperfective,if the imperfective form of a verb surfaces with reduplication, then the diminutiveimperfective form will necessarily be expressed with multiple reduplication, asshown in (327).(327) a. ì@„ìa´ăPą„ì@ ’kw (cf. ìa ’kw ‘fly’)DIM„IPFVăDIMą„fly‘flying (dim.)’b. ’t@„’tı´ăPą„’t@l-@m (cf. ’tı´l@m ‘to sing’)DIM„IPFVăDIMą„sing-MID‘singing (dim.)’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2021a, p.169)Imperfective reduplication is parsed at Level 1, while diminutive reduplicationis parsed at Level 2. Diminutive imperfective forms therefore involve singlereduplication at each of two successive strata.2815.3.2.2 Attested: Plural ImperfectiveThe imperfective and plural morphemes can result in multiple reduplication.For words where the imperfective is formed by reduplication, there are twomain imperfective plural patterns. The first of these, shown in (328–329), hasimperfective C1 reduplication (with the sonorantą [h] change described in Section5.3.1.1) with subsequent plural C1C2 reduplication.(328) Unreduplicated: me´Px ‘remove it’a. Imperfective:h@´ă ’mąxremoveăIPFVąb. Plural Imperfective:h@m„h@´ă ’mą@xPL„removeăIPFVą(Suttles, 2004, p.169, Downriver Halkomelem)(329) Unreduplicated: w@´ ’qw ‘drift away’a. Imperfective:h@´ă ’wą ’qwdrift.awayăIPFVąb. Plural Imperfective:h@w„h@´ă ’wą ’qwPL„drift.awayăIPFVą(Suttles, 2004, p.171, Downriver Halkomelem)Note that the multiple reduplication pattern shown in (328) provides furtherevidence for the imperfective being a Level 1 affix, because imperfective mustapply before the plural in order for the [h] (a debuccalised copy of the root-initial/w/) to be copied in plural C1C2 reduplication.With other non-reduplicated allomorphs of the imperfective, C1C2reduplication is added to the imperfective form as predicted. An examplewith an imperfective word formed by metathesis is shown in (330).282(330) p@qw„pa´qw-t (cf. pa´qwt ‘breaking it’)PL„break+IPFV-CTR‘breaking them’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2021a, p.175)The second pattern observed with imperfective plus plural reduplication is shownin (331). This pattern appears to have only one type of reduplication, with C1C2reduplication marking both plurality and imperfectivity, as shown in (331d).Crucially, however, the perfective plural (331b) and the plural imperfective (331c)differ in the position of vowels: the plural perfective has a stressed [i] as the firstvowel in the word, while the plural imperfective has a stressed [i] as the secondvowel in the word.(331) a. ’tı´„’t@l-@ ’m (cf. ’tı´l@m ‘sing’)IPFV„sing-MID‘singing’b. ’t@l„’tı´l@mPL„sing-MID‘they sing’c. ’tı´l„’t@l-@ ’mIPFV+PL„sing-MID‘they are singing’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2021a, p.175)I propose, following Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2021a), that the pluralimperfective involves the regular affixation of a mora marking imperfective aspectat Level 1, with subsequent affixation of a monomoraic syllable marking pluralityat Level 2. However, the Level 2 affix is realised differently than usual: insteadof adding another syllable, the plural syllable coalesces with the first syllableof the word. The association of segments under this analysis is shown in (332).Imperfective reduplication fills a mora at Level 1; reduplication of the consonantin C2 position of the root ([l]) provides a coda to fill the mora associated with amonomoraic syllable.283(332) Derivation of ’tı´l ’t@l@ ’m ‘They are singing.’a. Input to Level 1: µ IPFV + ’tı´l@mb. Output of Level 1: ’tı´’til@ ’mσ’tµ IPFViσ’tµiσl @µ’mc. Input to Level 2: σpl + ’tı´’til@ ’md. Output of Level 2: ’tı´l’til@ ’mσ PL’tµiµ PLlσ’tµ’iσl @µ’me. Output (after vowel reduction): ’tı´l’t@l@ ’mThe affixed syllable coalesces with existing prosodic structure at Level 2,which allows for multiple reduplication to show up as a truncated pattern (seeZimmermann 2021 for discussion of faithful vs. truncating multiple reduplicationpatterns). I leave questions related to the implementation of this analysis viaconstraint ranking for future work; we can, however, conclude that pluralimperfectives involve reduplication at two strata: Level 1 (imperfective) and Level2 (plural).5.3.2.3 Unattested: Diminutive PluralRecall that the diminutive only occurs with imperfective aspect, as mentionedin Section 5.3.1.2. The combination of diminutive plus plural marking inHalkomelem is realized as C1 reduplication plus the -l- allomorph of the plural,as shown in (333) and (334); forms with both diminutive and plural reduplicationsuch as *ì@PìiPì@ì@´n@ ’m (or *ìiPì@ìì@ì@´n@ ’m) and *p@PpiPpaqwt (or *piPp@qwpaqwt)are not attested.284(333) a. ìiP„ì@„ì@´n-@ ’m (cf. ì@´ ’n@m ‘weave’)DIM„IPFV„weave-MID‘weaving (dim.)’b. ìă@ląiP„ì@„ì@´n-@ ’mDIMăPLą„IPFV„weave-MID‘weaving (dim. pl.)’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2021a, p.176)(334) a. piP„păa´ąqw-t (cf. pqwat ‘break it’)DIM„breakăIPFVą-CTR‘breaking it (dim.)’b. pă@ląiP„păa´ąqw-tDIMăPLą„breakăIPFVą-CTR‘breaking them (dim.)’(Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2021a, p.176)In plural-diminutive-imperfective words, only the diminutive and imperfective canbe marked by reduplication: the plural is always marked with -l-, as in (333b)and (334b). While imperfective reduplication involves a Level 1 affix, the lexicalentries for the diminutive and plural are marked as Level 2. The unattested multiplereduplication pattern would therefore require two types of reduplication to occur atthe same stratum (Level 2).5.3.3 Restrictions on Multiple ReduplicationMultiple reduplication entails the existence of at least two reduplicativemorphemes in a language; however, having two reduplicative morphemes doesnot entail multiple reduplication (Zimmermann, 2021). Halkomelem is a languagewith variable multiple reduplication: multiple reduplication is attested in thelanguage through plural imperfectives and diminutive imperfective forms, thougha combination of two types of reduplication (plural and diminutive) at the samestratum is systematically avoided. It is not possible to provide a syntacticor semantic motivation for the missing combination, because the plural and285diminutive morphemes can be combined if a fixed segment allomorph (-l-) ratherthan reduplication marks plurality.I propose in Section 5.3.3.1 that multiple reduplication is limited by themorphological affiliation of input segments to prosodic units. If any twoprosodic affixes would be filled at the same stratum in the derivation, I predictthat they will not co-occur. In Section 5.3.3.2, I compare my analysis to twoalternative approaches that restrict multiple reduplication by limiting how manyor how segments undergo fission, which I label as Segment-Based Fission andSegment-Based Binarity approaches, respectively.5.3.3.1 Multiple Reduplication is Limited by Morphological AffiliationThe lexical entries for the diminutive and plural morphemes bear a Level 2 (L2)diacritic, as shown in (335). I omit the [c.g.] when discussing the diminutive forthe remainder of this case study.(335) a. Halkomelem Imperfective:µ ôăIPFVąb. Halkomelem Diminutive:(σ [c.g.])L2 ôăDIMąc. Halkomelem Plural:(σN+µ1 ą l2)L2 ôăPLąThe diminutive-plural gap in Halkomelem follows from limiting reduplication toone prosodic affix per stratum. The plural and diminutive morphemes are parsedinto the prosodic word at the same stratum (Level 2); multiple reduplication istherefore not expected with plural diminutive forms. However, the imperfectiveis parsed into the word at the first stratum (Level 1). On the basis of phonology,the imperfective is compatible with either the diminutive or the plural morphemebecause they are integrated into the word at Level 2. In other words, limitingmultiple reduplication with respect to the number of prosodic affixes per stratumis able to account for variable multiple reduplication languages, which only permitcertain combinations of reduplicative morphemes.I implement my analysis with the constraint MORPHEME-AFFILIATION,286defined in (336), which is violated when segments associated with a givenmorpheme in the input are associated with prosodic units in the output that have adifferent morphological affiliation (i.e., occur at a different stratum). Specifically,the grammar will tolerate segments associated with prosodic units that have one(and only one) morphological affiliation that differs from the segment’s own.(336) MORPHEME-AFFILIATION (MAFFIL): For any three output segments S(S1, S2, S3) that belong to the same morpheme Ma, if S1 is associated witha prosodic unit belonging to Ma and S2 is associated with a prosodic unitbelonging to some other morpheme Mb, then S3 must be associated witha prosodic unit belonging to either Ma or Mb. Assign a violation mark forany three segments where all three segments belong to the same morphemeand each segment is associated with a prosodic unit belonging to a differentmorpheme (*S1-Ma, S2-Mb, S3-Mc).In the following diagrams, I use colour in lieu of indices to reflect morphologicalaffiliation, though I do not adopt the assumptions of so-called colouredcontainment approaches (e.g., Van Oostendorp, 2006). MORPHEME-AFFILIATIONlooks at association lines directly linking segments and prosodic units in the output.A potential plural diminutive form *piPp@qwpaqwt based on paqwt ‘breaking it’would violate MORPHEME-AFFILIATION. As shown in (337), there are prosodicunits with three different morphological affiliations in the input, as marked by threedifferent colours. In the output, segmental content with a single colour (teal) isassociated with prosodic units of all three colours (teal, pink, and purple). Theboxes mark epenthetic content, which takes on the morphological affiliation of theunit that immediately dominates it (i.e., colour spreads downward to epentheticcontent).(337) Unattested Diminutive Plural: *piPp@qwpaqwta. Level 2 Input:σ [c.g.] + σN+µ +σpµaµqwµt287b. Level 2 Output (Unattested):σpµiµPσp @µqwσpµaµqwµtI assume that structure built at the preceding stratum is collectively treatedas a single group in the input, distinct from unparsed affixes. For example, theimperfective µ , root, and transitivizer affix -t are all treated as a single (teal)group in the input to Level 2 in (337a) because they were combined into a singleprosodic word at Level 1 (not shown here). The unattested form in (337) violatesMORPHEME-AFFILIATION because there are teal segments (affiliated with theprosodic word in the input) associated with prosodic units of three different coloursin the output (pink, purple, and teal).Compare (337) above, which shows an unattested form, with the attested one in(338): the leftmost syllable in (338b), which was not present in the input, receivesthe colour associated with the prosodic word as a whole in the input (teal). Allteal segments are associated with teal prosodic units; the only mismatch betweensegment and prosodic unit colour is a purple (plural) segment linked to a pink(diminutive) syllable. MORPHEME-AFFILIATION is not violated by the form in(338): the attested form does not have any single segment colour associated withprosodic units of more than two colours.(338) Attested Diminutive Plural: p@liPpaqwt ‘breaking them (dim.)’a. Level 2 Input:σ [c.g.] + -l- +σpµaµqwµtb. Level 2 Output:σp @σlµiµPσpµaµqwµt288The limitation on multiple reduplication at the same stratum emerges whenMORPHEME-AFFILIATION is ranked higher than constraints that pertain toallomorph selection and word-building. The relevant constraints PARSEAFFIX andPARSEL2 from Chapter 3 (Section 3.5.2.3), as well as PRIORITY from Chapter 4(Section 4.1.3.1.2) are restated in (339).(339) a. PARSEAFFIX (PARSEAFF): Assign a violation mark for any affix that isleft unparsed.b. AFFIXL2 (AFFL2): Assign a violation mark for every affix with a L2diacritic that is parsed into the phonological domain defined by thestratum.c. PRIORITY: Respect lexical priority (ordering)Given an input containing allomorphs m1, m2,..., mn, and a candidatemi’, where mi’ is in correspondence with mi, PRIORITY assigns asmany violation marks as the depth of ordering between mi and thehighest dominating morph (Mascaro´, 2007)The tableau for p@lipaqwt ‘breaking them (dim.)’ in (340) demonstrates thatMORPHEME-AFFILIATION and PARSEAFFIX are crucially ranked above PRIORITYand AFFIXL2 at Level 2. The attested candidate (340a), which corresponds to(338b) above, avoids a violation of MORPHEME-AFFILIATION by selecting thesecond of the listed allomorphs. Candidate (340b), which corresponds to (337b),satisfies PRIORITY by picking the preferred allomorph, but incurs a fatal violationof MORPHEME-AFFILIATION. Candidate (340c) vacuously satisfies PRIORITY bynot parsing the affix (and therefore not choosing an allomorph), which incurs a fatalviolation of PARSEAFF.9 Square brackets contain the listed allomorphs; parenthesesshow which affixes have been integrated into the word.(340)/[σN+µ1 ą l2]L2 + σL2 + (paqwt)/ MAFFIL PARSEAFF PRIORITY AFFL2 a. (p@lipaqwt) ˚ ˚˚b. (piPp@qwpaqwt) ˚! ˚˚c. [σN+µ1 ą l2]L2 (piPpaqwt) ˚! ˚9MAX, REALIZEMORPHEME, and MAX-FLOAT are not shown here, but they would rule outa potential candidate that avoids violating any of the constraints in (340) by deleting the pluralmorpheme entirely.289MORPHEME-AFFILIATION is violated when multiple reduplication happens atthe same stratum. The example in (341) shows how the diminutive imperfectiveform ìiPì@ì@´n@ ’m ‘weaving (dim.)’ is derived, with imperfective reduplicationoccurring at Level 1 and diminutive reduplication at Level 2. Though I assumeschwa is epenthetic in the input, I show schwa in the correct output positions inthe Level 1 input for the root (ì@n-) and the middle marker (-@m) for simplicity.The imperfective morpheme is parsed into the prosodic structure built at the firststratum, which is fed into Level 2 with a single colour (teal). The initial consonantof the word may undergo reduplication again at Level 2, as segments with a tealcolour are associated with prosodic units of only one additional colour (pink). Theunstressed moraic vowel is reduced at a later stratum.(341) Diminutive Imperfective: ìiPì@ì@´n@ ’m ‘weaving (dim.)’a. Level 1 Input: σL2 + µ + ì@n + @mb. Level 1 Output:σL2 +σìµeσì @σn @µ’mc. Level 2 Input:σL2 +σìµeσì @σn @µ’md. Level 2 Output:σìµiµPσìµeσì @σn @µ’mRestricting reduplication to one prosodic affix per stratum via the inclusionof MORPHEME-AFFILIATION predicts both the attested forms and the gap inHalkomelem multiple reduplication.2905.3.3.2 Alternate Approach: Multiple Reduplication is Limited by SegmentsI have proposed a morpheme-based limit on multiple reduplication in Section5.3.3.1, which means that segments from one morpheme are maximally associatedwith prosodic units from one other morpheme. An alternative analysis would beto place restrictions on the process of reduplication itself (fission of segments)with reference to the segment. Segment-based approaches place general limits onfission that will equally apply regardless of the number of reduplicative morphemesin the input. A single reduplicative morpheme will not be distinguished from tworeduplicative morphemes in the input under a segment-based approach.Analyses of multiple reduplication that treat reduplication as prosodicaffixation and fission have accounted for avoidance of multiple reduplication byusing INTEGRITY to limit the overall number of copied segments (Zimmermann,2021b), or by proposing a restriction on GEN that only allows for 1:2 mappingsbetween input and output (Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2021b). I refer to theseapproaches as Segment-Based Fission and Segment-Based Binarity approaches,respectively.5.3.3.2.1 Segment-Based Fission – Zimmermann (2021)Zimmermann (2021a) proposes a segment-based analysis restricting the number oftimes fission occurs to account for the typology of multiple reduplication acrosslanguages; she uses the INTEGRITY constraint INTS, which is defined in (342).(342) INTS: Assign * to every pair of output segments that correspond to thesame input segment. (Zimmermann, 2021a, p.14)INTS evaluates every pair of co-occurring output segments and assigns a violationmark if they correspond to the same input segment. Table 5.2 shows howpairs of segments incur violations under INTS for the plural form m@ ’qm@ ’q@t‘swallowing them’, with one type of reduplication (= 2 instances of a 1-to-2input-output mapping). The numbers in the left column count up the numberof INTS violations: different types of dot are used to distinguish violationsinvolving fission of different input segments (e.g., pairs involving m are ˝ andthose involving ’q are ‚).291Table 5.2: INTS Violations for Pluralm1 @ ’q2 m1 @ ’q2 @ t1 ˝ ˝2 ‚ ‚Violations of INTS are shown in Table 5.3 for *piPp@qwpaqwt, which is anunattested plural diminutive (imperfective) form; the 1:3 mapping (˝) for one ofthe consonants incurs three violations, while the 1:2 mapping (‚) incurs a singleviolation.Table 5.3: INTS Violations for Diminutive Plural Imperfective (Unattested)p1 i P p1 @ qw2 p1 a qw2 t1 ˝ ˝2 ˝ ˝3 ˝ ˝4 ‚ ‚Under a segment-based approach that limits fission by number, the pluraldiminutive gap in Halkomelem might be taken as evidence that the grammar willtolerate a maximum of two violations of INTS at any given stratum: otherwisethe alternate allomorph will surface. This approach would predicts that the -l-allomorph is employed to avoid “too many” INTS violations.Note that a fission-based approach is able to account for Halkomelem, only ifit is integrated into a stratum-based model. If cast in a mono-stratal framework, asin Zimmermann (2021b), INTS is not sufficient because plural imperfective formsactually allow a larger number of violations than unattested combinations do. Forexample, the word w@ ’qw ‘drift away’ has the plural imperfective form h@wh@´ ’w ’qw,which in a mono-stratal analysis involves a 1:4 mapping between a single inputsegment /w/ and four output segments (2 ˚ [h], 1 ˚ [w], 2 ˚ [ ’w]). Table 5.4summarises the six violations that a plural imperfective would incur under INTS;this is a greater number of violation marks than the unattested form in Table 5.3above.292Table 5.4: INTS Violations for Plural Imperfectiveh1 @ w1 h1 @ ’w1 ’qw1 ˝ ˝2 ˝ ˝3 ˝ ˝4 ˝ ˝5 ˝ ˝6 ˝ ˝The segment-based approach using INTS is therefore only able to account forHalkomelem reduplication if the other components of my analysis, includingStratal OT and the proposed mappings between morphemes and strata, areadopted.5.3.3.2.2 Segment-Based Binarity – Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2021)Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2021b) assume the definition of INTEGRITY in (343);S1 is the input and S2 is the output.(343) INTEGRITY: No element of S1 has multiple correspondents in S2.(McCarthy & Prince, 1999, p.296)They argue that counting INTEGRITY violations does not predict that the grammarwill distinguish between single and multiple reduplication, nor between 1:2 or 1:3input-output mappings if the number of INTEGRITY violations are the same.10The grammar cannot select between a form with single reduplication and one withmultiple reduplication in cases where the violations are equal.They further contend that true 1:3 mappings are rare cross-linguistically. Where 1:3mappings do appear on the surface, they explain that these can usually be accountedfor in multiple steps of derivation, such as having fission occur at different strata.They propose that the limitation on multiple reduplication is better characterised asa limit on how fission may occur. Their Binarity restriction, given in (344), predictsonly 1:2 mappings are possible; 1:3 mappings will never arise at a single stratum.10Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2021b) adopt a different definition of INTEGRITY than the pair-wise definition Zimmermann (2021) provides for INTS (in 342 above).293This is a restriction on GEN and therefore no candidates with 1:3 mappings will begenerated.(344) Binarity restriction on GEN: an element in the input can correspond to amaximum of two output elements.(Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2021b, p.176)The Binarity restriction in (344) limits GEN to generating candidates with amaximally binary mapping between the input and the output (e.g., excluding 1:3mappings/triplication at the same stratum). This means multiple reduplicationis permitted when the reduplication occurs at different strata (e.g., Level 1imperfective and Level 2 diminutive), but GEN is not able to generate forms withmultiple reduplication at the same stratum (e.g., Level 2 diminutive and plural).The form in (345a) with a 1-to-3 mapping is not a possible candidate, and thereforewill not be considered under EVAL.(345) a. Impossible Candidate (PL-DIM)σN+µ PL + σDIM + p1aqw2t˚p1iPp1@qw2p1aqw2tb. Attested Form (PL-DIM)-l-PL + σDIM + p1aqwtp1@lip1aqwtThe segment-based binarity approach proposed in Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk(2021b) crucially assumes Stratal OT to derive the variable patterns, which is adeparture from the mono-stratal framework used by Zimmermann (2021b); thesegment-based binarity approach can therefore account for attested combinationsand gaps in Halkomelem without additional modifications. However, bothsegment-based approaches will be shown to be insufficient for Salish reduplicationbased on patterns in Lillooet (Section 5.4).5.3.3.3 Summary of ApproachesIn this case study, I have presented an analysis of multiple reduplication inHalkomelem that correctly predicts the co-occurrence possibilities. Specifically, I294showed that multiple reduplication is impossible when the plural and diminutivemorphemes co-occur; a non-reduplicative allomorph of the plural is used instead.Overall, the case study of Halkomelem reduplication alone cannot be usedto select between a morpheme-based or segment-based approach: all threeapproaches are sufficient for Halkomelem if they are considered within astratum-based model of phonology.5.4 Case Study II: Lillooet (Multiple ReduplicationGaps)Lillooet provides an ideal test case for exploring attested and avoided multiplereduplication. First, multiple reduplication is well-documented (Van Eijk, 1997,2013; H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023; H. Davis et al., in prep.). Second, theanalysis of single reduplication in Lillooet that I provide in Chapter 4 (Section4.2) can be used to make concrete predictions concerning possible combinationswith respect to each stratum. Third, investigation is not limited to previousdocumentation: empirical predictions may be tested explicitly in elicitation, whichfurthers documentation and provides crucial negative evidence: fieldwork dataconfirms that gaps are systematic (ungrammatical), rather than accidental.The data presented in this case study come from a combination of publishedsources and elicitation conducted by Henry Davis; examples from unpublishedfieldwork are given with speaker initials.5.4.1 Predictions for Multiple Reduplication in LillooetAssuming the morpheme-based approach to multiple reduplication proposed inSection 5.3.3.1, I predict that combinations involving two reduplicative morphemesat the same stratum will not be possible because MORPHEME-AFFILIATION has ahigh ranking; attested multiple reduplication patterns must involve reduplicativemorphemes at different strata.Reduplication in Lillooet is summarized in Table 5.5 (adapted from Section4.2.2). Reduplicative affixes may receive segmental content at three strata: Level1, Level 2, and Level 2+n. At Level 1, there are two types of affixed prosodicunit: a monomoraic syllable and a plain syllable. An affixed monomoraic syllable295yields property-denoting and plural C1C2 reduplication, while a plain syllablecorresponds to initial C1 reduplication. At Level 2, there are three affixedprosodic units: a mora with a floating [c.g.] feature (C1 pluractional), a morawith a [stress] feature and a floating [c.g.] (C1 diminutive), and a plain syllable(C2 change-of-state). Triplication is at a later stratum (Level 2+n) and will bediscussed separately in Section 5.4.6.Table 5.5: Inventory of Lillooet ReduplicationReduplication Underlying Form StratumProperty-Denoting/Plural σN+µ Level 1Initial σ Level 1Pluractional (µ [c.g.])L2 Level 2Diminutive (µ [stress] [c.g.])L2 Level 2Change-of-State σL2 Level 2Triplication FtL2+n Level 2+nI predict that no two Level 1 reduplicative morphemes (i.e., C1 initial and C1C2property-denoting reduplication) or two Level 2 reduplicative morphemes (i.e., C1diminutive/pluractional and C2 change-of-state reduplication) will be combined inthe same word. My predictions based on the analysis in Chapter 4 for possiblemultiple reduplication in Lillooet are summarized in Table 5.6. Shading is used toexclude redundant cells (e.g., C2-C1 C2 and C1 C2-C2 are the same combination).Table 5.6: Predictions for Possible Lillooet Multiple ReduplicationLevel 1 Level 2Property/Plural Initial Dim/Pluractional COSC1C2 C1 C1 C2Level 1 Property/Plural * ✓ ✓Initial ✓ ✓Level 2 Dim/Pluractional *Change-of-StateIn this case study, I group C1 diminutive and C1 pluractional reduplication296together because they are identical aside from stressed vowel quality and are incomplementary distribution (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023).5.4.2 Multiple Reduplication in LillooetVan Eijk (1997) describes diminutive plural and diminutive property-denotingforms (C1C2 and C1 reduplication), as well as plural change-of-state forms(C1C2 and C2 reduplication). However, this list does not include all possiblecombinations, which raises the question of whether their absence is a gap indescription/documentation, or if these combinations are actually ungrammatical.In the following sections (Sections 5.4.2.1–5.4.2.6), I describe multiplereduplication in Lillooet, providing either positive evidence (attested forms) ornegative evidence (grammaticality judgments) to determine which combinationsare possible. The positive evidence comes from a combination of publishedsources and elicitation conducted by Henry Davis; the negative evidence comesexclusively from fieldwork by Henry Davis. Where negative evidence is provided,I conclude that a combination is ungrammatical.5.4.2.1 Attested: Level 1 C1C2 and Level 2 C1 ReduplicationPlural C1C2 and diminutive C1 reduplication occur together, as shown in (346).(346) a. s-q@w„q@´ăqą ’w@c (cf. sqawc ‘potato’)NMLZ-PL„potatoăDIMą‘little potatoes’ (Van Eijk, 1981a, p.57)b. s-q@x.„q@´ăqąx. aP (cf. sqa´x. aP ‘dog’)NMLZ-PL„dogăDIMą‘pups’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.59)c. ’ň@k„ ’ň@´ă ’ňąk=kaì (cf. ’ňak ‘go along’)PL„go.alongăDIMą=1PL.SUBJ‘We went along a little ways’ (CA)d. t@w„t@´.ătąw@ ’n (cf. ta´. w@n ‘visit’, from English town)PL„visităDIMą‘go visiting’ (CA)297e. qw@’l„qwa’l@´ă’ląt (cf. qwa ’lu´t ‘speak’)PL„speakăDIMą‘have a conversation’ (CA)Property-denoting C1C2 reduplication and C1 diminutive reduplication can also becombined, as shown in (347).(347) a. s- ’ň@qw„ ’ň@´ă ’ňąqw (cf. s ’ň@qw ‘to have a spot on one’s body’)STAT-PDEN„spotăDIMą‘to have little spots, variegated’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.150)b. ’k@´ă ’ką@ ’n„ ’kn-@t (cf. ’kı´n ’k@nt ‘dangerous’)PDENăDIMą„dangerous-CHAR‘a little bit dangerous’ (CA)c. z@´ăzą@ ’w„z ’w-@t (cf. za´ ’wz ’w@t ‘annoying’)PDENăDIMą„annoy-CHAR‘a little bit annoying’ (CA, vf)d. qw@´ăqwą@’l„qw@’l-t (cf. qwa´ ’lqw@ ’lt ‘hurting’)PDENăDIMą„hurt-CHAR‘hurting a little bit’ (CA, vf)e. ’k@´ă ’ką@ ’w„ ’kw-@t (cf. ’ka´w ’kw@t ‘gross, filthy’)PDENăDIMą„dirty-CHAR‘a little bit gross/filthy’ (CA, vf)Level 2 C1 reduplication must follow Level 1 C1C2 reduplication. Table 5.7 showstwo ordering possibilities for multiple reduplication: C1C2 reduplication (plural:σN+µ ) before C1 reduplication (diminutive: µ [stress] [c.g.]) in the attested column,and C1 reduplication before C1C2 reduplication in the ungrammatical column.If the order were reversed, an ungrammatical form like *sq@qq@´x. aP would beexpected, where the diminutive is copied by subsequent plural reduplication.298Table 5.7: Multiple Reduplication with C1C2 (Level 1) and C1 (Level 2)PL-DIMAttested UngrammaticalInput sqa´x. aP sqa´x. aPMorpheme 1 σN+µ + sqa´x. aP µ [stress] [c.g.] + sqa´x. aPMorpheme 2 µ [stress] [c.g.] + sq@x. qa´x. aP σN+µ + sq@´qx. aPOutput: sq@x. q@´qx. aP *sq@qq@´qx. aPThe diminutive plural and diminutive property-denoting forms can be derivedusing the analysis in Chapter 4. Further, the multiple reduplication patternsprovide evidence for Level 1 reduplication (property-denoting/plural) applyingbefore Level 2 (diminutive) reduplication. If the order of application had beenreversed, the C1C2 reduplication process would result in a copy of the diminutiveC1, as shown in the “ungrammatical” column in Table 5.7.5.4.2.2 Attested: Level 1 C1C2 and Level 2 C2 ReduplicationPlural C1C2 reduplication and change-of-state C2 reduplication can be combinedin Lillooet. The examples in (348) show plural change-of-state forms, marked withtwo types of reduplication.(348) a. p@ì„pu´ăì@ąì (cf. pu´ì@ì ‘to be boiling’)PL„boilăCOSą‘rapids’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57)b. c@q„cı´ăq@ąq (cf. cı´qi ’n ‘to stab s.o.’)PL„stabăCOSą‘to get stabbed all over’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57)c. c@kw„ckw-a´ănąnaP=ìkan (cf. c@´kw@n ‘pull something’)PL„pull-earăCOSą=1SG.SUBJ‘Both my ears got pulled.’ (CA)d. ’ň@p„ ’ňu´ăp@ąp (root: ’ňup- ‘twist, wrap’)PL„twistăCOSą‘twist or wrap (pl.)’ (H. Davis et al., in prep.)299e. ì@´Qw„ìăQw@ąQw (root: ìQw- ‘jump’)PL„bounce/hopăCOSą‘bound, hop or jump, of animal (pl.)’ (H. Davis et al., in prep.)The combination of Level 1 C1C2 and Level 2 C2 reduplication is predictedbecause the reduplication occurs at different strata. The form of this type ofmultiple reduplication is also consistent with the proposed order of application(Level 1 before Level 2): C1C2 reduplication is applied first, followed by the C2reduplication, which is positioned relative to stress.5.4.2.3 Attested: Level 1 C1 and Level 2 C1 ReduplicationDouble C1 reduplication involving Level 1 (initial) and Level 2 (diminutive/plural)reduplication is attested in Lillooet, as shown in (349). This combination hasreceived little previous description; examples with diminutive C1 reduplication aregiven under “remaining cases” in Van Eijk (1997, p.57).(349) a. ’ňakgo.alongkwu=k@„k@´ăką@ ’w (cf. nka´wl@x ‘go far from shore’)DET=INIT.C1„farăDIMą‘Go a little further!’ (CA)b. x.@„x. z@´ăzą@ ’mINIT.C1„bigăDIMąPiza´DEM(cf. x. zum ‘big’)‘These ones are a little bigger.’ (CA)c. xwPitmanyPi=s-qw@„qwy@´ă ’yąc=aPL.DET=NMLZ-INIT.C1„rabbităDIMą=EXIS’qwuP-xı´t-antrap-IND-1SG.ERG‘I trapped a lot of little rabbits.’ (cf. sqw[@]yı´c ‘rabbit’) (CA)The combination of initial C1 and diminutive/pluractional C1 reduplication ispredicted to be possible as it involves reduplication at two strata. The twotypes of C1 reduplication are Level 1 (initial) C1 reduplication and Level 2(diminutive/pluractional) C1 reduplication.3005.4.2.4 Attested: Level 1 C1 and Level 2 C2 ReduplicationThere are only a few cases that can be elicited with a combination of Level 1(initial) C1 and Level 2 (change-of-state) C2 reduplication (H. Davis, p.c.), such asthe one in (350c). This pattern has not been described in previous work.(350) a. Change-of-State C2 Reduplication (cf. x. zum ‘big’)x. zu´ăm@ąm=tuPbigăCOSą=REMPi=sı´tk-s=aPL.DET=mesh-3POSS=EXISta=s-tìa´yn=aDET=NMLZ-net=EXIS‘The meshes of the net got bigger.’ (CA)b. Initial C1 Reduplicationx.@„x. zu´mINIT.C1„bigPi=sı´tk-s=aPL.DET=mesh-3POSS=EXISta=s-tìa´yn=aDET=NMLZ-net=EXIS‘The meshes of the net were big.’ (CA)c. Change-of-State C2 and Initial C1 Reduplicationx.@„x. zu´ăm@ąmINIT.C1„bigăCOSąPi=sı´tk-s=aPL.DET=mesh-3POSS=EXISta=s-tìa´yn=aDET=NMLZ-net=EXIS‘The meshes of the net got bigger.’ (CA)The acceptability of (350c) suggests that the two types of reduplication arephonologically compatible. The scarcity of examples is due to the very limiteddistribution of initial C1 reduplication in Lillooet, which restricts the numberof possible forms with which C2 reduplication could combine (H. Davis &Mellesmoen, 2023).5.4.2.5 Ungrammatical: Level 1 C1C2 and Level 1 C1 ReduplicationThe combination of C1C2 plus initial C1 reduplication has not been described inprevious documentation. Elicitation confirms that this combination is judged asungrammatical by consultants, as shown in (351) and (352).301(351) a. Initial C1 (cf. qwa’lu´t ‘speak’)paptalwayswaPIPFVqw@„qwa’lu´tINIT.C1„speaktiPthat.VISkwu=s-qa´yxwDET=NMLZ-man‘That man is always talking.’ (CA)b. Plural C1C2paptalwayswa7IPFVqw@’l„qwa’lu´tPL„talkPi ’zthose.VISkwu=s-qa´yxwDET=NMLZ-man‘Those men are always talking’ (CA)c. Rejected: Initial C1 + Plural C1C2*paptalwayswaPIPFVqw@„qw@’l„qwa’lu´tINIT.C1„PL„talkPi ’zthose.VISkwu=s-qa´y„q@yxwDET=NMLZ-PL„manIntended: ‘Those men are always talking.’ (CA)d. Rejected: Plural C1C2 + Initial C1*paptalwayswaPIPFVqw@’l„qw@„qwa’lu´tPL„INIT.C1„talkPi ’zthose.VISkwu=s-qa´y„q@yxwDET=NMLZ-PL„manIntended: ‘Those men are always talking.’ (CA)(352) a. Initial C1 (root: taì- ‘stand’)waPIPFVs-ta´„taì-l@xSTAT-INIT.C1„stand-AUTPi=tw@´ă ’wą ’w@t=aPL.DET=young.personăDIMą=EXIS‘The boys are all standing.’ (CA)b. Plural C1C2waPIPFVs-t@ì„ta´ì-l@xSTAT-PL„stand-AUTPi=twı´ ’wt=aPL.DET=young.person=EXIS‘The young people are all standing.’ (CA)c. Rejected: Initial C1 + Plural C1C2*waPIPFVs-ta„t@ì„ta´ì-l@xSTAT-INIT.C1„PL„stand-AUTPi=twı´ ’wt=aPL.DET=young.person=EXISIntended: ‘The young people are all standing around.’ (CA)302d. Rejected: Plural C1C2 + Initial C1*waPIPFVs-t@ì„ta´„taì-l@xSTAT-PL„INIT.C1„stand-AUTPi=twı´ ’wt=aPL.DET=young.person=EXISIntended: ‘The young people are standing around.’ (CA)Corrected to: s-ta´„taì-l@xSTAT-INIT.C1„stand-AUT (CA)The combination of initial C1 and C1C2 reduplication is rejected, or corrected to asingle type of reduplication, as in (352d). The combination of initial C1 plus C1C2reduplication is predicted to be impossible, given that it involves two reduplicativemorphemes at the same stratum (Level 1).5.4.2.6 Ungrammatical: Level 2 C1 and Level 2 C2 ReduplicationThe combination of Level 2 C1 and C2 reduplication has not been previouslydescribed; elicitation confirms a systematic gap because forms with bothdiminutive C1 reduplication and change-of-state C2 reduplication are rejected(H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023), as shown in (353).(353) a. *m@´ămąăl@ą’l (cf. mu´l@l ‘It got flooded.’)floodăDIMąăCOSąIntended: ‘It got a little bit flooded.’ (CA)b. *xz@´ăząăm@ą ’m (cf. xzu´m@m ‘It got bigger.’)bigăDIMąăCOSąIntended: ‘It got a little bit bigger.’ (CA)c. *k@´ăkąă ’n@ą ’n (cf. k@´ ’n@ ’n ‘It got bumped.’)bumpăDIMąăCOSąIntended: ‘It got a bit bumped.’ (CA)There is no reason to suspect that Level 2 C1 reduplication would besemantically incompatible with change-of-state C2 reduplication. In fact, ina context where the semantics associated with both diminutive and change-of-state reduplication are appropriate, the consultant’s paraphrase includes C2reduplication and the word kwikws ‘small’, as shown in (354).303(354) a. i. *n@´ă ’nąăs@ąs (cf. nu´s@s ‘It got damp.’)dampăDIMąăCOSąIntended: ‘It got a little bit damp.’ (CA)ii. kwikwssmallkw=s=nus=cDET=NMLZ=damp=3POSS‘It got a little bit damp.’ (CA)b. i. * ’ň@´ă ’ňąăp@ąp (cf. ’ňu´p@p ‘It twisted.’)twistăDIMąăCOSąIntended: ‘It twisted a little bit.’Corrected to: kwikwssmallkw=s= ’ňu´ăp@ąp=sDET=NMLZ=twistăCOSą=3POSS‘It twisted a little bit.’ (CA, vf)There is also another way to mark a change of state, which has a near-identicalsemantic contribution to C2 reduplication (H. Davis, in prep): the inchoativemarker, which either takes the form of an infixed -P- (with roots containing amoraic vowel) or a suffixed -p (with roots without an underlying vowel). Theexample in (355) shows diminutive C1 reduplication plus the inchoative affix -p.(355) p@´.ăpą ’m-@pfastăDIMą-INCHtiPDEMkwu=ka´.hDET=car(cf. p@. mp ‘fast’)‘That car is a little faster.’ (CA, vg)Where the inchoative marker -p is used instead of C2 reduplication, there is nothingblocking the addition of diminutive reduplication. This shows the compatibility ofdiminutive and change-of-state semantics, and supports a phonological source forthe restriction on multiple reduplication.My analysis predicts the ungrammaticality of pluractional/diminutive pluschange-of-state reduplication: both are Level 2 reduplicative morphemes andtherefore cannot surface at the same time.5.4.3 Summary: Multiple Reduplication in LillooetTable 5.8 shows a summary of multiple reduplication in Lillooet; a ✓ is usedto mark possible combinations and ˆ is used to mark incompatible pairings; theresults match the predictions given in Table 5.6 above.304Table 5.8: Lillooet Multiple Reduplication InventoryLevel 1 Level 2C1C2 C1 C1 C2Level 1 C1C2 ˆ ✓ ✓C1 ✓ ✓Level 2 C1 ˆC2The possible multiple reduplication patterns in Lillooet all involve the combinationof a Level 1 and Level 2 morpheme. Rejected combinations involve tworeduplicative morphemes that would receive segmental content at the samestratum.5.4.4 Analysis: Multiple Reduplication in LillooetThe morpheme-based approach proposed in Section 5.3.3.1 can account for bothpermitted and impossible patterns in Lillooet. All permitted combinations ofreduplicative morphemes in Lillooet involve reduplication at different strata.Where two types of reduplication would occur at the same stratum, multiplereduplication is not possible.Both diminutive C1 and change-of-state C2 reduplication are Level 2 affixes,which makes them incompatible. The diagram in (356) shows the structure ofthe ungrammatical form *m@´ml@ ’l, which was intended to mean ‘it got a littlebit flooded’: see (353a) above. The unattested output in (356b) will violateMORPHEME-AFFILIATION because segments are associated with prosodic unitsassociated with two other morphemes; colours show that teal segments areassociated with pink and purple prosodic units, in addition to teal ones.305(356) a. Level 2 Input:µ [stress] [c.g.] + σ +Ftσmµuµlb. (Ungrammatical) Level 2 Output:Ftσm @µmσl @µ’lWhile Halkomelem uses a non-reduplicative allomorph to avoid multiplereduplication (see Section 5.3.2.3), Lillooet lacks an alternative “escape hatch”in the form of a non-reduplicative allomorph; there is a paradigmatic gap wherecombining the two morphemes is simply ungrammatical. Speakers must use adifferent morpheme (e.g., inchoative -P-/-p) or independent word (e.g., kwikws‘small’). It is beyond the scope of the present case study to analyse the choice ofalternative forms; I instead provide an analysis that accounts for the fact that formswith multiple reduplication at the same stratum are avoided by using a “null” or“gap” candidate, represented byÄ(McCarthy & Wolf, 2007, p.1). The rankingof a constraint MPARSE, defined in (357), sets a “harmony threshold” (Legendre,Smolensky, & Wilson, 1998, p.8). Any constraint ranked above MPARSE willnever be violated:Äwill always be preferable. Paradigmatic gaps thus occurwhen GEN can produce no possible candidate that will fare better than the nullparseÄ.(357) MPARSE: Given a candidate (o,ăią,ăoą,R), ifR is not a total bijectivefunction from ăią to ăoą, assign a violation mark. (McCarthy & Wolf,2007, p.14)306The definition of MPARSE in (357) considers ordered 4-tuples consisting ofthe candidate (o), the concatenative decomposition of the input (ăią), theconcatenative decomposition of the output (ăoą), and a relation between theinput and the output (R). Crucially, the correspondence R between the inputand output is over strings, rather than segments; a monosegmental string S in theinput can correspond to a null string # in the output. While MPARSE requires abijective (1-to-1) mapping between input and output, this can be satisfied evenwhen processes such as deletion (ăią = S, ăoą = #), epenthesis (ăią = #, ăoą= S), fission (ăią = S, ăoą = SS), and coalescence (ăią = SS, ăoą = S) haveoccurred. The null candidateÄhas nothing in ăoą, which means there is norelation R between ăią and ăoą:Ä will always violate MPARSE.MORPHEME-AFFILIATION must be ranked above MPARSE to predict the nullcandidate will be selected over one with multiple reduplication (at a given stratum).This ranking is shown in (358).(358)/µ + σ + C1VC2/ MAFFIL MPARSE a.Ä ˚b. C1VC1C2VC2 ˚!Given that the input for the diminutive and pluractional C1 reduplicationhas a floating [c.g.] feature in addition to a µ , MAXµ must also be rankedabove MPARSE to rule out a candidate where the diminutive is realised just asglottalisation on a sonorant (see Section 4.2.4.3). It is better to pick the gapcandidate in (359a) over the one that deletes the mora, realising the diminutive byjust the [c.g.] feature in (359b). Candidate (359c) fatally violates MORPHEME-AFFILIATION because it has the structure shown for the ungrammatical form*m@´ml@ ’l in (356b) above.(359)/µ [stress] [c.g] + σ + mul/ MAFFIL MAXµ MPARSE MAX[C.G.] a.Ä ˚b. mul@’l ˚!c. m@ml@’l ˚!The morpheme-based approach is therefore sufficient for the analysis ofmultiple reduplication in Lillooet. MORPHEME-AFFILIATION has a high ranking307in Lillooet, as in Halkomelem. While Halkomelem is able to avoid multiplereduplication through selecting another allomorph, Lillooet cannot generate anyoutput that is more harmonic than a null candidateÄ. In other words, violationsof MPARSE are tolerated if the alternative would be to generate a candidate withmultiple reduplication at the same stratum.5.4.5 Evaluating Alternative Approaches: Multiple ReduplicationRestricting multiple reduplication by morpheme affiliation predicts that multiplereduplication will only be possible if the reduplication happens at different strata;this is compatible with the data. A stratum-based phonology is needed to accountfor the patterns. I therefore evaluate the segment-based alternatives assuming themorpheme-to-stratum mappings proposed in this chapter.While the Binarity restriction proposed by Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk(2021b), restated in (360), was viable for the analysis of Halkomelem, it is notsufficient for multiple reduplication in Lillooet.(360) Binarity restriction on GEN: an element in the input can correspond to amaximum of two output elements.(Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2021b, p.176)The combination of C1 and C1C2 reduplication at Level 1 is correctly ruled outby the Binarity restriction because it yields a 1:3 (ternary) mapping, as shown in(361a); however, the Binarity restriction offers no explanation for why Level 2C1 and C2 reduplication patterns are also not possible, despite targeting differentsegments (i.e., two separate 1:2 mappings). The unattested form in (361b) ispermitted under the Binarity restriction, which means this approach is not sufficientfor Lillooet.(361) a. Ungrammatical Combination: Level 1 C1 and Level 1 C1C2Reduplicationt a ì l @ xa ì l @ xtì@tat308b. Ungrammatical Combination: Level 2 C1 and Level 2 C2Reduplicationm u 1m m@ @l lThe segment-based fission approach proposed by Zimmermann (2021b) doesnot perform any better than the segment-based binarity approach: plural C1C2reduplication receives two violations of INTS on its own, as shown in (362a). Theungrammatical combination with Level 2 morphemes also incurs two violations,as shown in (362b).(362) a. INTS Violations for Single Reduplication (Plural)qw1 @’l2 qw1 a’l2 u t1 ˝ ˝2 ‚ ‚b. INTS Violations for Ungrammatical Level 2 Combinationm1 @ m1 l2 @ l21 ˝ ˝2 ‚ ‚A segment-based fission approach is unable to explain why a single instanceof C1C2 reduplication, which copies two consonants, is tolerated, while acombination of diminutive/plural C1 plus change-of-state C2 reduplication isrejected. Both combinations would receive the same number of violations underINTS.Neither the fission or binarity approaches to multiple reduplication aresufficient for Lillooet; only the morpheme-based approach is able to account forboth attested and ungrammatical multiple reduplication patterns in Lillooet.3095.4.6 Evaluating Alternative Approaches: TriplicationThe Binarity restriction proposed by Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2021b) is notonly unable to rule out one of the two ungrammatical combinations (C1 and C2): italso predicts that triplication should be impossible because it yields a 1:3 input-output mapping. Examples of triplication, which were discussed in Chapter 4(Section 4.2.5), are restated in (363).(363) a. ìă@laląı´l (cf. ìı´lin ‘to sprinkle s.t.’)sprinkleăTRIPą‘to keep sprinkling’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56)b. pă@. ta. tą@´. t (root: p(@. )t-)bubbleăTRIPą‘to make a bubbling, gurgling noise’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.4)The diagram in (364) shows how a single input segment is associated with threeoutput segments in ì@lalı´l ‘to keep sprinkling’.(364) 1:3 Input-Output Mapping in Triplicationìì @ l a l i l@ lIn Chapter 4 (Section 4.2.5), I argue that the input for triplication is a foot,which means that it is an instance of single reduplication, which is filled at asingle stratum. The Binarity restriction is not able to differentiate between singlereduplication resulting in a 1:3 mapping, as seen in triplication, and multiplereduplication resulting in a 1:3 mapping. The segment-based binarity approachtherefore predicts that GEN should be unable to create candidates with triplication,which is contrary to observed patterns.A morpheme-based approach using MORPHEME-AFFILIATION allows fortriplication. While the triplicated word ’plixwixw ı´xw ‘keep overflowing’ in (365)has three consonants that correspond to the same input segment, all segments areassociated with prosodic units that share their morpheme affiliation (denoted byteal) or that of one other morpheme (denoted by purple). Triplication does notviolate MORPHEME-AFFILIATION.310(365) a. Input:Ftσσ +Ftσ’p lµiµx. wb. Output:Ftσ’p lµiσx. wµiFtσx. wµiµx. wOnly the morpheme-based restriction on multiple reduplication proposed inthis dissertation can distinguish between attested triplication and ungrammaticalmultiple reduplication patterns that copy the same number of segments; theBinarity restriction cannot account for Lillooet reduplication.5.4.7 Summary: Morpheme vs. Segment RestrictionsLillooet allows multiple reduplication when the two reduplicative morphemes arerealised at different points in the derivation. Differences in the number of fissionedsegments or the type of input-output mapping (i.e., binarity) cannot differentiateattested multiple reduplication patterns from ungrammatical ones. While bothsegment-based approaches were sufficient for Halkomelem when consideredwithin Stratal OT, neither is compatible with Lillooet.Possible and impossible combinations of reduplicative morphemes in Lillooetare only predicted by an analysis that restricts multiple reduplication withreference to morphemes. Alternative approaches that propose limitations based onpermissible types or amount of fission are are at odds with attested patterns.Having established the inadequacy of alternative approaches, I now turn toComox-Sliammon to evaluate whether the morpheme-based approach makes the311correct predictions for a language with all four core patterns (C1C2, C1, C2, andV1).5.5 Case Study III: Comox-SliammonIf a morpheme-based approach to multiple reduplication is to be extended tothe rest of Salish, it must be compatible with languages with the full range ofcore patterns (C1C2, C1, C2, and V1). The third case study therefore examinesmultiple reduplication in Comox-Sliammon, a language with a large inventory ofreduplicative morphemes, which are parsed into the word at three different levels(see the case study of single reduplication in Section 4.1). Data presented in thiscase study come from my own elicitation unless otherwise noted; examples fromfieldwork are given with speaker initials.5.5.1 Predictions for Multiple Reduplication in Comox-SliammonIf MORPHEME-AFFILIATION has a high ranking in Comox-Sliammon, as inHalkomelem and Lillooet, then combinations of two prosodic affixes at the samestratum are predicted to be absent.Reduplication in Comox-Sliammon is summarised in Table 5.9, adapted fromTable 4.1 given in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.2). Reduplicative morphemes are parsedinto the prosodic word at one of three strata: Level 1 (diminutive/plural C1 andproperty-denoting C1C2 reduplication), Level 2 (plural C1C2 and progressive C1reduplication), and Level 3 (plural V1 and change-of-state C2 reduplication).Table 5.9: Inventory of Comox-Sliammon ReduplicationReduplicative Morpheme Underlying Form StratumDiminutive C1 µ1 ą i2 Level 1Plural C1 µ1 ą a2 Level 1Property-Denoting C1C2 σN+µ Level 1Plural C1C2 (σN+µ )L2 Level 2Progressive C1 µL2 Level 2Plural V1 (µ [c.g.])L3 Level 3Change-of-State C2 σL3 Level 3312Diminutive and plural C1 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon, which are parsedat Level 1, have two allomorphs: a mora or a fixed segment. MORPHEME-AFFILIATION is violated when multiple prosodic affixes are parsed into theprosodic word at the same stratum; a morpheme-based approach using thisconstraint therefore makes different predictions than fission-based approaches(discussed in 5.3.3.2 and 5.4.5) with respect to reduplication associated with anunderlying fixed segment. Using MORPHEME-AFFILIATION to restrict multiplereduplication predicts that two reduplicative morphemes at Level 1 could occurin the same word if at least one selects the fixed segment allomorph. In contrast,fission associated with underlying prosodic units or fixed segments will beevaluated identically by INTS (Zimmermann, 2021b) or the Binarity restriction onGEN (Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2021b).Multiple reduplication at Level 2 and Level 3 is predicted to be impossiblebecause all types of reduplication at these strata involve underlying prosodicaffixes. These predictions are summarised in Table 5.10; I use ✓ to indicatecombinations that are predicted to be possible, * to indicate combinations that arepredicted to be impossible, and % to indicate combinations that are predicted tobe possible only if a fixed segment allomorph is selected. Shading is used to markredundant cells (i.e., the information in Level 1-Level 2 and Level 2-Level 1 cellsis the same).Table 5.10: Predictions for Comox-Sliammon Multiple ReduplicationLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3Level 1 % ✓ ✓Level 2 * ✓Level 3 *As reduplicative morphemes are parsed into the word across three strata inComox-Sliammon, an analysis using MORPHEME-AFFILIATION to restrictmultiple reduplication also predicts that combinations of more than tworeduplicative morphemes in the same word are phonologically possible providedeach is parsed at a different stratum.3135.5.2 Combinations ExcludedMORPHEME-AFFILIATION predicts that multiple reduplication that involves twoprosodic affixes at the same stratum should be impossible. In this section, I focuson (i) attested patterns, and (ii) combinations predicted to be impossible underMORPHEME-AFFILIATION (i.e., combinations at the same stratum). I set asideunattested or marginal/unclear combinations that include reduplicative morphemesat two different strata, as they are not crucial for testing the predictions of themorpheme-based restriction on multiple reduplication: these combinations aremarked with – in Table 5.11. Cells in gray are redundant (i.e., they involve twoinstances of same type of reduplication or contain the same information as anothercell).Table 5.11: Excluded PairsLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3PDEN DIM PL PL PROG COS PLC1C2 C1 C1 C1C2 C1 C2 V1Level 1 PDEN – – – –DIM – –PL – – – –Level 2 PL –PROGLevel 3 COSPLEven though I set aside 11/21 possible combinations, I consider every same-stratum combination, which are the crucial cases (i.e. the ones that are relevant forMORPHEME-AFFILIATION).11 I also consider at least one potential combinationof reduplicative morphemes for each unique combination of strata (i.e., L1-L1,L1-L2, L1-L3, L2-L2, L2-L3, L3-L3, L1-L2-L3).11Unattested/ungrammatical combinations that involve reduplication at different strata are notevidence for or against morpheme-based limitations on multiple reduplication.3145.5.3 L1-L1 Combinations5.5.3.1 Attested (Allomorphy): Level 1 C1 and Level 1 C1C2 ReduplicationExamples in (366) show that diminutive C1 reduplication co-occurs with property-denoting C1C2 reduplication; these forms are formed with the i- allomorph of thediminutive, which consists of only a fixed segment, instead of the prosodic affix(µ).(366) a. x. i„x.@ì„x.@ì (cf. x. @ì ‘get angry’)DIM„PDEN„angry‘a little angry’ (FL, sf)b. sˇi„sˇ@ ’m„sˇ@m (cf. kwu sˇ@ ’m ‘It got dry.’)DIM„PDEN„dry‘a little dry’ (FL, vf)c. ňi„ň@ ’m„ň@mDIM„PDEN„wett@=Pa ’pust@nDET=towel(cf. ’ň@ ’m ‘get wet’)‘The towel is a little wet/damp.’ (BW, vf)d. ’tTi„’tT@ ’y„’tTay (cf. ’tT@ ’y ’tTay ‘loud’)DIM„PDEN„loud‘a little loud’ (FL, sf/vt)e. ’ňi„ ’ň@s„ ’ňas@m (cf. ’ňas@m ‘strong’)DIM„PDEN„strong‘kinda strong’ (Fl, sf/vt)As MORPHEME-AFFILIATION is only violated when fission provides segmentalcontent to two prosodic affixes at the same stratum, the combination of two Level1 morphemes is predicted to be possible, if the fixed segment allomorph is selected(see Section 5.5.1); the attested forms in (366) are consistent with this prediction.Plural C1 reduplication and property-denoting C1C2 reduplication can alsobe combined. Both types of reduplication are parsed at Level 1, but multiplereduplication is formed with the a- allomorph of the plural, rather than µ .Examples are shown in (367).1212Thank you to Marianne Huijsmans for providing these examples.315(367) a. hihiwreally’ňa„ ’ň@s„ ’ňas@mPL„PDEN„strongt@=t@q„tiqiwDET=PL„horse(cf. ’ňas@m ‘strong’)‘Those horses are really strong.’ (EP)b. hihiwreally’tTa„’tT@ ’y„’tTay-mut (cf. ’tT@y ’tTay ‘loud’)PL„PDEN„noisy-INTS‘They’re really noisy.’ (EP)c. hihiwreallyňa„ň@ ’m„ň@m-mutPL„PDEN„wet-INTSt@=t@m„tumisˇDET=PL„man(cf. ’ň@ ’m ‘get wet’)‘Those men are really wet.’ (EP)The fixed segment affix a- is seen in plural properties in (367), parallel to i- indiminutive properties in (366); these combinations of two Level 1 morphemes arepossible, since they involve only one prosodic affix (i.e., property-denoting σN`µ ).Multiple reduplication and allomorph selection at Level 1 are analysed further inSection 5.5.10.5.5.3.2 Attested (Allomorphy): Level 1 C1 and Level 1 C1 ReduplicationPlural C1 and diminutive C1 reduplication can be combined, as shown in (368).13The fixed segment allomorph is selected for both morphemes. The plural anddiminutive may occur in either order for some words, as shown in (368a–b), thoughnot in others, as shown in (368c).(368) a. pi„pa„px. -itDIM„PL„rip-STATsayayax. an-selbow-3POSS’q@snay-sshirt-3POSS(✓(pa„pi„px. -it)PL„DIM„rip-STAT)‘The sleeves of the shirt are ripped a little.’ (root: px. - ‘rip’) (FL, vf)b. ’ki„ ’ka„ ’kp-itDIM„PL„cut-STAT(✓(’ka„ ’ki„ ’kp-it)PL„DIM„cut-STAT)‘has small little cuts’ (root: ’kp- ‘cut’) (FL, sf)c. ňa„ňi„ňm-itPL„DIM„wet-STAT(˚(ňi„ňa„ňm-it)DIM„PL„wet-STAT)‘They are a little wet.’ (root: ň ’m- ‘wet’) (FL, sf/vt)I have not elicited any examples of plural C1 and diminutive C1 reduplication witha root with a moraic vowel; each type of reduplication would select a prosodic13Thank you to Marianne Huijsmans for eliciting these examples for me.316affix (µ) in this context (see Section 4.1.3.1).14 However, an example of a wordwith a moraic vowel that takes lexicalised C1 (diminutive) reduplication with theµ allomorph may further take the a- allomorph of plural C1 reduplication is shownin (369).(369) Pa„PuăPąmat (cf. xwaPut Pumatas ‘She’s not lazy.’)PL„lazyăC1ą‘They are really lazy.’ (EP, vf)While further elicitation is needed to investigate the combination of two types ofLevel 1 C1 reduplication with roots that have a moraic vowel, it is notable thatthe form in (369) above involves both a prosodic affix and a fixed segment; thisallomorphy follows the anticipated pattern because it avoids parsing two prosodicaffixes at the same stratum because a fixed segment allomorph is used for one ofthe morphemes.5.5.4 L1-L2 Combinations5.5.4.1 Attested: Level 1 C1 and Level 2 C1C2 ReduplicationMultiple reduplication involving Level 1 diminutive C1 plus Level 2 plural C1C2reduplication is predicted to be possible, given that the morphemes are not parsedat the same stratum; examples showing this combination are given in (370).15(370) a. ’ti„’t@ì„’tuìaì (cf. ’tuìaì ‘bed’)DIM„PL„bed‘a bunch of little beds’ (EP/FL, sf)b. si„s@p„supayu (cf. supayu ‘axe’)DIM„PL„axe‘lots of little axes’ (EP/FL, sf)14This is due to time constraints; I only noticed this gap while revising this chapter.15This combination of diminutive C1 and plural C1C2 reduplication is only found with nouns;diminutive plural verbs are formed with V1 reduplication instead of C1C2 reduplication, as discussedin Section 5.5.5.1.317c. ’qi„ ’q@s„ ’q@sna ’y (cf. ’q@sna ’y ‘shirt/dress’)DIM„PL„shirt/dress‘a bunch of little shirts or dresses’ (EP/FL, sf)d. pi„p@cˇ„p@cˇu (cf. p@cˇu ‘basket’)DIM„PL„basket‘small baskets’ (EP/FL, sf)The combination of diminutive C1 and C1C2 plural reduplication is predicted tobe possible, given that C1 and C1C2 reduplication were assigned to different stratain Chapter 4 (Section 4.1). However, the surface order of morphemes in (370) isunexpected: if diminutive reduplication happens at Level 1 and plural reduplicationhappens at Level 2, then the plural (σN`µ ) should be parsed after the diminutive(µ or i-). In other words, the plural should be leftmost because it is prefixed at alater stratum than the diminutive.Allomorph selection presents an additional complication: the i- allomorph ofthe diminutive is always selected, even when the µ allomorph is chosen for adiminutive form with single reduplication. For example, the diminutive form of’tuìaì ‘bed’ in (370a) is ’tu ’tìaì ‘little bed’. The plural is clearly not added to theLevel 1 form because the anticipated form would be * ’t@ ’t ’tu ’tìaì, which suggests thatthe order of reduplicative morphemes proposed in Chapter 4 needs to be revised.This will be addressed in Section 5.5.10.5.5.5 L1-L3 Combinations5.5.5.1 Attested: Level 1 C1 and Level 3 V1 ReduplicationThe combination of Level 1 diminutive C1 and Level 3 plural V1 reduplicationis attested. This type of multiple reduplication is used to form diminutive pluralnouns, as shown in (371), or to mark intermittent events where each event typicallyhas a short duration, as shown in (372).1616The diminutive plural nouns in (371) have the same meaning as those given in Section 5.5.4.1.This was confirmed explicitly by speakers EP and FL for pairs like ’tuPu ’tìaì in (371b) and ’ti ’t@ì ’tuìaìin (370a), which both can be used to mean ‘little beds’.318(371) a. săuPąuăsąpayu (cf. supayu ‘axe’)axeăPLąăDIMą‘little axes’ (JF, sf)b. ’tăuPąuă’tąìaì (cf. ’tuìaì ‘bed’)DIMăPLą„bed‘little beds’ (EP, vf)c. măiPąiămąx. aì (cf. mix. aì ‘black bear’)DIMăPLą„bear‘baby black bears’ (FL, sf)d. cˇăiPąi„cˇuy (cf. cˇuy ‘child’)DIMăPLą„child‘little children’ (FL, vf)(372) a. păiPąi„pcˇ@mDIMăPLą„wakeBaileyBailey‘Bailey wakes up now and then.’ (BW, sf/vt)b. cˇăiPąi„cˇì@mDIMăPLą„dance-MIDFreddieFreddie‘Freddie does a little jig now and then.’ (BW, vf)c. namaì=Putlittle.bit=EXCLqăiPąi„qkw-@mDIMăPLą„stop-MID‘It kept stopping and starting for a little while.’ (BW, sf/vt)d. ’kwăiPąi„ ’kw@n-[t]=cˇanDIMăPLą„see-[CTR]=1SG.SUBJDanielDaniel‘I’m looking at Daniel (several times to see what he’s doing).’ (BW,vf)Both the prosodic affix (µ) and fixed segment (/i/) allomorphs of C1 reduplicationare observed: compare (371a–c) with (371d) and (372). As plural V1 reduplicationis always a prosodic affix (µ [c.g.]), two prosodic affixes are present in (371a–c);this is predicted to be possible because each reduplicative morpheme is parsed at adifferent stratum (Level 1 vs. Level 3).These forms provide independent evidence for diminutive happening at anearly stratum: allomorph selection for the diminutive matches the phonological319environments described in Chapter 4 for the diminutive on its own (Section4.1.3.1.2), which means the choice between listed allomorphs must happen beforeplural V1 reduplication. For example, if the order were reversed, plural V1reduplication would apply to cˇuy ‘child’ in (371d), resulting in an intermediateform *cˇuPuy, which would no longer be monosyllabic and therefore pick thepreferred allomorph µ , which would yield *cˇucˇPuy. These forms therefore providefurther support for the morpheme to stratum mappings proposed in Chapter 4.5.5.6 L2-L2 Combinations5.5.6.1 Ungrammatical: Level 2 C1 and Level 2 C1C2 ReduplicationThe combination of Level 2 progressive C1 plus Level 2 plural C1C2 reduplicationis not predicted to be possible because both require prosodic affixes – µ and σN`µ ,respectively – to be parsed into the word at Level 2; if this combination werepossible, it would violate MORPHEME-AFFILIATION.The examples in (373) show that forms with this combination are rejected. Asthere are no attested examples of this combination to guide elicitation with respectto the form and position of reduplicated segments, I tested at least two forms foreach.(373) a. *xw@ăxwą[@]y„xway-@m/*xw@y„xwa„xway-@mPLăPROGą„dive-MID/PL„PROG„dive-MIDIntended: ‘They are diving here and there.’ (cf. xway@m ‘dive’) (FL)b. *Pi„P@m„Pim-asˇ/*P@m„Pi„Pim-asˇPROG„PL„walk-INTR/PL„PROG„walk-INTRMarianneMarianneIntended: ‘Marianne is walking around.’ (cf. Pimasˇ ‘walk’) (FL/BW)c. *Pa„Pa ’q„Pa ’q-at-as/*Pa ’q„Pa„Pa ’q-at-asPROG„PL„chase-CTR-3ERG/PL„PROG„chase-CTR-3ERGt@= ’cˇanuDET=dogIntended: ‘They are chasing the dog around.’ (cf. Pa ’qatas ‘He chasesit.’) (FL/BW)The combination of two reduplicative morphemes at Level 2 is ungrammatical,as predicted. Where this combination is avoided, -a- replaces the [@] in formswith plural C1C2 reduplication. The pairs in (374–376) compare the meaning320associated with the C@C and CaC forms.17 When speakers were asked to translatean imperative, they volunteered the C@C form; they volunteered the CaC whendescribing something in-progress.18(374) a. ’kwăaąn„ ’kw@n-t-asPLăASPą„look-CTR-3ERGt@=pipa (cf. ’kw@t gi Betty! ‘Look at Betty!’)DET=paper‘He’s looking over the paper.’ (Huijsmans & Mellesmoen, 2021,p.353)b. ’kw@n„ ’kw@n-t=gaPL„look-CTR=PRTtiPiDEM‘You look it over.’ (Huijsmans & Mellesmoen, 2021, p.353)(375) a. hăaąkw„h@kw-t (cf. hu ga h@kwt ‘Go hang it.’)PLăASPą„hang-CTR‘They (blankets) are hanging.’ (EP, vf)b. h@kw„h@kw-t-cˇxwPL„hang-CTR=2SG.SUBJ‘You hang them up. (EP, sf)(376) a. ’tTăaąkw„’tTukwt=cˇanPLăASPą„wipe-CTR=1SG.SUBJt@=TiwuTit@nDET=tablePiCONJhu=sˇt@mgo=1PL.SUBJ+FUTjˇuPhometT=huy (cf. ’tT@kwtcˇan ‘I wiped it.’)1SG.POSS=finish‘I’m wiping down the tables and then we’ll head home.’ (EP, sf)b. ’tT@kw„’tT@kw-t=gaPL„wipe-CTR=PRTt@=TiwuTit@nDET=table‘Wipe the tables down.’ (FL, vf)Given that the distribution of -a- and the meaning of forms with CaC are consistentwith the progressive, a preliminary hypothesis is that CaC forms mark a pluralprogressive as a strategy to avoid multiple reduplication; however, further semantic17There are also cases where no contrast or difference in meaning can be elicited and the presenceof [a] may represent a lexicalized exception (Huijsmans & Mellesmoen, 2021, p.353).18Elicitation was conducted as part of joint work with Marianne Huijsmans.321exploration is needed to determine if -a- is an allomorph of the progressive or if itis another aspectual morpheme with a similar contribution.195.5.7 L2-L3 Combinations5.5.7.1 Attested: Level 2 C1C2 and Level 3 V1 ReduplicationLevel 2 plural C1C2 reduplication plus Level 3 plural V1 reduplication can occurin the same word. Examples are provided in (377).(377) a. hiìCLFBaileyBaileyP@=’tTăaPąakw„’tT@kwtCLF=PLăPLą„wipe-CTRt@DETT@kw„Tukwnacˇt@nPL„chair‘It was Bailey who wiped down the chairs.’ (cf. ’tT@kwtcˇan ‘I wiped it.’)(EP, vf)b. ìăaPąa ’kw„ìu ’kwPLăPLą„flyt@=hiyumDET=seagull(cf. ìu ’kw Fred ‘Fred flew.’)‘The seagull flies around (go a little distance, stop, and repeat).’ (BW,sf/vt)c. jˇăaPąa ’ň„jˇ@ ’ňPLăPLą„runt@= ’cˇanu (cf. jˇ@ ’ň ‘run’)DET=dog‘The dog is running around the yard (starting and stopping, sniffing atthings).’ (BW, vf)The combination of Level 2 plural C1C2 reduplication and Level 3 plural V1reduplication is predicted to be phonologically possible: the underlying form ofboth morphemes includes a prosodic affix, but each is parsed a different stratumand therefore they do not violate MORPHEME-AFFILIATION.19Previous descriptions highlight the need for further work in this area. J. Davis (1970b,p.88) notes that sometimes C1C2 reduplication marks imperfective (= progressive) aspect, withoutmentioning -a-, while Watanabe (2003, p.399) suggests that -a- with C1C2 reduplication has anunclear function but may be related to a process of plural ablaut. Huijsmans and Mellesmoen(2021, p.352) mention that -a- with C@C reduplication is “volunteered in a situation where theaction described was happening at the time of utterance, whereas the forms without ... were usedfor contexts such as completed actions and imperative[s]”, suggesting an aspectual function.3225.5.7.2 Attested: Level 2 C1 and Level 3 C2 ReduplicationLevel 2 progressive C1 and Level 3 change-of-state reduplication C2 reduplicationcan be combined. Examples are provided in (378). This type of multiplereduplication has been described in discussions of aspect in previous work(Kroeber, 1988; Watanabe, 2003).(378) a. ’tTu„’tTău ’kwąu ’kw (cf. ’ň@qt ’tTu ’kw ‘The day is long.’)PROG„dayăCOSą‘becoming daylight’ (EP, vf)b. qw@lcomePa„PăahąahPROG„soreăCOSątT=cˇayis (cf. Pah ‘sore’)1SG.POSS=hand‘My hand is starting to get sore.’ (BW/FL, vf)c. hu=cˇango=1SG.SUBJ’kwa„ ’kwăasąas (cf. ’kwas ‘warm/hot’)PROG„warm/hotăCOSą‘I am getting warm.’ (EP, vf)d. q@„qăx.@ąx. (cf. q@x. ‘more’)PROG„moreăCOSą‘increasing, getting to be more’ (EP/FL, sf/vt)e. p@„păs@ąsPROG„moreăCOSątT=cˇayisˇ (cf. p@s ‘numb’)1SG.POSS=hand‘My hand is getting numb.’ (BW, sf)Given that the forms in (378) involve prosodic affixes at two different strata,this type of multiple reduplication does not violate MORPHEME-AFFILIATIONand therefore this data is consistent with the predictions of the morpheme-basedapproach.5.5.7.3 Attested: Level 2 C1 and Level 3 V1 ReduplicationThe combinations of progressive C1 reduplication and plural V1 reduplication isattested in the literature: examples are given in (379).2020I keep the vowels in these examples as transcribed in Blake (2000, p.285) because I am unsureif it corresponds to an /i/ or /a/.323(379) a. ’tTăEPąE„’tT ’q-aPam (cf. ’tT@ ’qP@m ‘throw (s.t.)’)PROGăPLą„throw-A.INTR‘throwing lots’ (Blake, 2000, p.285)b. Put=cˇxw= ’kwaif=2SG.SUBJ=QUOTìăaPąa„ìaw-sˇ...PROGăPLą„leave-TR‘If you keep leaving them (sg.) alone...’ (cf. ìaw@xwas ‘Someone leftthem (sg.).’) (Watanabe, 2021, p.101)The combination in (379) involves prosodic affixes at two strata, which means thatMORPHEME-AFFILIATION will not be violated; these forms are correctly predictedto be phonologically possible.5.5.8 L3-L3 Combinations5.5.8.1 Ungrammatical: Level 3 C2 and Level 3 V1 ReduplicationThere are two types of reduplication that occur at Level 3: change-of-state C2and plural V1 reduplication. If the combination of these two Level 3 morphemeswere attested, it would mean two prosodic affixes were parsed at the same stratum(Level 3). The prediction that these will not co-occur is borne out, as shown by thenegative data in (380).(380) a. *ňăiPąăiqąiqiw (cf. ňiqiw ‘dark’)darkăPLąăCOSąIntended: ‘got dark again and again’Intended: ‘got dark here and there’ (FL)b. *’tăuPąăusąus (cf. ’tus@m ‘quiet’)quietăPLąăCOSąIntended: ‘They kept getting quiet.’ (FL)c. *păaPąăasą@s (cf. p@s ‘numb’)numbăPLąăCOSąIntended: ‘I got numb (throughout the day).’ (FL)324d. * ’kwăaPąăasąas (cf. ’kwas ‘warm/hot’)warm/hotăPLąăCOSąIntended: I got hot again and again.’Intended: ‘I got hot throughout the day.’ (FL)5.5.9 L1-L2-L3 Combinations5.5.9.1 Attested: Level 1 C1, Level 2 C1, and Level 3 V1 ReduplicationGiven that Comox-Sliammon has productive reduplication at three strata, threetypes of reduplication are predicted to be phonologically compatiable in the sameword. The examples in (381) show that Level 1 C1 (diminutive), Level 2 C1(progressive), and Level 3 V1 reduplication may occur together.(381) a. ’cˇăiPąi„cˇi„cˇ@ìPROGăPLą„DIM„rainPas ’q (cf. ’cˇ@ì ‘rain’)outside‘It is raining a little (throughout the day).’ (BW, vf)b. jˇăiPąi„jˇi„jˇ@ ’ň (cf. jˇ@ ’ň ‘run’)PROGăPLą„DIM„run‘running around’ (Watanabe, 1994a, p.70)While the survey in Chapter 2 reveals that multiple reduplication in Salishtypically only involves two types of reduplication in a single word (Section2.8), the morpheme-based limit on multiple reduplication does not rule outthe possibility of more than reduplicative two morphemes in a single word.Comox-Sliammon has three strata, which mean forms with three reduplicativemorphemes such as those in (381) are expected, despite the fact that this type ofreduplication is very limited in occurrence.2121Another example of three reduplicative morphemes is provided in (i), though this involves twoLevel 1 morphemes (assuming the reanalysis of nominal plurals as Level 1 in Section 5.5.10.3). Thisinvolves C1 diminutive (Level 1), C1C2 plural (Level 1), and V1 plural (Level 3) reduplication; thei- allomorph of the diminutive is selected.(i) săiPąi„s@p„saplin (cf. saplin ‘bread’)DIMăPLą„PL„bread‘lots of little bits of bread’ (Blake, 2000, p.285)3255.5.10 AnalysisIn Section 5.5.1, I showed that the Morpheme Affiliation constraint predicts thatmultiple reduplication at the same stratum will be possible, provided that only onetype of reduplication involves a prosodic affix; this prediction follows from thefact that MORPHEME-AFFILIATION is only violated if fission supplies segmentalcontent to more than one prosodic affix at a given stratum.The only combinations involving two types of reduplication at the samestratum in Comox-Sliammon happen at Level 1: (i) property-denoting C1C2plus diminutive C1 reduplication, (ii) property-denoting C1C2 plus plural C1reduplication, and (iii) diminutive C1 plus plural C1 reduplication. As multiplereduplication occurs at the same stratum and yields a 1:3 input-output mapping,this combination would be ruled out under the Binarity restriction proposed byMellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2021b); in this section, I show that the morpheme-based approach developed in this chapter does not face the same limitations.I first demonstrate in Sections 5.5.10.1 and 5.5.10.2 that multiple reduplicationat Level 1 does not violate MORPHEME-AFFILIATION in Comox-Sliammon; infact, including MORPHEME-AFFILIATION provides an explanation for allomorphchoice in multiple reduplication. The unexpected form of diminutive C1 plus pluralC1C2 reduplication described in Section 5.5.4.1 above is addressed in Section5.5.10.3; only a minor adjustment to the analysis proposed in Chapter 4 is required.5.5.10.1 Diminutive and Plural PropertiesDiminutive C1, plural C1, and property-denoting C1C2 reduplication are all Level1 affixes; their lexical entries are given again in (382) repeated from Chapter 4(Section 4.1.3.1.2). As argued there, the lexical entry for the diminutive and theplural contains two listed allomorphs: an affixed mora, and a fixed vowel (/i/for diminutive and /a/ for plural). Of the two allomorphs, µ is the default. Theproperty-denoting morpheme is always an affixed monomoraic syllable.(382) Lexical Entries for Diminutive, Plural, and Property-DenotingReduplication:a. (µ1 ą i2) ôăDIMąb. (µ1 ą a2) ôăPLą326c. σN+µ ôăPDENąDiminutive properties and plural properties are identical aside from vowel quality:[i] marks a diminutive, while [a] marks a plural. A pair is given in (383).22(383) a. Diminutive Propertyňi„ň@ ’m„ň@mDIM„PDEN„wett@=Pa ’pust@nDET=towel(cf. ’ň@ ’m ‘get wet’)‘The towel is a little wet/damp.’ (BW, vf)b. Plural Propertyhihiwreallyňa„ň@ ’m„ň@m-mutPL„PDEN„wet-INTSt@=t@m„tumisˇDET=PL„man‘Those men are really wet.’ (EP)For the remainder of this section, I will focus on diminutive properties; everythingdiscussed here applies to plural properties as well, if [a] is substituted for [i].The tree structures in (384b) and (384c) compare two potential forms of thediminutive property x. ix. @ìx. @ì ‘a little angry’. In (384b), the preferred allomorph(µ) is inserted, resulting in the unattested form x. @x. ìx. @ì. This results in segmentalcontent from a single morpheme (marked with teal) being associated with prosodicunits from both the diminutive and property-denoting morpheme (marked withpink and purple), which violates MORPHEME-AFFILIATION. In comparison,the attested form x. ix. @ìx. @ì is shown in (384c); segments marked in teal are onlyassociated with prosodic content belonging to the property-denoting morpheme(marked in purple). Selecting the fixed segment allomorph therefore avoids aviolation of MORPHEME-AFFILIATION.22Example (383b) was elicited by Marianne Huijsmans.327(384) a. Input:(µ ą i) + σN+µ + x. ìb. Unattested: µ Allomorphσx. @µx.µìσx. @µìc. Attested: /i/ Allomorphσx.µiσx. @µìσx. @µìA tableau showing the ranking needed to derive (384c) is given in (385) below;MORPHEME-AFFILIATION must be ranked above PRIORITY, which is theconstraint violated when the preferred allomorph is not selected (see Section4.1.3.1.2).(385)/(µ1 ą i2) + σN+µ + x˙ì/ MAFFIL PRIORITYa. x˙@x˙1ìx˙@ì ˚! b. x˙i2x˙@ìx˙@ì ˚Ranking MORPHEME-AFFILIATION above PRIORITY predicts that the fixedsegment affix will be selected over the preferred one to avoid fissioned segmentsbeing associated with more than one prosodic affix at the same stratum.In these cases, MORPHEME-AFFILIATION correctly allows more than onetype of reduplication at the same stratum while at the same time it providesan explanation for allomorph choice. In contrast, the attested form is notsomething GEN can produce under Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk’s (2021) Binarityrestriction, because the attested form has a 1:3 mapping. The morpheme-basedapproach therefore yields a more successful analysis of multiple reduplication inComox-Sliammon.3285.5.10.2 Double C1 Diminutive Plurals at Level 1The combination of plural C1 plus diminutive C1 reduplication at Level 1 is alsoattested in Comox-Sliammon, as described in Section 5.5.3.2. The combination oftwo types of reduplication at the same stratum is expected, provided that the fixedsegment allomorph is selected for at least one of the morphemes. The relevantlexical entries are given in (386).(386) Comox-Sliammon Level 1 Diminutive and Plural:a. (µ1 ą i2) ô xDimyb. (µ1 ą a2) ô xPlyRecall from Section 5.5.3.2 that fixed segment affixes may be selected for bothmorphemes in double C1 diminutive plurals. For example, both’ki ’ka ’kpit and’ka ’ki ’kpit are translated by the speaker as ‘small little cuts’. The tableau in (387)shows that a potential candidate in (387a) with both preferred allomorphs isruled out by MAFFIL.23 Candidates (387b–c), which select one fixed segmentallomorph, violate PRIORITY once; candidates (387d–e), which select two fixedsegment allomorphs, receive an additional (and fatal) violation under PRIORITY.EVAL would therefore incorrectly select either (387b) or (387c), rather than theattested forms (387d–e).(387)/(µ1 ą i2) + (µ1 ą a2) + ’kp + it/ MAFFIL PRIORITYa. ’k@ ’k1’k1pit ˚! b. ’ka2’k1pit ˚ c. ’ki2’k1pit ˚/ d. ’ki2 ’ka2 ’kpit ˚˚!/ e. ’ka2 ’ki2 ’kpit ˚˚!Candidates (387b) or (387c) must be possible outputs of the grammar when a singlereduplicative morpheme is present, as evident from the pair in (388) which showdiminutive and plural forms. These forms have the same shape as (387b) and(387c) in the tableau above. The fact that these forms are identical words withsingle reduplication means that these combinations violate REALIZEMORPHEME,23This particular form would also be ruled out by DEP-V independently: see Section 4.1.3.1.329first defined in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.3.1.2) and restated in (389): if DIM+PL isidentical to DIM (or PL), then there is no surface expression of PL (or DIM).(388) a. Diminutive C1 Reduplication’ti„’tl[i] ’k (cf. ’t@l ’k ‘hole’)DIM„hole‘small hole’ (BW)b. Plural C1 Reduplication’ta„’tl[i] ’k (cf. ’t@l ’k ‘hole’)C1.PL„hole‘bunch of holes’ (KG)(389) REALIZEMORPHEME (RM): Let α be a morphological form, β be amorphosyntactic category, and F(α) be the phonological form from whichF(α+β ) is derived to express a morphosyntactic category β . Then RM issatisfied with respect to β iff F(α + β )‰F(α) phonologically.(Kurisu, 2001, p.39)The tableau in (390) shows that ranking REALIZEMORPHEME above PRIORITYensures that one of the attested forms is chosen.(390)/(µ1 ą i2) + (µ1 ą a2) + ’kp + it/ MAFFIL RM PRIORITYa. ’k@ ’k1’k1pit ˚!b. ’ka2’k1pit ˚! ˚c. ’ki2’k1pit ˚! ˚ d. ’ki2’ka2’kpit ˚˚ e. ’ka2’ki2’kpit ˚˚Fixed segment allomorphs are selected for both morphemes in double C1diminutive plural reduplication because selecting two prosodic affixes wouldviolate MORPHEME-AFFILIATION and selecting one prosodic affix would resultin an output for multiple reduplication that is not sufficiently different from theform with single reduplication. I leave the variation in the order of diminutive C1and plural C1 reduplication as an area for future investigation.3305.5.10.3 Diminutive PluralsWe have seen that there are no attested multiple reduplication patterns in Comox-Sliammon that are predicted to be impossible, which means that MORPHEME-AFFILIATION is sufficient to explain limitations on multiple reduplication.However, there is one pattern that poses a potential problem for unifying theanalysis of individual reduplication patterns with their combinations. Recall fromSection 5.5.4.1 that the form and position of the diminutive in plural diminutivenouns formed with diminutive C1 plus Level 2 plural C1C2 reduplication is notcompatible with diminutive reduplication occurring before plural reduplication.If diminutive C1 reduplication happens at Level 1 and plural C1C2reduplication happens at Level 2, then the choice between prosodic affixand fixed segment allomorphs must happen prior to plural reduplication. Thediminutive plural form of supayu ‘axe’ predicted by this analysis is *s@ssuspayu,as shown in Table 5.12: µ is selected because supayu has more than one syllableand has a moraic vowel, which means the segment associated with the diminutivemora is in a C2 position in the input to Level 2.Table 5.12: Box - Predicted Derivation (Ungrammatical Output)Input: {µ , i} + supayuOutputLevel 1 suspayuInputLevel 2 σµ + suspayuOutput: *s@ssuspayuIn addition to the wrong choice of allomorph, the attested form sis@psupayu alsohas an unanticipated order; even if the fixed segment was picked at Level 1, Level2 plural reduplication would yield *s@ssisupayu.The evidence from multiple reduplication suggests that the analysis in Chapter4 must be revised to be compatible with the patterns described in this chapter. Thediminutive plural forms resemble the diminutive properties analysed in Section5.5.10.1, as shown with the pair in (391). Given that the correct form of C1C2reduplication can be derived at either Level 1 or Level 2, this suggests that pluralC1C2 reduplication might be better analysed as a Level 1 affix.331(391) a. ’cˇi„ ’cˇ@m„ ’cˇ@m root: ’cˇm- ‘cold’)DIM„PDEN„cold‘a little cold’ (EP)b. ’ti„’t@ì„’tuìaì (cf. ’tuìaì ‘bed’)DIM„PL„bed‘a bunch of little beds’ (EP)In Section 5.5.6.1, I showed that the combination of C1 progressive reduplicationand C1C2 plural reduplication is systematically rejected; if plural C1C2reduplication is at Level 1, as indicated by the nouns, and progressive C1at Level 2, there is no explanation for their incompatibility. However, theproblematic diminutive plural forms are all nouns while the potential pluralprogressive forms are necessarily verbs (because progressive aspect only appliesto verbs).24 I therefore revise the original classification of plural reduplicationto differentiate between Level 1 C1C2 nominal plurals and Level 2 C1C2 verbalplurals. Given that plural nouns refer to plural entities while plural verbs refer tospatio-temporally distributed events (Huijsmans & Mellesmoen, 2021), there areindependent semantic differences between the two which further support treatingthem as separate processes.Distinguishing Level 1 and Level 2 C1C2 reduplication means there are twostrata where plural C1C2 reduplication can occur. The order of diminutive relativeto plural reduplication for diminutive plural nouns ceases to be an issue if both areaffixed at Level 1.5.5.11 SummaryTable 5.13 shows the revised classification of Comox-Sliammon reduplication,based on the case study in Chapter 4 and revised with evidence from multiplereduplication.24Diminutive plural verbs can only be formed with C1 plus V1 reduplication, as described inSection 5.5.5.1.332Table 5.13: Comox-Sliammon System: RevisedReduplication Underlying Form LevelPlural (Entities) σN+µ Level 1Diminutive (µ1 ą i2) Level 1Plural (Spatial/States) (µ1 ą a2) Level 1Property-Denoting σN+µ + P Level 1Plural (Events) σN+µ Level 2Progressive µ Level 2Change-of-State σ Level 3Plural µ [c.g.] Level 3Table 5.14 summarises the different combinations of reduplicative morphemes.C1C2 reduplication is separated into N.PL for plural entities (Level 1) and V.PLfor plural events (Level 2). I use ✓ to indicate combinations that are attested, * toindicate combinations that are ungrammatical, and % to indicate combinations thatare possible only where a fixed segment allomorph is selected. Cells with – havenot yet been tested (see Section 5.5.2).Table 5.14: Comox-Sliammon Multiple ReduplicationLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3PDEN/N.PL DIM PL V.PL PROG COS PLC1C2 C1 C1 C1C2 C1 C2 V1Level 1 PDEN/N.PL % % – – – –DIM % ✓ – – ✓PL – – – –Level 2 V.PL * – ✓PROG ✓ ✓Level 3 COS *PLThe analysis of individual reduplication patterns in Chapter 4 and the analysis ofmultiple reduplication patterns in this chapter complement each other and togetherprovide a firm empirical foundation for both the overall model of grammar333proposed in this dissertation and the specific constraints and constraint rankingswhich characterize each of the the three case study languages.5.6 ConclusionMore than one reduplicative morpheme may occur in a single word in Halkomelem,Lillooet, and Comox-Sliammon. However, not all potential types of multiplereduplication are possible; if two types of reduplication co-occur at the samestratum, then only one type of reduplication can fill a prosodic affix. Where tworeduplicative morphemes are affixed at the same point in the derivation, a fixedsegment allomorph may be inserted if one is available, as in Halkomelem andComox-Sliammon. If there is no fixed segment allomorph, then there is simply agap and the intended meaning requires a periphrastic construction, as in Lillooet.Systematic gaps in the distribution of multiple reduplication can therefore beexplained in a morpheme-based approach using MORPHEME-AFFILIATION, aconstraint limiting segments to associating with prosodic units affiliated with onlyone other morpheme.334Chapter 6A Model of Reduplication:Cross-Salish Variation andImplications for TheoryIn this chapter, I further elaborate my theory of reduplication, showing how themodel proposed in Chapter 3 and further developed through the case studies inChapters 4 and 5 predicts the variation across Salish, as detailed in Chapter 2. Anoverview of the architecture of the grammar is provided in Section 6.1. Sections6.2–6.7 cover each component of the model, starting from syntactic structureand concluding with a discussion of post-reduplication phonological processes.Section 6.8 concludes the chapter with a discussion of theoretical implications ofthe model.One of the main claims of this dissertation, summarised in this chapter, isthat phonological words are built across ordered strata, which each have theirown constraint ranking; these strata define phonological domains where differentaffixes are parsed into prosodic structure. However, the smallest morphosyntacticdomain relevant for reduplicative morphemes in Salish is the morphologicalword (w). Salish reduplication shows that phonological and morphosyntacticdomains beneath the level of the word are not isomorphic. Further, in the theoryof reduplication presented here, concatenative and non-concatenative morphemesare not inherently different; I provide further evidence in this chapter that these335morphemes are treated the same with respect to linearisation and allomorphyprior to being parsed into the phonological word. Differences between them arisewhen the phonological content associated with a given lexical entry cannot surfacefaithfully, which in turn motivates infixation or other non-concatenative processes,including reduplication.6.1 Architecture of the Grammar: OverviewI assume a standard Minimalist approach to the syntax (Chomsky, 2014), pairedwith a view of the lexicon and morphology broadly in the tradition of DistributedMorphology (Halle & Marantz, 1993). The model I adopt for the spell-outcomponent of the grammar is shown in Figure 6.1.Step 1: Syntactic Structure (Syntax)Step 2: Lexical Insertion (Part I) (Morphosyntax)Step 3: Linearisation (Morphology)Step 4: Lexical Insertion (Part II) (Morphophonology)Step 5: Derivation of Phonological Word (Phonology)Step 6: Post-Reduplication Processes (Phonology/Phonetics)Figure 6.1: Architecture of the PF Component of the Grammar336The path from the syntax to surface realisation is broken down into six steps. Theoutput of one component of the grammar is the input to the next: any earliersteps in the derivation cannot be “seen” (e.g., the lexical entry is not accessibleat the point of phonetic implementation). In phonological terms, this is a modularfeedforward architecture (see, e.g., Pierrehumbert, 2002; Bermu´dez-Otero, 2007),which is relatively straightforward to integrate into a derivational model of thesyntax.Hierarchical relationships between morphemes are established by the syntax,as I discuss in Section 6.2. The domain where reduplication applies is themorphological word; the word corresponds to a span of syntactic heads up toand including one marked with a [w] feature, as proposed by Svenonius (2016).Section 6.3 explains the first stage of lexical insertion (Step 2): syntactic heads arematched to bundles of morphosyntactic features. Linearisation happens at Step3, as summarised in Section 6.4: the morphology works up from the lowest headin the w-span and linearises morphemes following instructions provided by thelinearisation features ([prefix] and [suffix]).The phonological component of the model combines key elements fromProsodic Morphology (e.g., McCarthy & Prince, 1986), moraic theory (e.g.,Hayes, 1989), Generalised Nonlinear Affixation (e.g., Svenonius & Bye, 2012),and Stratal Optimality Theory (e.g., Kiparsky, 2015). Section 6.5 discusses Step4, the second stage of lexical insertion, where phonological content is inserted.Reduplication is fission, which occurs during the phonological derivation in Step5, as described in Section 6.6. A phonological word is built over a series of strata,which then are further affected at subsequent strata by phonological processes andphonetic implementation, which are discussed in Section 6.7.Cross-linguistic variation in reduplication patterns is predicted to reflectdifferences in lexical entries (linearisation features, phonological content,and stratum designation) and phonological grammars (constraint rankings).Throughout this chapter, I show how differences among the reduplication patternssurveyed in Chapter 2 correspond either to differences in specific lexical entriesor to aspects of the phonological grammars of the languages in question. Ialso consider the broader implications of this analysis for phonological theory,particularly where data from Salish languages pose challenges to existing337approaches to non-concatenative morphology.6.2 Step 1: Structure Defines Span (Syntax)The domain for reduplication is the morphosyntactic word; this is constrained bysyntactic constituency, because a feature [w] marks the highest syntactic head thatwill be part of the word. The feature [w] comes from the span-based approachto spell-out proposed by Svenonius (2016, 2022). A span is a sequence of headswhich stand in a head-complement relationship. The feature [w] is an instructionfor spell-out: it marks the top boundary of a w-span, which includes the [w]-marked syntactic head and all heads lower in the span.The syntactic component of the grammar specifies hierarchical relationshipsbetween different morphemes. The only order between morphemes in the syntaxis order imposed by phrase structure. For example, the tree in Figure 6.2 definesa span of heads in a complement relationship including A, which bears the [w]feature, B, and C. The syntactic structure thus defines a relationship between theseheads: B must be linearised relative to C and A must be linearised relative to thecombination of B and C (headed by B).APA[w] BPB CPCFigure 6.2: Example TreeThe orders BAC or CAB are ruled out by the structure in Figure 6.2 because Band C must be linearised adjacent to each other. However, the syntax alone isnot enough to completely determine linear order: [[BC]A], [A[BC]], [A[CB]],and [[CB]A] are all equally compatible with the structure in Figure 6.2. Thechoice between the four possible constituent orders cannot be read off the syntax338and instead is determined in Step 3, by linearisation in the morphology, which isdiscussed in Section 6.4.I assume a set of hierarchically ordered functional projections above the VP(see e.g., H. Davis 2016 on Lillooet). There is no reason to suspect substantialvariation in the hierarchy of functional projections across Salish (though seeHuijsmans 2023a on variation in the clitic string across the family). However,languages may certainly differ in which head hosts the [w] feature. Variation inthe size of the w-span was discussed in a comparison of Comox-Sliammon andLillooet in Chapter 3 (Section 3.5.1.1): viewpoint aspect is part of the w-spanfor Comox-Sliammon (progressive is realised as C1 reduplication), but not forLillooet (imperfective is realised as waP, a separate word). The model is thereforeable to account for variation related to the size and composition of w-spans acrossSalish.6.3 Step 2: Lexical Insertion, Step I (Morphosyntax)I assume that lexical insertion takes place in two stages, following Svenonius andBye (2012) and Svenonius (2012). The first stage is called L-Match. L-Match linkssyntactic heads with morphosyntactic feature bundles; there is no phonologicalcontent inserted until the second step of lexical insertion, Insert.Following work by H. Davis and Huijsmans (2024) and Huijsmans (2023a) Iassume that feature bundles contain linearisation features. These features provideinstructions for linearisation in the morphological component of the grammar,discussed further in the subsequent section.While the lexical entries and their associated linearisation features may varycross-linguistically, I assume that lexical insertion operates in the same way for alllanguages.6.4 Step 3: Linearisation (Morphology)6.4.1 Feature-Based LinearisationLinearisation takes place in the morphological component of the grammar; itfollows the instructions provided by features on each affix. The linear order of339adjacent heads in a span is therefore lexically specified, which means the prefixalor suffixal status of a particular affix cannot be read off the syntax prior to theinsertion of morphosyntactic features at the first stage of lexical insertion.Linearisation starts at the lowest head in the w-span and determines whetherthe head immediately above should be linearised on its left (prefix) or right (suffix).Figure 6.3 provides an example where B has a [suffix] feature and A has a [prefix]feature. B is first linearised to the right of C, which yields CB; A is linearised tothe left of CB, which yields ACB.APA[prefix] BPB[suffix] CPCFigure 6.3: Example TreeAssuming that the direction of affixation is lexically specified is a departure fromwork that assumes a more general algorithm for linearisation, such as MirrorTheory (e.g., Brody, 2000; Svenonius, 2016). Alternative theories of linearisationare considered in Section 6.8.2.1.6.4.2 Cross-Salish Variation: [prefix] vs. [suffix]Most reduplicative morphemes in Salish bear the feature [prefix], which meansthey are linearised as prefixes. Hyman, Inkelas, and Sibanda (2008, pp.316–317)state the following cross-linguistic generalisations: (i) reduplication tends to beprefixal, and (ii) reduplication tends to favour the edge opposite from typicalaffixation. As in Salish almost all affixation is suffixal, its reduplication patternsare consistent with the larger typological picture. However, there is nothing in thefeature-based approach to linearisation that requires all reduplicative morphemesin any given language or family would need to have the same feature.340Variation in reduplication patterns across Salish provides support for afeature-based approach to linearisation. In Chapter 4 (Section 4.2.3.2.2), I proposethat C1C2 reduplication in Lillooet is a suffix when it co-occurs with -t, as shownin (392). This shows that there is no “default” linearisation for reduplicativemorphemes, each lexical entry may be specified its own [prefix] or [suffix] feature.(392) ’kı´n„ ’k@nt (root: ’kin- ‘dangerous’)dangerous„PDEN+IMMED‘dangerous’ (H. Davis, in prep, Ch.49, Lillooet)Fixed segments associated with reduplicative morphemes provide good evidencefor both [prefix] and [suffix] features. Nonlinear representations, in the senseof Sagey (1986), contain units on different tiers (e.g., moras vs. segments).Precedence (linear order) cannot be established between a floating prosodicunit and segment in the phonology. Units on different tiers must be linked viaassociation lines during the phonological derivation, which establishes that unitson different tiers overlap in time. As many reduplicative morphemes consistonly of a mora or syllable, they have no precedence relations with phonologicalcontent on the segmental tier. In contrast, precedence can be established betweenan affix with fixed segmental content and other morphemes in the input. Whenprecedence can be determined in the input, then the grammar can evaluate whetherthe same relationships are present in the output. Affixes with fixed segmentsare more constrained with respect to position than prosodic affixes because anyprocess of metathesis, infixation, or moving an affix will be incur violations underfaithfulness constraints pertaining to linear order.The diminutive morpheme in Bella Coola is another example of a reduplicativemorpheme that carries a [suffix] feature; this is clear from the position of thefixed segmental content associated with the morpheme. Examples of diminutivereduplication with -i are given in (393). The fixed segment is suffixed whilereduplication occurs earlier in the word.(393) a. niăniąă:ąqw-i (cf. ni:x. w ‘fire’)fireăDIMąăDIMą-DIM‘fire (dim.)’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.599, Bella Coola)341b. qaăqaąyt-i (cf. qayt ‘hat’)hatăDIMą-DIM‘toadstool (dim.)’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.598, Bella Coola)c. s-’tqwl"„qwl-us-i (cf. s ’tqwlus ‘black bear snare’)NMLZ-weave„DIM-face-DIM‘black bear snare (dim.)’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.615, Bella Coola)An example of the input to the phonological grammar is shown in (394). Prosodicunits are on one tier, while the segments are on another. The underlying form ofthe Bella Coola diminutive contains µ and /i/, which means that the mora is theonly prosodic unit in the input.1 While the fixed segment /i/ stands in a linearprecedence relation with other segments, a floating prosodic unit does not. Thelinear position of the fixed segment across the examples in (393) therefore showsthat the the diminutive affix (as a whole) is linearised as a suffix. The floating moramust have the same linearisation feature as the fixed segment because they are partof the same lexical entry, even though they are not linked by an association line inthe underlying form.2(394) a. CVC + µ i (Prefix)Prosodic Tier:Segmental Tier:µi C V Cb. CVC + µ i (Suffix)Prosodic Tier:Segmental Tier: C V C iµFixed segments resist reordering due to pressure to remain faithful between inputand output. Metathesis, which involves changes to linear order of segmentsbetween input and output, violates LINEARITY, defined in (395). S1 refers to thephonological string in the input; S2 refers to the phonological string in the output.1See Section 6.7.1.2 for discussion of a [c.g.] feature that is also part of the lexical entry for thediminutive in Bella Coola.2Linearisation happens prior to the insertion of lexical content, which raises questions aboutthe representation and linearisation of discontinuous fixed segment morphemes with prefixed andsuffixed components. If they are inserted as a single morpheme, they must be linearised as either aprefix or suffix prior to the phonology.342(395) LINEARITY: S1 is consistent with the precedence structure of S2, and viceversa. (McCarthy & Prince, 1995, p.123)Any changes to linear order after morphological linearisation must be be entirelypredictable and attributable to the general phonology of the language. Forexample, metathesis is only permitted if LINEARITY is ranked low enough totolerate violations. Even if LINEARITY is ranked low, it will always favour afaithful candidate over an unfaithful one (i.e., metathesis will only be toleratedrequired to satisfy a markedness constraint ranked above LINEARITY). However,there is no systematic phonological process that would motivate such a constraint.Fixed segments associated with reduplicative morphemes therefore provideevidence for a [suffix] linearisation feature. The fact that -i surfaces on the rightedge of the word in Bella Coola therefore means the diminutive must have a[suffix] feature.In contrast to the suffixed diminutive in Bella Coola, the diminutive in Comox-Sliammon, which is discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.3.1), must bear a [prefix]feature because i- is infixed relative to the left edge of the word; examples are givenin (396).(396) a. ’ti„’ta ’qt (cf. ’ta ’qt ‘mountain’)DIM„mountain‘small mountain’ (JF, Comox-Sliammon)b. ti„t@ ’w (cf. t@ ’w ‘ice’)DIM„ice‘little bit of ice’ (JF, Comox-Sliammon)c. pi„pukw (cf. pukw ‘book’)DIM„book‘little book’ (JF, Comox-Sliammon)An approach that assumes a default direction for linearisation, such as MirrorTheory (see discussion of alternative approaches to linearisation in Section 6.8.2.1)would require the phonology to do long-range “metathesis” when the lexical entryfor the reduplicative morpheme contains fixed segments for either Bella Coola(if default = prefix) or Comox-Sliammon (if default = suffix); this requires a343phonological grammar that produces patterns that are otherwise unattested andimpossible.6.5 Step 4: Lexical Insertion, Step II (Morphophonology)The second stage of lexical insertion takes place after linearisation; this is whenphonological content is inserted. This is called Insert in Svenonius and Bye (2012)and Svenonius (2012). I discuss allomorphy and lexical insertion in Section 6.5.1;underlying forms of reduplicative morphemes are covered in Section 6.5.2.6.5.1 Allomorphy and Lexical InsertionThe phonological representations inserted at Stage 2 may contain either a singleallomorph or a set of listed allomorphs, which may be partially or totally ordered.This allows for allomorph selection either at the point of lexical insertion or at alater point where the phonological grammar selects from the set of allomorphs.The choice between listed allomorphs does not occur until the morpheme is parsedinto the word, which means that the choice can only be sensitive to informationpresent in the phonological representation at that point in the derivation.If allomorphy references morphosyntactic features, it must happen at (thesecond stage of) lexical insertion (Stage 4 of the model in Figure 6.1); laterallomorphy in the phonological grammar cannot see the features associated withthe morpheme (Stage 5 of the model).A distinction between allomorph selection at the point of lexical insertion andat a later point in the phonological derivation is motivated by the data. For example,as argued in in Section 5.3.3.1, the choice between the σ and -l- in Halkomelemfor marking plurality depends on whether another floating prosodic unit is parsedinto the prosodic word at the same stratum (Level 2). In order for the grammarto select the correct allomorph, both σ and -l- must be present in the input tothe phonological derivation. If allomorphy is conditioned by factors related toa particular stratum, then lexical insertion must supply a set of allomorphs; thephonological grammar then selects between the allomorphs at the stratum whenthe morpheme is parsed into the prosodic word.3446.5.2 Lexical EntriesReduplicative morphemes, and other non-concatenative morphemes, are notdistinguished from concatenative morphemes in the approach taken here;underlying forms for reduplicative morphemes are only constrained by what ispossible for any other morpheme in the language. Lexical entries can thereforeinclude segmental and/or suprasegmental content. In other words, reduplicationcan be triggered both by linear and non-linear representations. I summarise theprosodic units, fixed segments, and features found across the case study languagesin Sections 6.5.2.1–6.5.2.3.Lexical entries also carry level diacritics, which allow the morpheme to beparsed into prosodic structure at the right stratum. See Chapter 3 (Section 3.5.2.3)for further discussion of how the diacritics work; morpheme-level and grammar-level mappings are discussed as part of Step 5 of the model in Section 6.6.6.5.2.1 Suprasegmental: Prosodic UnitsThe inventory of possible prosodic affixes is constrained by the prosodic structureof the language, as per Prosodic Morphology (McCarthy & Prince, 1986). I adoptmoraic theory, which proposes that syllabification is based on the mora (see, e.g.,Hyman, 1985; Hayes, 1989).I assume the prosodic structure given in (397), adapted from Zec (1988); I adda nucleus as a possible constituent of a syllable. Prosodic units beneath the level ofthe prosodic word (PrWd) include the foot (Ft), syllable (σ ), mora (µ) and nucleus(N).3(397) PrWdFtσN µ3While both N and µ may be direct dependents of a syllable, I leave the issue of the constituencyof syllables with moraic nuclei for future work.345The hierarchy in (397) identifies the set of prosodic units that can be presentin underlying representations, either on their own or in combination with othersegmental or suprasegmental content. A prosodic affix requiring just an onset orrime is predicted to be impossible because there is no corresponding prosodicunit. This prediction is supported by the cross-Salish survey: only a mora (Section6.5.2.1.1), syllable (Section 6.5.2.1.2), monomoraic syllable with a nucleus(Section 6.5.2.1.3), and foot (Section 6.5.2.1.4) are needed to account for Salishreduplication patterns.46.5.2.1.1 MoraSeven types of reduplication analysed in the case studies from Chapters 4 and 5 arederived from an underlying mora, as summarised in Table 6.1. With respect to thecore patterns defined in Chapter 2 (Section 2.3), an input mora corresponds to bothC1 and V1 reduplication.Table 6.1: Mora in Case StudiesReduplication Type Input FormComox-Sliammon (n=4)Diminutive C1 Reduplication {µ , i} -C- from µ (§4.1.3.1.2)Plural C1 Reduplication {µ , a} -C- from µ (§4.1.3.1.3)Progressive C1 Reduplication µ -C- or CV- (§4.1.4.1.2)Plural V1 Reduplication µ [c.g.] -VP- (§4.1.5.2.2)Lillooet (n=2)Diminutive C1 Reduplication µ [stress] [c.g.] -C- (§4.2.4.2.4)Plural C1 Reduplication µ [c.g.] -C- (§4.2.4.2.2)Halkomelem (n=1)Imperfective C1 Reduplication µ C reduplication or otherrealisation (§5.3.1.1.1)The case studies show that an affixed mora can be realised with substantial surfacevariation. This is exemplified by the progressive in Comox-Sliammon (Section4.1.4.1.2), which surfaces as either -C- or CV-, as shown in (398); the affixed morais associated with an infixed coda in the former and a prefixed vowel in the latter.4See Section 6.5.2.3 for discussion of fixed segment inputs, which can trigger reduplication toprovide an onset. Other apparent cases of “onset” reduplication are considered in Section 6.5.3.3.346The analysis of imperfective reduplication in Halkomelem in Chapter 5 (Section5.3.1.1.1) also shows that an input mora has a number of non-concatenativerealisations, including C1 reduplication and ablaut, as shown in (399).5 In otherwords, considerable variation in surface position and realisation are associatedwith affixed moras, even for a single lexical entry.(398) Comox-Sliammon Progressive C1 Reduplicationa. ìi„ìi ’kw-it-as (cf. ìi ’kwit ‘it is sewn’)PROG„sew-CTR-3ERG‘She is sewing.’ (BW)b. ’cˇ@ă ’cˇąì (cf. ’cˇ@ì ‘rain’)rainăPROGą‘It’s raining.’(BW)(399) Halkomelem Imperfective C1 Reduplication and Ablauta. ìı´„ì@ ’c-@t (cf. ìı´ ’c@t ‘cut it’)IPFV„cut-CTR‘cutting it’b. păaąqw-t (from pqwat)breakăIPFVą-CTR‘breaking it’(Hukari & Peter, 1995 in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2020,pp.240–241)Mora affixation is a topic of debate in previous work. For example, whilemora affixation was proposed in work on prosodic circumscription in Choctaw andAlabama (Lombardi & McCarthy, 1991; Matthewson, 1992), it was also rejectedin other analyses of the same languages (Hammond, 1993). My analysis of Salishreduplication motivates the inclusion of moras as prosodic affixes; I use µ tounify disparate realisations of reduplicative morphemes within and across Salishlanguages.5Other non-concatenative realisations associated with reduplicative morphemes, including length,are discussed further in Section 6.6.347Salish reduplication provides support for moraic theory (Hyman, 1985).However, the mora as a standalone unit was not included in the original set ofprosodic templates given by McCarthy and Prince (1986), which included coresyllables (σ c), light syllables (σµ ), syllables (σ ), and heavy syllables (σµµ ). Myapproach addresses a concern raised by Hendricks (1999, p.14), who states thatpatterns such as the Lillooet diminutive are incompatible with prosodic approachesto reduplication because a single consonant does not correspond to a prosodic unit.As shown in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2.4.2.4), an affixed mora may be satisfied by acoda consonant.6.5.2.1.2 SyllableFour types of reduplication in the case studies are derived from an affixed syllable(i.e., a plain syllable without any additional structure), as shown in Table 6.2. Withrespect to the core patterns defined in Chapter 2 (Section 2.3), a σ affix correspondsto both C1 and C2 reduplication.Table 6.2: Syllable in Case StudiesReduplication Type Input FormComox-Sliammon (n=1)Change-of-State C2 Reduplication σ -VC- (§4.1.5.1.2)Lillooet (n=2)Change-of-State C2 Reduplication σ -@C- (§4.2.4.1.2)Initial C1 Reduplication σ C@- (§4.2.3.1.2)Halkomelem (n=1)Diminutive C1 Reduplication σ [c.g.] C@-...(-P-) or Ci(P)-(§5.3.1.2.2)An affixed syllable can account for a range of surface patterns. For example, anaffixed syllable yields both C1 and C2 reduplication in Lillooet (Section 4.2.3.1.2and Section 4.2.4.1.2), which each copy a different consonant and surface in adifferent position (prefix vs. infix); examples are given in (400).348(400) a. Lillooet Initial C1 Reduplicationn-x.@„x. zu´m-anaP (cf. x. zum ‘big’)LOC-C1.INIT„big-ear‘big ears’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57)b. Lillooet Change-of-State C2 Reduplicationqa´ăxw@ąxw (root: qaxw-)breakăCOSą‘to break’(Van Eijk, 1997, p.59)An affixed syllable minimally requires a nucleus, though this may be eithermoraic or non-moraic (i.e., a schwa). For example, a faithful copy of the rootvowel surfaces in change-of-state C2 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon (Section4.1.5.1.1), even if the vowel is [@]. Unlike the affixed mora discussed in theprevious section, an affixed syllable is agnostic with respect to weight.(401) Comox-Sliammon Change-of-State C2 Reduplicationa. qw@lcome’ňăi ’qąi ’qiwdarkăCOSą(root: ’ňi ’qiw ‘dark’)‘It is starting to get dark.’ (FL)b. qw@’l ’ňăax.ąax. (root: ’ňax. - ‘old’)come oldăCOSą‘He’s getting to be grown/older.’ (FL)c. ’ňă@ ’qą@ ’q (root: ’ň ’q- ‘rot’)rotăCOSą‘It has gotten rotten.’ (EP/FL)6.5.2.1.3 Syllable with Nucleus and MoraC1C2 reduplication in all case study languages is derived from σN`µ , whichis a syllable with a nucleus and a mora as dependents; N and µ are cruciallyindependent of each other. As shown in Table 6.3, out of the core patterns givenChapter 2 (Section 2.3), only C1C2 reduplication is associated with a syllablecontaining a non-moraic nucleus and an additional mora. There are fewer surface349configurations associated with σN`µ than µ or σ because σN`µ always requires acoda consonant to fill the mora.6Table 6.3: Syllable with Nucleus and Mora in Case StudiesReduplication Type Input FormComox-Sliammon (n=2)Plural/Property-Denoting σN`µ C@C- (§4.1.4.2.2/4.1.3.2.2)C1C2 ReduplicationLillooet (n=2)Plural/Property-Denoting σN`µ C@C- (§4.2.3.2.2)C1C2 ReduplicationHalkomelem (n=1)Plural/Property-Denoting σN`µ C@C- (§5.3.1.3.2)C1C2 ReduplicationA monomoraic syllable σµ is a well-accepted unit (e.g., McCarthy & Prince,1986); Salish provides evidence that σN`µ is also needed. A nucleus node isrequired because while σµ maps to open syllables and σµµ to closed syllablescross-linguistically, monomoraic closed syllables are frequent in Salish due toschwa being nuclear and non-moraic (see, e.g., Shaw, 1993; Shaw et al., 1999;Blake, 2000).An empty nucleus plays a crucial role in distinguishing different types ofreduplication that yield a monomoraic syllable in the output. For example,progressive C1 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon can yield an open monomoraicsyllable (Section 4.1.4.1.2), while plural C1C2 reduplication yields a closedmonomoraic syllable (Section 4.1.4.2.2). The tableau in (402) shows twocandidates which each correspond to an attested surface form of a differentreduplicative morpheme. Candidate (402a) is a progressive verb (PiPimasˇ‘walking’); candidate (402b) is a plural verb (P@mPimasˇ ‘walking around’). Iuse ??? in the input because the violation marks would be the same for an inputσµ or µ , which means the grammar will always favour either an open or closed6σN`µ can surface as [CV] across Salish if reduplication yields /C@w/ or /C@y/ followed byvocalisation of the glide, resulting in [Cu] or [Ci], respectively. This process occurs independently ofreduplication. See discussion of glide vocalisation in Comox-Sliammon in Blake (2000, pp.35–38).350monomoraic syllable, irrespective of whether the input is a syllable or a mora.If DEP-V is ranked above INT-C (or INT-V), then the grammar will favour C1reduplication for either input; if INT-C (or INT-V) is ranked above DEP-V, thenthe grammar will favour C1C2 reduplication, regardless of whether the input is σµor µ .7(402)/??? + Pimasˇ/ INT-V INT-C DEP-Va. PiPimasˇ ˚ ˚b. P@mPimasˇ ˚˚ ˚The attested C1 and C1C2 reduplication patterns in (402) above are both Level2 processes (see Section 4.1.4), which means that both are subject to the samephonological grammar (constraint ranking). In other words, the grammar alonecannot derive both closed and open monomoraic syllables if the input options arerestricted to σµ and µ (or σ , for that matter). An empty nucleus is therefore neededto distinguish between monomoraic syllables with a moraic nucleus (CV) andthose with a non-moraic nucleus but a moraic coda (C@C). With the ranking INT-C ąą DEP-V, candidate (402a) is selected for µ or σµ , while candidate (402b) isselected for σN`µ to ensure all floating units are associated with segmental content.Deriving the two patterns with the same grammar is only possible with an emptynucleus.Jimmie (1994, p.115) proposes an alternate analysis of C1C2 reduplicationusing prosodic morphology: the lexical entry for Thompson River Salish pluralreduplication is µµ . This analysis requires two further assumptions to predict thecorrect surface forms: (i) schwa is moraic, and (ii) (at least some) schwas areunderlying. Given that these assumptions are not compatible with those requiredfor the general phonology of other Salish languages and reduplicative morphemes,µµ (or σµµ ) cannot be extended to all 23 Salish languages as an alternative toσN`µ .7See Section 6.6.1.3 for discussion of how the relative ranking of INTEGRITY and DEP determinethe shape of reduplicative morphemes with respect to fission (INTEGRITY violation) and epenthesis(DEP violation).3516.5.2.1.4 FootLillooet triplication affixes a foot, as discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2.5). Thistype of reduplication is also attested in Shuswap and Okanagan, as discussed inChapter 2 (Section 2.6.4).Table 6.4: Summary: FootBranch Number Ft = C22Central Salish (n=10) 0Interior Salish (n=7) 3 LillooetShuswapOkanaganTsamosan (n=4) 0Bella Coola (n=1) 0Tillamook (n=1) 0Total (n=23) 3Though there is evidence for an affixed foot in these three languages, there islimited documentation of the pattern. In Lillooet, the limited frequency of C22forms follows from its semantics: C22 reduplication marks a type of iterativity thatdoes not seem to be compatible with many roots (H. Davis, p.c.).Given the small number of forms recorded for languages with C22reduplication, it is possible that other Salish languages beyond these threemay have, or may have once had, a reduplicative morpheme consisting of a foot.86.5.2.2 Suprasegmental: FeaturesUnderlying floating features have been used in previous Generalized NonlinearAffixation analyses (e.g., Paschen, 2018). Each of the case studies in Chapters 4and 5 requires [c.g.] in the lexical entry for at least one morpheme: pluractional V1reduplication in Comox-Sliammon (Section 4.1.3.1), pluractional and diminutiveC1 reduplication in Lillooet (Section 4.2.4.3), and diminutive reduplication inHalkomelem (Section 5.3.1.2). A lexical stress feature ([stress]) was also needed8Some of the additional/peripheral patterns discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2.3.2) may alsoinvolve an affixed foot, such as the CVCVC-shaped pattern in Lower Chehalis in Section 2.2.3.2.1and some of the repetition patterns in Section 2.2.3.2.2, such as the C1C22 pattern.352for diminutive reduplication in Lillooet (Section 4.2.4.2.4).The features [c.g.] and [stress] differ in their relationship to other phonologicalcontent in the lexical entry: [c.g.] is a floating feature and [stress] is associatedwith a prosodic unit. The lexical entry for the diminutive in Lillooet, first given inSection 4.2.4.3.2 and restated in (403), contains both features: [stress] is directlyassociated with µ in the input, but [c.g.] is not.(403) Diminutive C1 Reduplication:(µ [stress] [c.g.])L2 ô xDIMyProposing that prosodic units can bear [stress] is a novel contribution, but issupported by analyses of lexical stress that use diacritics or features markingstress on particular morphemes (e.g., Dyck 2004; de Lacy 2020). Furthermore,proposing that certain features may associate with a mora, rather than a segment,has been proposed for Danish stød by Iosad (2016), as well as for tone features.Including a [stress] feature associated with a mora is motivated by diminutivereduplication in Lillooet, which could not otherwise be distinguished fromµ-triggered pluractional C1 reduplication (see Section 4.2.4.2).9Despite the fact that the theory predicts that any feature used in the languagemay be present in the lexical entry for a reduplicative morpheme, [c.g.] and [stress]are sufficient to account for Salish reduplication. A floating [c.g.] feature is notuncommon in analyses of Salish reduplication (see, e.g., Shaw 2005, pp.162,177);only Lillooet needs [stress].6.5.2.3 Segmental: Fixed SegmentsThe realisation of underlying fixed segments can also be accompanied byreduplication; my analysis does not distinguish reduplication triggered by aprosodic affix from reduplication triggered by a segmental affix.Examples of reduplication triggered by fixed segments were given in thecase study of Comox-Sliammon in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.3.1): C1 diminutiveand pluractional reduplication can either correspond to a fixed segment input (/i/9I leave larger questions of how a [stress]-bearing µ relates to a head mora for future work. Forexamples of analyses including head or strong moras, see Prillop (2013) and work by Bjo¨rn Ko¨hnlein(e.g., Ko¨hnlein, 2018).353or /a/) or a µ . Examples of the fixed segment allomorph are shown in (404).Reduplication provides an onset.(404) a. ’kwi„ ’kwas (cf. ’kwas ‘hot’)DIM„hot‘It is warm.’ (BW)b. ’pa„ ’pu ’qw (cf. ’pu ’qw ‘grey’)C1.PL„grey‘grey things’ (EP/FL)Treating reduplicative morphemes as “special” and distinct from other morphemeswould mean that certain types of C1 reduplication, as well as V1 reduplication (seediscussion of Southern Interior patterns in Section 6.5.3.4), would be considereddifferent from “true” reduplicative morphemes. However, there is no surfacedifference between using fission to provide an onset, as in (404), and usingfission to fill a mora. Distinguishing between concatenative morphemes (i.e.,segments) and non-concatenative morphemes (i.e., prosodic units) morphemes isnot necessary in my approach because both cases can require fission to providesegmental content to repair prosodic structure.6.5.3 Cross-Salish Variation: Underlying FormsUnderlying forms of reduplicative morphemes across Salish make use of thesame set of suprasegmental and segmental representations, though specificconfigurations and combinations of these units may differ (e.g., with respect to thepresence or absence of [c.g.] with µ). Table 6.5 summarises the suprasegmentaland segmental units present in lexical entries for reduplicative morphemes acrossComox-Sliammon, Lillooet, and Halkomelem.354Table 6.5: Underlying Forms in Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, andHalkomelemComox-Sliammon Lillooet HalkomelemC1C2 σN`µ σN`µ {σN`µ ,l}C1 µ µ [c.g.] µ{µ ,i} µ [stress] [c.g.] σ [c.g.]{µ ,a} σC2 σ σ n/aV1 µ [c.g.] n/a n/aC22 n/a Ft n/aThe phonological material needed for Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, andHalkomelem can account for the rest of the family with minimal modification.All languages with C2 reduplication use σ ; all languages with C22reduplication use a foot. C1 reduplication may surface from an underlyingµ , σ , or fixed segment, while V1 reduplication may involve an underlying µor fixed segment. All Salish languages have C1C2 reduplication, which can beanalysed as σN`µ across the family. In Section 6.5.3.1, I discuss a pattern whereσN`µ can be realised as a surface bimoraic syllable (σµµ ): moraic vowels arecopied in Lushootseed C1C2 reduplication.Additional patterns beyond those covered by the underlying forms given abovein Table 6.5 include reduplicative affixes consisting only of segmental content(Section 6.5.3.2 and Section 6.5.3.4), “onset” reduplication that does not appear tocorrespond to an underlying prosodic unit (Section 6.5.3.3), and fixed segmentalaffixes consisting of a consonant (Section 6.5.3.4). Though the patterns in Sections6.5.3.2–6.5.3.4 warrant additional discussion, they are all consistent with thepredictions of the model.6.5.3.1 Surface Bimoraic Syllable: Lushootseed, Tsamosan, Bella CoolaMoraic root vowels are copied in C1C2 reduplication in Lushootseed and theTsamosan languages, and sometimes in Bella Coola, which results in a bimoraicsyllable on the surface. Examples from Lushootseed are given in (405). The vowel355associated with the plural morpheme matches the one in the root instead of alwaysbeing [@].(405) a. sa´ ’qw„sa ’qw (cf. Pusa´ ’qw ‘It flew.’)PL„fly‘fly here and there’ (Urbanczyk, 1996a, p.78, from Bates et al. 1994,Lushootseed)b. jˇ@´s„jˇ@s@d (cf. jˇ@´s@d ‘foot’)PL„foot‘feet’ (Urbanczyk, 2006, p.180, from Bates et al. 1994, Lushootseed)Reduplication of a moraic vowel in (405) above yields a bimoraic syllable (σ µµ ).Though proposing an underlying σ µµ is compatible with my approach, it is notnecessary because a bimoraic syllable is also a possible realisation of an underlyingσN+µ . Specifically, there is no reason why the empty nucleus of an affixed σN+µneeds to be associated with a non-moraic vowel. If the grammar prefers copyingover epenthesis, then reduplicating a moraic vowel to fill the nucleus is predicted.Furthermore, proposing a bimoraic syllable to account for forms like those in(405a) above would mean two different allomorphs are needed for the same typeof reduplication because the form with [@] in (405b) is not bimoraic. All C1C2patterns in Salish can therefore be attributed to an underlying σN+µ .6.5.3.2 Single Fixed Segmental Allomorphs: MontanaSalish-Spokane-Kalispel and Moses Columbia RepetitiveMontana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel and Moses Columbia use C1 reduplication tomark repetition; this type of reduplication diverges from the C1 patterns describedin the case study of Comox-Sliammon in Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.3.1) becausethe lexical entry consists only of a fixed segment. Furthermore, the repetitivemorpheme in Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel and Moses Columbia does notalways trigger reduplication: -e- or -a- may be infixed without reduplication(fission) of any consonant, as shown in (406b) and (407b).356(406) a. ’cˇe„ ’cˇi ’p-sˇ (cf. ’cˇi ’p ’p ‘It accidentally got pinched.’)REP„pinch-PL‘scissors, shears’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.104, Spokane)b. s- ’măeą’l ’kw-e´ ’yeP (cf. ml ’kwe´lxw ‘a fur rug’)NMLZ-solidăREPą-seem‘shadow’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.105, Spokane)(407) a. ’wa„ ’wa´’l (root: ’wa ’l- ‘tilt’)REP„tilt‘rock (tilt back and forth)’ (Willett, 2003, p.207, Moses Columbia)b. ’ňăaąxwup (cf. sxws ’ňxwup ‘winner’)winăREPą‘keep winning’ (Willett, 2003, p.208, Moses Columbia)The alternation between -e- and Ce- in Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel and theone between -a- and Ca- in Moses Columbia can be analysed with a single fixedsegment in their lexical entries, as shown in (408). The phonological grammardetermines if the prefixed segment should remain on the left edge or be positionedas an infix. The choice to reduplicate a consonant with the repetitive morphemeis therefore motivated by the prosodic structure: if the fixed segment remains as aprefix, fission provides an onset.(408) a. Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Repetitive Reduplication:e- ôăREPąb. Moses Columbia Repetitive Reduplication:a- ôăREPąIt would be challenging to classify the repetitive morpheme in Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel and Moses Columbia in theories that treat reduplicativemorphemes as inherently different from other morphemes. In both languages,there would need to be two allomorphs in Base-Reduplicant CorrespondenceTheory (McCarthy & Prince, 1995), such that one allomorph would be a regularconcatenative e- or a- and the other would be a reduplicative morpheme (RED)with a fixed segment /e/ or /a/. In contrast, my analysis only requires a singleallomorph that consists of a fixed segment.3576.5.3.3 “Onset” ReduplicationReduplication may provide an onset for a prefixed vowel (see previous section fordiscussion of this pattern). However, no prosodic unit corresponds to an onset,which means that reduplication of a single consonant into an onset position cannotbe triggered by an underlying prosodic affix. There are two patterns that appearto be exceptions: (i) diminutive reduplication in Southern Interior Salish (Section6.5.3.3.1) and (ii) “wrong-side” reduplication in Tillamook and Twana (Section6.5.3.3.2). While these patterns appear to be examples of “onset” reduplication onthe surface, they can be derived with σ and σN`µ , respectively.6.5.3.3.1 “Onset” Reduplication: SyllableThe first consonant of the root is copied in diminutive C1 reduplication in threeSouthern Interior Salish languages (Moses Columbia, Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel, and Coeur d’Alene), which results in a complex onset, as shown in (409).(409) a. t„t ’wit (cf. t ’wit ‘boy’)DIM„boy‘little boy’ (Willett, 2003, p.278, Moses Columbia)b. x.„x. ’ň@cı´n (cf. x. ’ň@cı´n ‘horse’)DIM„horse‘It’s a dog.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.115, Spokane)c. c„cetxw (cf. cetxw ‘house’)DIM„house‘house, cottage’ (Doak, 1997, p.27, Coeur d’Alene)Since there is no fixed segment in the output nor any possible prosodic unit thatwould reduplicate a consonant to yield a complex onset, it is unclear how myanalysis of reduplication in Salish would extend to the examples in (409). However,the examples in (410) show that Southern Interior Salish diminutive reduplicationdoes not always yield a complex onset. A [@] (or [a] in 410c) is present when thefirst consonant of the root is a sonorant.358(410) a. s- ’m@„ ’mePı´ ’m (cf. smı´ ’yem ‘woman’)NMLZ-DIM„woman‘little woman’ (Reichard, 1938, p.647, Coeur d’Alene)b. ’nı´ă ’n@ą ’cˇ-@m@n (cf. nı´ ’cˇ@m@n ‘(It’s a) knife.’)cutăDIMą-instrument‘(It’s a) little knife.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.115, Spokane)c. s-Pa„Pisw@l-a´lt (cf. Pı´swal ‘loon’)NMLZ-DIM-loon-child‘baby loon chicks’ (Czaykowska-Higgins, 1993b, p.258, MosesColumbia)The difference between the diminutive forms in (409) and (410) follows from thegeneral phonology of Salish languages: certain clusters are not permissible andreduction of unstressed vowels is blocked in environments where it would giverise to such clusters. More specifically, two sonorants are not permitted in anonset. This suggests that the diminutive in Southern Interior Salish is an underlyingsyllable; an unstressed [@] may be deleted later in the derivation if it would notcreate an illicit sequence. A lexical entry is given in (411).(411) Southern Interior Salish Diminutive Reduplication:σ ôăDIMąAn alternative analysis of diminutive reduplication has been proposed for MosesColumbia by Willett and Czaykowska-Higgins (1995) and Willett (2003), whoargue that the diminutive is a mora. The two analyses are compared in (412).10(412) a. µ Analysis (Willett, 2003; Willett & Czaykowska-Higgins, 1995)i. Input:µ + ’p@ ’qwDIM + spillii. Output:’pµ ’p@ ’qw‘spill a little bit’10I include schwa in the inputs in (412) for clarity; they are not present in the underlying form.359b. σ Analysisi. Input:σ + ’p@ ’qwDIM + spillii. (Intermediate) Output:( ’p@)σ ’p@ ’qwiii. Surface Form:’p ’p@ ’qw‘spill a little bit’Adopting a µ analysis, as in (412a) above, requires an assumption that onsets maybe moraic (cf. Topintzi, 2010), or that obstruents are intrinsically moraic (or aremoraic outside of a coda position). Neither assumption is compatible with myassumptions about moraicity. In contrast, the proposed σ analysis in (412b) drawsinspiration from the fact that the grammar of Moses Columbia allows for extensivevowel deletion. Czaykowska-Higgins (1993a, p.250) states that “vowel deletiondeletes all unstressed vowels situated to the right of surface stress ... and manybut not all unstressed vowels situated to the left of surface stress”. It is thereforereasonable to suggest that a syllable with [@] as a nucleus may lose this vowelwhere not strictly necessary for sonority sequencing, yielding a complex onset.116.5.3.3.2 “Wrong Side” ReduplicationAnother putative example of “onset” reduplication is “wrong side” reduplication,as found in Tillamook and Twana: examples are given in (413) and (414),respectively. The second consonant of the root is copied, as in C2 reduplication,but the consonant is positioned on the left edge of the word, yielding a complexonset.(413) a. deDETsˇ-qw„t@´qw-@n (root: tqw- ‘to break’)DESID-PL„break-3‘They tried to break it.’ (Edel, 1939, p.15, Tillamook)11See Section 6.7 for further discussion of post-reduplication phonological and phonetic processesof deletion and reduction.360b. s-q„ìe´q-il (cf. sìeqı´si ’I sit down beside them (sg.).’)NMLZ-PL„sit-DVL’Someone is sitting.’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996, p.11, Tillamook)(414) a. ’qw„so´ ’qway (cf. so´ ’qway ‘elder sister’)PL„elder.sister‘elder sisters’ (Drachman, 1969, p.32, Twana)b. s-q„te´qaw (cf. steqe´w ‘horse’)12NMLZ-PL„horse‘horses’ (Drachman, 1969, p.86, Twana)c. P@s- ’c„x. @´ ’c (cf. Pasx. @´ ’c ‘measure’)STAT-PL„measure‘measure (pl.)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.55, Twana)On the surface, “wrong side” reduplication appears to copy a segment into acomplex onset. While there is no prosodic unit that could directly yield the surfaceforms in (413) and (414) above, these patterns can be made compatible with astratum-based view of phonology if the unexpected surface form can be derivedby phonological processes applying after the reduplicative morpheme has beenparsed into the word.I propose that the underlying form for “wrong side” reduplication is σN`µ .This is supported by its meaning: “wrong side” reduplication marks the same kindof plurality otherwise associated with σN`µ in both languages. Examples of pluralC1C2 reduplication, with the usual form, are given in (415).13 Note that /b/ and/d/ behave as sonorants in Twana, which means that both examples in (415) havea sonorant in C2 position; “wrong-side” reduplication would yield a poor onsetconsisting of two sonorants.(415) a. d@n„’t@´ni (cf. ’t@ni ‘ear’)PL„ear‘ears’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996, p.3, Tillamook)12I am unsure why the [e] in the final syllable becomes [a] in this reduplicated form.13Reduplicated consonants in onsets in Tillamook are deglottalised and voiced, which is why [d]surfaces in (415a). See (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1985, pp.140–142).361b. b@d„b@´d@h (cf. b@´d@h ‘child’)PL„child‘children’ (Drachman, 1969, p.81, Twana)I analyse plural C1C2 reduplication and “wrong side” reduplication as realisationsof the same morpheme and therefore propose that they share the same underlyingform: σN`µ . Given there is less documentation for Tillamook reduplication, Ifocus on Twana for the discussion of “wrong side” reduplication in the remainderof this section.As shown in (416a) and (416b), the grammar fills the nucleus and mora, butdoes not provide an onset at the relevant stratum; this follows from the rankingINTEGRITY, DEP-C ąą ONSET. The intermediate representation for bothexamples is @C, which will trigger a repair at a later stratum to avoid a syllablewithout an onset; the phonological grammar of a later stratum may delete [@] orreduplicate another consonant to provide an onset, as shown in (416a) and (416b),respectively.14(416) a. Stratum with Reduplication:σN`µ +σcˇNµaµp=σN@µpσcˇNµaµpb. Subsequent Stratum with Onset-Related Repair (Deletion):σN@µpσcˇNµaµp=σp cˇNµaµp14The choice in strategies depends on sonority and the prosodic structure of the word: seeDrachman (1969) and Kim (2017b) for further discussion of these patterns.362(417) a. Stratum with Reduplication:σN`µ +σbN@σdN@Nh=σN@µdσbN@σdN@Nhb. Subsequent Stratum with Onset-Related Repair (Fission):σN@µdσbN@σdN@Nh=σbN@µdσbN@σdN@µhThe “wrong side” reduplication pattern shown in (416) above is therefore not anexample of onset reduplication; a complex onset only results from [@] deletion at alater stratum than reduplication.“Wrong side” reduplication patterns in Salish are described in Kim andGardiner (2016), Kim (2017b), and Kim (2017a). These previous analyses assumerule ordering, such that reduplication involves a faithful CVC copy and subsequentphonological processes motivate the loss of a copied vowel; the loss of a vowelyields a complex consonant cluster, which then meets the criteria for rules relatedto cluster reduction to apply. A stratum-based approach is able to capture “wrongside” reduplication patterns in a similar manner because it allows for intermediaterepresentations which can undergo additional phonological processes followingreduplication.156.5.3.4 Segmental (Consonant-Only): Inchoative in Southern InteriorSalishAs discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.7.2), three of the Southern Interior Salishlanguages (Montana Salish-Kalispel-Spokane, Coeur d’Alene, and Okanagan)have V1 reduplication as an allomorph of the inchoative morpheme -P-; theinchoative can surface as [P] or [VP], where V is a copy of the vowel following the15Parallel OT is not sufficient to handle this type of reduplication because it requires multiplesteps.363glottal stop.16 Examples of the VP allomorph of the inchoative are given in (418).(418) a. qwăuPąu´ì (cf. qwu´ì ‘dusty’)dustyăINCHą‘it gets dusty’ (Vogt, 1940, p.64, Kalispel)b. h@n-’ta´ăPaąsˇ-a´lp (cf. ’tasˇ ‘be inherently sweet’)LOC-sweetăINCHą-feeling‘I felt sweetness’ (Reichard, 1938, p.612, Coeur d’Alene)c. qwăaPąa´c (cf. qwaPcı´naP ‘warm weather’)warmăINCHą‘It is getting warm.’ (Watkins, 1970, p.100, Okanagan)The lexical entry for the inchoative morpheme illustrated in (418) is given in(419). The prefixed glottal stop is positioned as an infix, which then may triggerreduplication to provide a nucleus.17(419) Lexical Entry for Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel, Coeur d’Alene, andOkanagan Inchoative:P- ôăINCHąWhile the other types of reduplication triggered by a fixed segment described thusfar all involve an affixed vowel, the theory also predicts that affixed consonantscould trigger reduplication if they create an illicit sequence of consonants andthe constraint ranking favours vowel fission (reduplication) over epenthesis (seeSection 6.6.1.2).6.5.3.5 Summary: Lexical Entries for Reduplicative MorphemesLexical entries for reduplicative morphemes in Salish include affixed prosodicunits, features, and fixed segments. While the approach taken here predicts thatany combination of licit prosodic structure, features, and segments in a givenlanguage could comprise the underlying form of a reduplicative morpheme, the16There is also a V1 plural in Montana Salish-Kalispel-Spokane, which was discussed in Chapter2 (Section 2.7.2).17For further discussion of these patterns, including alternate analyses and related phenomena,such as translarygneal harmony, see Mellesmoen (2024a).364actual inventory of reduplicative morphemes across Salish is much more limited.In fact, the core patterns and C22 triplication in Salish can be captured with fourdifferent prosodic units and two different types of fixed segment (consonant orvowel), as shown in Table 6.6.18Table 6.6: Prosodic and Segmental Content in Lexical EntriesC1C2 C1 C2 V1 C22σN`µ ✓µ ✓ ✓σ ✓ ✓Ft ✓V ✓C ✓6.6 Step 5: Phonological Derivation (Phonology)The phonological grammar is comprised of a series of strata, which each havetheir own constraint ranking. I discuss stratification of the grammar in Section6.6.1, laying out two key assumptions: (i) strata are phonologically defined and(ii) each stratum has its own constraint ranking. The rankings of markedness,faithfulness, and alignment constraints across strata determine the surface formsof reduplication in Salish. Cross-Salish patterns are discussed in Section 6.6.2.6.6.1 Stratified Word-Level GrammarI adopt Stratal Optimality Theory (Stratal OT) (Kiparsky, 2015). Stratal OTassumes a series of discrete levels, or strata, between lexical insertion and phoneticimplementation; this is unlike the single global evaluation assumed in classic(Parallel) Optimality Theory (e.g., Prince & Smolensky, 2008).Each stratum in Stratal OT has its own constraint ranking, allowing for a seriesof parallel (in the sense of classic Parallel OT) evaluations. The output of the firststratum is fed into the next, and this repeats until the final stratum.18C and V in the leftmost column are used to stand in for specific segments present in theunderlying form; they are not templates for reduplication.3656.6.1.1 Phonologically-Defined LevelsMy analysis diverges from traditional Stratal OT by proposing that strata arephonologically, not morphologically, defined. All phonological content associatedwith the word, which corresponds to the w-span in Section 6.2, is present in theinput to the first stratum. The strata in my approach are steps in the derivation ofthe phonological word; affixes are parsed into phonological structure at differentstrata.Each morpheme either bears a diacritic specifying the level at which it is parsedinto the phonological word or is unmarked for phonological level, as describedin Chapter 3 (Section 3.5.2.3). Unmarked affixes are parsed at Level 1. Eachlevel has a different constraint ranking, which determines how a reduplicative affixis realised. The level also determines how much existing prosodic structure ispresent in the input and which other morphemes have already been parsed into thephonological word.6.6.1.2 Reduplication is FissionI use Generalised Nonlinear Affixation (GNLA) (e.g., Bermu´dez-Otero,2012), which proposes that non-concatenative morphemes involve nonlinearrepresentations that trigger phonological repairs to ensure a well-formed output(Zimmermann, 2017).High rankings of MAXFLOAT and *FLOAT motivate phonological repairsto fill affixed prosodic units (see Section 4.1.3.1.2 for constraint definitions).The grammar of a language determines which phonological processes ensurenecessary segmental content is present in the output. Reduplication is simply thephonological process of fission: one input segment corresponds to more than oneoutput segment. The output of fission is two segments with equal status: thereis no distinction between a “base” and “reduplicant”, as in Base-ReduplicantCorrespondence Theory (e.g., McCarthy & Prince, 1995).6.6.1.3 Different Constraint Rankings at Each StrataEach stratum has its own constraint ranking. Fission is possible at any stratumwhere INTEGRITY is ranked lower than other faithfulness constraints. However, if366DEP is ranked lower than INTEGRITY, epenthesis is the preferred phonologicalrepair. The preferred repair may differ between consonants and vowels. SeeChapter 4 (Section 4.1.3.1.2) for definitions of these constraints and examples ofhow they work.Table 6.7: Epenthesis vs. Fission: Constraint RankingsRanking ResultDEP ąą INTEGRITY epenthesis preferredINTEGRITY ąą DEP fission preferredDEP-C ąą INTEGRITY-C fission of consonants preferredINTEGRITY-C ąą DEP-C epenthesis of consonants preferredDEP-V ąą INTEGRITY-V fission of vowels preferredINTEGRITY-V ąą DEP-V epenthesis of vowels preferredReduplication and epenthesis are the two most common processes observedwith non-concatenative morphemes in Salish. For languages like Lillooet andComox-Sliammon, where segmental content is only provided by either fission orepenthesis, any other faithfulness constraints that concern alternative strategiesare ranked high enough that only fission and epenthesis are used for phonologicalrepairs.6.6.1.4 Number of Segments Associated with Reduplicative MorphemesThe number of segments that result from either fission or epenthesis is minimal.While violations of faithfulness constraints are tolerated to ensure floatingprosodic units are associated with segmental content and all syllables have onsets,candidates with fewer violations will always be preferred over candidates withmore violations of the same constraint. This means that reduplicative morphemesare only as big as required to satisfy the requirements of the affixed prosodicunit and other pressures from the grammar, which limits the surface size of areduplicative morpheme (cf. Kirchner, 2010).Little variation is anticipated in the maximum size of a reduplicant withthe same underlying form (e.g., σ ) because the relative ranking of faithfulnessconstraints at any given stratum will not influence the maximum number of367segments in the output. For example, a mora can be filled by a (coda) consonant ora vowel; when filled by a vowel, a consonant may be needed to provide an onset.C1 reduplication with an underlying µ therefore always requires minimally onesegment and maximally two segments.The predicted minimal nature of reduplication is supported by cross-Salishpatterns: despite languages like Bella Coola allowing syllables with 5+ segmentsin complex onsets or codas, the maximum number of segments fissioned andepenthesized to fill a floating syllable with a nucleus and mora is three (input:σN`µ ), while two segments is the maximum for a plain syllable (input: σ ).6.6.1.5 Linearisation in the Phonological Derivation: Prefix ConstraintsThe position of segments associated with a reduplicative morpheme is mediatedby the ranking of PREFIX constraints, which were defined in Chapter 4 (Section4.1.3.1.2). The PREFIX constraints are violated by any infixation (PREFIX),infixation past the first mora (PREFIX/µ), or infixation past the first syllable(PREFIX/σ ).Undominated PREFIX rules out infixation completely, while undominatedPREFIX/µ and PREFIX/σ allows infixation but not beyond the first mora orsyllable, respectively. The PREFIX constraints place pressure on prefixes toremain as prefixes. Edge-aligned reduplication patterns therefore require PREFIXconstraints to be ranked high relative to other constraints on prosodic structure.Infixation will arise only if one or more of the the PREFIX constraints areranked lower than markedness constraints related to prosodic structure, such as*STRUC-FT, which penalises any feet in the output (see, e.g., Section 4.2.4.1.2).Table 6.8 describes the surface position associated with different rankings ofPREFIX constraints.368Table 6.8: Ranking of Prefix ConstraintsRanking ResultPREFIX ąą Other Constraints first segment associated withaffix (prefix) (e.g., INIT C1in Lillooet - §4.2.3.1.2)PREFIX/µ ąą Other Constraints ąą PREFIX segments may be infixedbut not beyond the first moraof word (e.g., PROG C1in Comox-Sliammon - §4.1.4.1.2)PREFIX/σ ąą Other Constraints ąą PREFIX segments may be infixedbut only within the first syllableof word (e.g., DIM C1in Comox-Sliammon - §4.1.3.1.2)Other Constraints ąą PREFIX/σ segments may be infixed beyondthe first syllable (e.g., DIM C1in Lillooet - §4.2.4.2.4)Reduplication in Salish is either aligned to the left edge (within the syllable)or it falls in the head foot. The patterns discussed in the case studies ofComox-Sliammon and Lillooet in Chapter 4 are therefore representative ofcross-Salish patterns. PREFIX constraints are sufficient to account for the positionof reduplicative morphemes in the output when considered alongside otherconstraints related to prosodic structure (e.g., *STRUC constraints and ONSET).6.6.1.6 Restrictions on Multiple ReduplicationThere are limits on multiple reduplication in Salish, which is the focus of Chapter5. Only one prosodic affix may be filled per stratum. If there are two reduplicativemorphemes at the same stratum, multiple reduplication is only possible if one ofthe reduplicative morphemes is a fixed segment. For example, property-denotingand diminutive reduplication are both at Level 1 in Comox-Sliammon and mayco-occur if the fixed segment allomorph of the diminutive is selected (see Section5.5.3.1).Languages have different strategies for avoiding multiple reduplication.Halkomelem, like Comox-Sliammon, may use a different allomorph, as discussed369in Section 5.3.2.3. In contrast, Lillooet needs to use a separate inchoativemorpheme instead of change-of-state reduplication, or a syntactic paraphrase withthe adjective kwikws ‘small’ instead of diminutive reduplication, as discussed inSection 5.4.2.6.MORPHEME-AFFILIATION, a constraint proposed in Chapter 5 (Section5.3.3.1), requires that segments belonging to one morpheme to be associatedwith prosodic units that belong to at most one other morpheme; the constraint isrepeated in (420). The phonological grammar knows which phonological materialbelongs to a single unparsed morpheme in the input: in other words, while itdoes not know that the diminutive and plural have these labels, it does know thatcontent is associated with two separate strings (morphemes).(420) MORPHEME-AFFILIATION (MAFFIL): For any three output segments S(S1, S2, S3) that belong to the same morpheme Ma, if S1 is associated witha prosodic unit belonging to Ma and S2 is associated with a prosodic unitbelonging to some other morpheme Mb, then S3 must be associated witha prosodic unit belonging to either Ma or Mb. Assign a violation mark forany three segments where all three segments belong to the same morphemeand each segment is associated with a prosodic unit belonging to a differentmorpheme (*S1-Ma, S2-Mb, S3-Mc).There is no evidence that MORPHEME-AFFILIATION is violated in Salish, whichthus provides a diagnostic for level-hood: any language with reduplication has atleast one stratum where prosodic affixes are parsed into the word, whereas anylanguage with multiple reduplication has at least two strata where prosodic affixesare parsed into the word, because otherwise multiple reduplication would not bepossible, due to MORPHEME-AFFILIATION.6.6.2 Cross-Salish Variation - Word-Level GrammarMorpheme-to-level and grammar-to-level relationships vary across the family. Ifirst summarise the case studies of Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, and Halkomelemin Section 6.6.2.1. In Section 6.6.2.2, I discuss patterns that differ from the casestudies where additional constraints are relevant. Variation related to the numberof levels where reduplication occurs is discussed in Section 6.6.2.3.3706.6.2.1 Cross-Salish Variation: Summary of Case StudiesDifferent constraint rankings and morpheme-level mappings are demonstratedthrough the case studies in Chapters 4 and 5. I discuss morpheme-level mappingsin Section 6.6.2.1.1 and grammar-level mappings in Section 6.6.2.1.2.6.6.2.1.1 Morpheme-Level Mappings: Case StudiesTable 6.9 compares lexical entries for Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, andHalkomelem, with levels indicated.Table 6.9: Reduplicative Morphemes in Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, andHalkomelemComox-Sliammon Lillooet HalkomelemPlural C1C2 (σN`µ )L1/L2 (σN`µ )L1 (σN`µ )L2Property-Denoting C1C2Aspectual C1 µL2 n/a µL1Diminutive C1 {µ ,i}L1 (µ [stress] [c.g.])L2 (σ [c.g.])L2Plural C1 {µ ,a}L1 (µ [c.g.])L2 n/aInitial C1 n/a σL1 n/aChange of State C2 σL3 σL2 n/aPlural V1 (µ [c.g.])L3 n/a n/aTriplication C22 n/a FtL2+n n/aThere is no consistent pattern with respect to which morphemes are associatedwith which level in Table 6.9 above: for example in Comox-Sliammon, thediminutive is at Level 1 and the progressive is at Level 2, while in Halkomelemthe imperfective is at Level 1 and the diminutive is at Level 2. This type ofvariation in morpheme-level mapping across Salish provides further motivationfor phonologically-defined rather than morphologically-defined strata. If levelswere morphosyntactically defined, more consistency would be expected acrossSalish; motivation for phonologically-defined domains will be discussed further inSection 6.8.3.6.6.2.1.2 Grammar-Level Mappings: Case StudiesEach level has its own grammar, which is defined as a constraint ranking. Thechoice between fission or epenthesis to provide segmental content is mediated by371the ranking of INTEGRITY and DEP relative to other constraints.Table 6.10 summarises whether INTEGRITY and DEP constraints are violatedwhen reduplication occurs at each stratum in Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, andHalkomelem. A Ó tells us that these constraints may be violated, which indicatesthat they must be ranked lower than other relevant constraints. Only Comox-Sliammon appears in the row for Level 3 because all core reduplication patternsare at Level 1 and Level 2 in Halkomelem and Lillooet.Table 6.10: Levels in Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, and HalkomelemINT-C INT-V DEP-C DEP-VµL1 ÓCxSl,Li,Hk ÒCxSl,Li ÓHk ÒCxSl,Li ÓHk ÒCxSl,Li ÓHkL2 ÓCxSl,Li,Hk ÒLi ÓCxSl,Hk ÒCxSl,Li ÓHk ÒCxSl,Li ÓHkL3 ÓCxSl ÓCxSl ÓCxSl ÒCxSlIn all three languages, INTEGRITY-C is violated at any level where reduplicationoccurs (i.e., consonants may be copied at every stratum). In Comox-Sliammon,fission of a vowel (violation of Integrity-V) can only occur at Levels 2 and 3, whileepenthesis of a consonant (violation of DEP-C) can only occur at Level 3. InLillooet, Levels 1 and 2 are identical in terms of the availability of consonantfission and the unavailability of vowel fission: INTEGRITY-C may be violatedwhile INTEGRITY-V may not. All four constraints may be violated in Halkomelemreduplication, though INT-V is only violated at Level 1. Aside from INTEGRITY-C, there is no generalisation related to the relative ranking of DEP and INTEGRITYconstraints that holds across all three languages.Table 6.11 shows which of the PREFIX constraints are violated at each stratumfor the three languages. At Level 2, Halkomelem is marked with ˚ because thereduplicated segments themselves are always on the left edge, violating none ofthe PREFIX constraints; however, part of the diminutive morpheme (/P/ from [c.g.])is aligned relative to stress, which can result in a discontinuous expression of thediminutive morpheme (σ ...P: see Section 5.3.1.2).372Table 6.11: Levels in Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, and HalkomelemPREFIX PREFIX/µ PREFIX/σL1 ÓCxSl,Hk ÒLi ÓCxSl,Hk ÒLi ÒCxSl,Li,HkL2 ÓCxSl,Li,Hk˚ ÒCxSl ÓLi,Hk˚ ÒCxSl ÓLi,Hk˚L3 ÓCxSl ÒCxSl ÒCxSlPREFIX/σ is not violated at Level 1 for any of the languages, which means that allprefixed material parsed at that level (or “stratum”) is limited to the first syllableof the word. Lillooet requires all prefixed material at Level 1 to remain on theleft edge, while prefixed material may surface in an infixed position at Level 2.All PREFIX constraints may therefore be violated at Level 2 in Lillooet, whichallows for stress-aligned reduplication. Halkomelem shows the same patternas Lillooet with respect to the position of [P]: it is positioned adjacent to thestressed syllable, which may be further inside the word than the first syllable. Thefact that Halkomelem Level 2 (diminutive and plural) reduplication is otherwisealigned with the left edge suggests that while PREFIX constraints are ranked low,LINEARITY-σ may be ranked high enough to keep the affixed syllable to the leftof syllables built at Level 1.Unlike with INTEGRITY and DEP, it is possible to make a generalisation aboutthe constraint ranking to level mappings for PREFIX constraints in the three casestudy languages: PREFIX/σ is not violated at Level 1, but it may be violated atLevel 2. When PREFIX/σ is violated, prefixed material ends up positioned relativeto stress. Given that the model developed here assumes prosodic structure is builtup gradually across levels, reduplication patterns that show alignment to word-level stress are not predicted at Level 1; attested patterns are consistent with thisprediction.6.6.2.1.3 Morphemes and Number of Relevant Levels: Case StudiesI assume that the derivation of a phonological word in Salish takes place overmultiple strata; however, reduplicative morphemes are not necessarily parsed intothe word at every stratum. Further, for fission to occur, INTEGRITY must beranked low enough relative to other faithfulness constraints to tolerate fission. I373define the number of relevant levels in this dissertation as the number of levels atwhich reduplicative morphemes are parsed into the phonological word and whereINTEGRITY is ranked low enough to allow fission.19Constraint rankings and interactions with non-reduplicative morphemesprovide insight into the number of strata where reduplicative morphemes areparsed into the phonological word. In Chapter 4 (Section 4.2), it was shown thatthe reduplicative inventory of Lillooet motivates three strata; this is necessary toaccount for the fact that patterns are edge-aligned (e.g., plural C1C2 reduplication),prosody-aligned (e.g., change-of-state C2 reduplication), or receive markedword-final stress (e.g., triplication).20 Each type of reduplication shown in (421)operates within a different stress domain and requires a different grammar.(421) a. Plural C2C2 Reduplications-G@p„Ga´p (cf. sGap ‘tree’)NMLZ-C1C2.PL„tree‘trees’(Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)b. Change-of-State C2 Reduplicationz@wa´ăt@ąt-s (root: zwat)be.knownăCOSą-CAUS‘have learned how to do something’ (H. Davis et al., in prep, Lillooet)c. C22 Triplicationìă@laląı´l (cf. ìı´lin ‘to sprinkle s.t.’)sprinkleăTRIPą‘to keep sprinkling’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)A consideration of the grammar also indicates that three strata are needed toaccount for the full inventory of reduplicative morphemes in Comox-Sliammon19This definition excludes processes of fission and gemination that happen at a later stratum thanthe one where the affix in question was parsed into the word, such as later fission to provide an onsetin “wrong side” reduplication following the original reduplication of the C2 consonant, which isdiscussed in Section 6.6.2.2.3. These cases are excluded because a reduplicative affix parsed into theprosodic word at a previous stratum can not be distinguished as a separate morpheme at subsequentstrata; a hypothetical monomorphemic input of the same shape must trigger reduplication at the samestratum.20The only other process in Lillooet that shows consistent final stress is compounding; stress fallson the second root in the compound (Van Eijk, 1997, p.54).374(see summary in Section 4.1): the same affixed prosodic unit (µ) yields threedifferent surface forms, as shown in (422). Three different constraint rankings arerequired to derive the different patterns, which means that three strata are needed.(422) a. Diminutive C1 Reduplicationsaăsąplin (cf. saplin ‘bread’)breadăDIMą‘small piece of bread’ (JF, vf, Comox-Sliammon)b. Progressive C1 Reduplicationgu„guh-um (cf. guhum ‘bark’)PROG„bark-MID‘be barking’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.392, Comox-Sliammon)c. Plural V1 ReduplicationpăaPąaăpąya-sxw=Put (cf. paPa ‘one’)oneăV1.PLąăDIMą-CAUS=EXCL‘She did them one by one.’ (MV, vf, Comox-Sliammon)Recall from Section 6.6.1.6 that only one prosodic affix can be parsed into theword per stratum due to MORPHEME-AFFILIATION. This means that multiplereduplication can be used to determine which reduplicative patterns occur atdifferent strata: the existence of any attested multiple reduplication patterninvolving two prosodic affixes (as opposed to a prosodic affix and a fixed-segmentaffix or two fixed-segment affixes) is evidence that reduplicative morphemes areparsed into the phonological word at a minimum of two strata.While predictions based on multiple reduplication are strongest where negativedata is available or can be elicited to check for same-level combinations, onlya small number of attested forms with multiple reduplication are required tomake predictions about the minimum number of reduplication-relevant strata in alanguage.Across the three case study languages, the number of strata where reduplicativemorphemes are parsed into the word does not vary much: there are two strata inHalkomelem and three in Lillooet and Comox-Sliammon. The three languagesonly share two types of reduplication, diminutive C1 and plural C1C2, which means375this is the only specific combination that can be compared directly across thelanguages.Diminutive C1 and plural C1C2 reduplication can co-occur in Lillooet andComox-Sliammon, but not in Halkomelem. There is no semantic reason for thiscross-linguistic difference: diminutive plurals are perfectly fine in Halkomelemif the -l- allomorph of the plural is used (see Section 5.3.2.3). This cross-Salishvariation is accommodated in my model because strata are phonologically defined;each morpheme is lexically specified for a particular stratum. If domains weredefined by the morphosyntax, there would be no reason to expect that diminutiveC1 and plural C1C2 reduplication would be mutually incompatible, in Halkomelembut not in the other two languages.216.6.2.2 Cross-Salish Variation: Extending the AnalysisThe majority of Salish reduplication patterns can be captured by one of therankings already used for the case study languages. There are three additionalpatterns that warrant discussion: vowel length in Upper Chehalis and Cowlitz(Section 6.6.2.2.1); non-moraic codas in Straits (Klallam/Northern Straits) andBella Coola (Section 6.6.2.2.2); and “wrong-side” reduplication in Twana andTillamook (Section 6.6.2.2.3).6.6.2.2.1 Length: Upper Chehalis and CowlitzAlternations between short and long segments are predicted to be possible underthe theoretical assumptions I adopt. For example, Hayes (1989, p.281) argues formoraic theory on the basis of compensatory lengthening, which frequently involveslengthening a vowel following the deletion of a coda consonant. Furthermore,lengthening a vowel is a common realisation of an affixed prosodic unit (see,e.g., the typology in Zimmermann 2017). Length alternations triggered by moraaffixation are found in two Tsamosan languages (Upper Chehalis and Cowlitz).Diminutivity is marked in Upper Chehalis and Cowlitz by length, as well aschanges in vowel quality and epenthesis of a glottal stop (see Mellesmoen, 2022,for discussion of this allomorphy). Examples of the V: form of the diminutive in21See Section 6.8.3 for further discussion of phonological vs. morphosyntactic domains.376both languages are given in (423).(423) a. lata´ă:ąm (cf. lata´m) ‘table’)tableăDIMą‘little table’ (Upper Chehalis)b. Pe´ă:ąmx. kwu (cf. P@mx. kwu ‘cedar basket’)cedar.basketăDIMą‘little cedar-basket’ (Cowlitz)(Kinkade, 1993, p.15)Upper Chehalis and Cowlitz provide evidence that the ranking of WT-IDENT-IO relative to INTEGRITY is relevant for an analysis of Salish reduplication.WT-IDENT-IO is a faithfulness constraint penalising changes in segment weightbetween input and output; it is defined in (424).(424) WT-IDENT-IO:If α P Domain(f),if α is non-moraic, then f(α) is non-moraic.if α is monomoraic, then f(α) is monomoraic.if α is bimoraic, then f(α) is bimoraic.(Mellesmoen, 2022, p.73)Lengthening a vowel to fill a mora is only possible if INTEGRITY is ranked higherthan WT-IDENT-IO, such that lengthening a vowel is preferable to fission. Thetableau in (425) shows a “lengthening” grammar with the ranking INTEGRITY ąąWT-IDENT-IO. The ranking in (425) is needed to derive the diminutive in UpperChehalis and Cowlitz.(425)/µ + C1VC/ *FLOAT INTEGRITY WT-IDENT-IOa. CVC µ ˚! b. CV:C ˚c. C1VC1C ˚!If reduplication (i.e., fission) is attested, rather than vowel length, INTEGRITY mustbe ranked lower than WT-IDENT-IO, as shown by the “reduplicating” grammar in377(426). This ranking is needed for reduplicative morphemes in other languages; itis also needed for the stratum in Upper Chehalis and Cowlitz where reduplicationdoes occur (see Section 6.6.2.3.2).(426)/µ + C1VC/ *FLOAT WT-IDENT-IO INTEGRITYa. CVC µ ˚!b. CV:C ˚! c. C1VC1C ˚The two rankings are summarised in Table 6.12. Note that a highly rankedmarkedness constraint against long vowels would suffice for Salish languageswithout long vowels; WT-IDENT-IO is necessary for languages like Lushootseedwhich have phonemic vowel length but do not permit changes in vowel lengthwith reduplicative morphemes.Table 6.12: Lengthening vs. Reduplicating GrammarsRanking ResultINTEGRITY ąą WT-IDENT-IO vowel lengthening preferredWT-IDENT-IO ąą INTEGRITY fission preferred6.6.2.2.2 Variation in Moraic Codas: Northern Straits, Klallam, Bella CoolaI assume that coda consonants are moraic in Salish, as discussed in Chapter 3(Section 3.2.1); however, C1C2 reduplication in Northern Straits, Klallam, andBella Coola shows that certain consonants cannot fill a mora at the stratum wherereduplication occurs. The ranking of markedness constraints pertaining to whichsegments may be associated with a mora relative to other constraints is thereforerelevant to understanding cross-Salish variation.A uvular or velar stop in C2 position in Bella Coola undergoes spirantisation to[x] in C1C2 reduplication (Saunders & Davis, 1972, p.9), as shown in (427); this isnot seen in other Salish languages, which retain a faithful output in fission.2222In addition to spirantisation, C1C2 reduplication may involve concurrent uvularą velar change,as seen in (427b–c), and unrounding, as seen in (427a–c).378(427) a. six„si ’kw (cf. si ’kw- ‘pull’)PL„pull‘pull (cont.)’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.601, Bella Coola)b. ìix„ìi ’qw (root: ì ’qw ‘to fade’PL„fade‘It is fading’ (Nater, 1990, p.63, Bella Coola)c. ìix„ìi ’qw (root: ì ’qw- ‘to sob’)PL„sob‘to be sobbing’ (Nater, 1990, p.60, Bella Coola)A bilabial or alveolar stop in Bella Coola is replaced with [n] in C1C2 reduplication,as shown in (428).23(428) a. sun„supt-c (cf. suptc ‘I whistle.’)PL„whistle-1SG.SUBJ‘I whistle (iter. act.).’ (Saunders & Davis, 1972, p.9, Bella Coola)b. cin„citumix-c (cf. citumixc ‘I take a nap.’)PL„nap-1SG.SUBJ‘I take a nap (iter. act.).’ (Saunders & Davis, 1972, p.9, Bella Coola)c. Pun„Pu’tak-c (cf. Pu ’tak ‘I vomit.’)PL„vomit-1SG.SUBJ‘I vomit (iter. act.).’ (Saunders & Davis, 1972, p.9, Bella Coola)23Saunders and Davis (1972, p.2) report that [n] with C1C2 reduplication can mark an “iterativepotential”, which indicates that an “action is not occurring at the time of the utterance”. They showa contrast between “iterative potential” and “iterative actual” forms, the latter without [n]. A pair ofexamples is provided in (i).(i) a. liăną„lis-ic (cf. lisic ‘I push it.’)PLăną„push-1SG.SUBJ‘I push it again and again, but not now.’ (Saunders & Davis, 1972, p.2, Bella Coola)b. lis„lis-ic (cf. lisic ‘I push it.’)PL„push-1SG.SUBJ‘I push it again and again.’ (Saunders & Davis, 1972, p.1, Bella Coola)The contrast in (i) is neutralised with roots with a bilabial or alveolar stop, which have [n] in both the“iterative potential” and “iterative actual” forms (Saunders & Davis, 1972, pp.9–10). I focus here onthe forms that have [n], regardless of function.379d. ’ňan„ ’ňap- (cf. ’ňp ‘to go, start’)CONT„go-‘go (cont.)’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.601, Bella Coola)The alternations with [x] and [n] in (427) and (428) above suggest that stops cannotfill the µ of σN`µ .24Varieties of Straits (Northern Straits and Klallam) also restrict whichconsonants may be associated with the moraic coda of an affixed σN`µ ; thoughthis is only seen when marking plural entities in Straits. In Klallam, pluralC1C2 reduplication is only found with nouns that have a sonorant in C2 position:otherwise an infixed -@ ’y-/-aPy- is used.25 Plural nouns in Northern Straitsare typically marked with a fixed segment infix -l- (see, e.g., plural forms inMontler’s 2018 dictionary); the ones formed with C1C2 reduplication also involvesonorants in C2 position. Both -@ ’y-/-aPy- in Klallam and -l- in Northern Straits arecognates of the -l- plural in Halkomelem, discussed in Chapter 5 (Section 5.3.1.3).Examples from the Saanich dialect of Northern Straits are given in (429).(429) a. sˇ-’tT@ ’m„’tTa´ ’m-@cˇ@n (cf. sˇ ’tTa´ ’m@cˇ@n ‘bracelet’)for-PL„bone-centre‘bracelets’ (Montler, 2018, p.1431, Saanich - Northern Straits)b. x.@’l„x. e´’l@ ’w (cf. x. e ’l@ ’w ‘spoon’)PL„spoon‘spoons’ (Montler, 2018, p.1464, Saanich - Northern Straits)c. s-x.@n„x.@n@P (cf. x. @n@P ‘foot’)NMLZ-PL„foot‘feet’ (Montler, 2018, p.1466, Saanich - Northern Straits)d. x.ă@lą@ ’ws-a´l@kw@ì (cf. x. @ ’wsa´l@kw@ì ‘new dancer’)newăPLą-bodyside‘new dancers’ (Montler, 2018, p.1468, Saanich - Northern Straits)24I have argued elsewhere that stops in Bella Coola are not moraic (Mellesmoen, 2021b); while Iremain agnostic here about their status in the language as a whole, the evidence presented here doesshow that new associations between a stop and a mora do not occur at the same stratum as fission.25C1C2 reduplication is found with 10% of plural words in Klallam (Montler, 2015, p.175–180).There is also a rare C1 reduplication pattern that occurs with approximately 20 words (Montler, 2015,p.181).380e. s-x. wă@ląa´ ’qw-@n (cf. sx. wa´ ’qw@n ‘canoe pole’)NMLZ-propăPLą-instrument‘canoe poles’ (Montler, 2018, p.1477, Saanich - Northern Straits)f. x. wă@’lą@N (cf. x. w@N ‘fast’)fastăPLą‘swift water’ (Montler, 2018, p.1480, Saanich - Northern Straits)I use the *MORA family of constraints from More´n (1997) to account for thepatterns in Bella Coola and varieties of Straits discussed here. These constraintsdraw on the sonority-based typology of Zec (1988). While More´n (1997, p.6)uses *MORA[segment], where specific segments are listed, I use the format*MORA[feature]. The constraint *MORA[-sonorant] in (430a) is needed toaccount for the patterns in Klallam and Northern Straits; *MORA[-continuant]in (430b) is needed for Bella Coola. These constraints are violated by moraicobstruents and stops, respectively.(430) a. *MORA[-sonorant]: Assign a violation mark for every obstruentassociated with a mora.b. *MORA[-continuant]: Assign a violation mark for every [-continuant]segment associated with a mora.Assuming that Straits has listed allomorphs for the plural morpheme and that σN`µis the preferred allomorph, as in Halkomelem (see Section 5.3), ranking *MORA[-sonorant] above PRIORITY in Northern Straits predicts that the -l- allomorphwill be inserted to avoid an obstruent coda.26 The ranking must be reversed inHalkomelem (see Section 5.3): -l- is selected to avoid multiple reduplication, butobstruent codas are permitted. In Bella Coola, the constraint *MORA[-continuant]26The constraint *MORA[-continuant] is not ranked as high at other strata in Saanich: when C1C2reduplication marks plural events (or a property), rather than participants, an obstruent is copied.C1C2 reduplication marking plural events must be at different strata than reduplication markingplural entities in Saanich, as was proposed for Comox-Sliammon in Chapter 5 (Section 5.5.10). Thissuggests that plural reduplication is not cross-categorial, which has been claimed in previous work(e.g., Wiltschko, 2008).(i) a. m@ ’kw„m@´ ’kw-@NREP„claim-MID‘picking up (repeatedly)’ (Montler, 2018, p.1290, Saanich - Northern Straits)381outranks *MORA[-sonorant], which allows for fricatives, but not stops, to bemoraic. The constraints *MORA[-sonorant] and *MORA[-continuant] are rankedlower in other Salish languages than in Straits and Bella Coola, respectively:obstruent codas are tolerated in C1C2 reduplication.Table 6.13: Mora ConstraintsRanking at Stratum where σN`µ Parsed Languages*MORA[-sonorant] ąą PRIORITY Northern Straits and KlallamPRIORITY ąą *MORA[-sonorant] Halkomelem*FLOAT, MAX-µ , *MORA[-continuant] ąą Bella Coola*MORA[-sonorant]*FLOAT, MAX-µ ąą all other Salish languages*MORA[-sonorant], *MORA[-continuant]6.6.2.2.3 “Wrong Side” Reduplication: Twana and TillamookAffixed σN`µ is filled by @C in Twana and Tillamook, as discussed earlier in thischapter (Section 6.5.3.3.2); @C is an intermediate representation present in theoutput of the stratum where σN`µ is parsed into the word.None of the rankings used in Chapters 4 or 5 predict @C as the outputcorresponding to an input σN`µ . Twana and Tillamook require INTEGRITY andDEP to be ranked above ONSET, which is violated by any syllable without an onset(see Section 4.1.3.1.2), such that the grammar will only do the bare minimum (i.e.,provide segment content to just the N and µ nodes associated with σN`µ ). Thefact that ONSET is ranked lower than INTEGRITY and DEP means that a candidatewith a syllable without an onset will be preferred over one that incurs an additionalviolation of INTEGRITY of DEP to provide an onset.The ranking of STROLE, which comes from comes from McCarthy and Prince(1994, p.34) and is defined in (431), is also important in predicting the correct formb. m@ălą„m@´ ’kw-@NPLăPLą„claim-MID‘pick up (pl.)’ (Montler, 2018, p.1290, Saanich - Northern Straits)382of C1C2 reduplication. STROLE is violated when an output segment does not havethe same role in the syllable as its input correspondent. The ”St” in STROLE isnot directly defined in McCarthy and Prince (1994); I assume STROLE stands forstructural role (of a syllable).(431) STROLE: A segment in the input and its correspondent in the output musthave identical syllabic roles.STROLE ensures that the second consonant of the root, which is a coda, undergoesfission to fill a coda, instead of the first consonant, which is an onset.The tableau in (432) shows the ranking needed to derive the correctintermediate form for pcˇap ‘aunts’ in Twana, which is given as candidate (432a).Candidate (432b), with fission providing an onset, incurs two violations underINTEGRITY-C, with the second being fatal. Candidate (432c), with fission of thefirst consonant, fatally violates STROLE because one of the fissioned consonantsis an onset and the other is a coda.(432)/σN`µ + cˇap/ STROLE DEP-V INTEGRITY-C ONSET a. @pcˇap ˚ ˚ ˚b. cˇ@pcˇap ˚ ˚˚!c. @cˇcˇap ˚! ˚ ˚ ˚The ranking shown in (432) yields the correct intermediate form of plural C1C2reduplication in Twana. The [@] will be deleted at subsequent strata to yield pcˇap‘aunts’. In cases where deletion of a [@] would yield an illicit cluster with sonorants,fission occurs at a later stratum to provide an onset; the intermediate form @db@´d@hfor example (415) above yields b@db@´d@h ‘children’, not *db@´d@h.6.6.2.3 Cross-Salish Variation: Morpheme to Level Mappings and Numberof Relevant LevelsEvidence for the number of levels relevant to reduplication was discussedin Section 6.6.2.1.3 for the case study languages. There are three types ofevidence that can be used to determine morpheme to level mappings: (i) multiplereduplication, (ii) grammar (constraint rankings), and (iii) interaction with othermorphemes and phonological processes.383Multiple reduplication is the most straightforward diagnostic because it onlyrequires a small number of attested forms to determine the minimum number ofstrata that relevant for reduplication: if two types of reduplication occur in the sameword (and each reflects an affixed prosodic unit, rather than a fixed-segment affix),then they must be parsed into the word at different levels. This follows from theconstraint MORPHEME-AFFILIATION, discussed in Section 6.6.1.6 above, whichis violated if segmental content from one morpheme is associated with prosodicunits affiliated with more than one other morpheme.Multiple reduplication patterns indicate a minimum number of reduplication-relevant strata; a more concrete number is only possible if an analysis of individualreduplication patterns and the general phonological grammar of the language isundertaken.6.6.2.3.1 Overview of Cross-Salish Variation in Number of Relevant StrataReduplicative morphemes are parsed into the phonological word at one to fourstrata across Salish languages. The number of strata per language relevant toreduplication as evidenced by available documentation are summarised in Table6.14.Table 6.14: Number of Reduplication Relevant StrataLevels Languages4 Thompson River Salish3 Moses Columbia, Lillooet,Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel, Coeur d’AleneComox-Sliammon, Sechelt,Shuswap, Okanagan2 Lushootseed, Halkomelem, Tillamook,Twana, Straits1 Upper Chehalis, Lower Chehalis,Cowlitz, Bella Coola,Nooksack, SquamishInsufficient Evidence Pentlatch, QuinaultThe number of reduplication-relevant strata in Table 6.14 come from multiple384reduplication patterns, though these have been refined where different constraintrankings are motivated by individual reduplication patterns. For example,Okanagan and Shuswap have a C22 triplication pattern similar to the onein Lillooet; triplication happens at a later stratum than the other types ofreduplication. For languages where documentation of multiple reduplicationpatterns is sparse, the number of relevant strata given is the minimum numbermotivated by the available evidence. For example, the existence of multiplereduplication in Tillamook minimally requires two strata; further analysis maymotivate additional strata. Finally, the data for Quinault and Pentlatch are toosparse to allow for any conclusion to be drawn from the absence of attestedmultiple reduplication.Instances of multiple reduplication in Salish tend to involve only tworeduplicative morphemes at a time, as noted in Chapter 2 (Section 2.8); thisrestriction is only predicted for two-stratum languages, since a single reduplicativemorpheme can be parsed into the word at each stratum. For languages with morethan two strata, there is nothing to stop multiple reduplication with three or morereduplicative morphemes. And, in fact, though there are few attested examples, theco-occurrence of three reduplicative morphemes in a single word is documentedin a handful of Salish languages, including Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel,Thompson River Salish, and Coeur d’Alene. Examples are given in (433).27 Eachof these languages needs at least three strata on the basis of pairwise combinationsof reduplicative morphemes. These forms, albeit rare, show that there are nophonological restrictions against three reduplicative morphemes in the same word.Having three types of reduplication can be taken as evidence for reduplication atthree different stratum, provided that each reduplicative morpheme is a prosodicaffix.(433) a. ’ň„ ’ň@’l„ ’ňăeąă’ląı´’l (cf. ’ňlip ‘It stopped.’)DIM„PL„stillăREPąăCOSą‘They (sg.) keep having little (uncontrolled) seizures (as in epilepsy).’(B. Carlson, 1989, p.211, Spokane)27I have added the [@] in C1C2 reduplication (433a) and (433c), though they are not present in thesource material.385b. PeINTs-t-paQ„pa´ăpą ’Q„pa ’Q-tSTAT-QUAL-PL„fade„PDEN-CHAR‘little grey faded ones’ (cf. Pe stpaQpa´QpaQt ‘several are grey, faded’)(L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.227, Thompson River Salish)c. n-ì@m„ìe´ăìą ’m„@ ’m (cf. nìe´ ’m@m ‘to carry unannounced’)LOC-PL„enterăDIMą„COS‘Small things are carried unnoticed.’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.90, ThompsonRiver Salish)d. c@„c@q„c@q„@q-’l-ı´p-mDIM„C1C2„place.vessel„COS-CONN-back-MID‘The little one fell on his back.’ (cf. cˇica´qìc ‘They (sg.) set themselvesbefore them.’) (Doak, 2004, p.121, Coeur d’Alene)Returning to the question of cross-Salish variation in the number ofreduplication-relevant strata, recall that the case-study languages have eithertwo or three strata, which means that only the one and four stratum languageswarrant additional discussion. This is provided in Sections 6.6.2.3.2 and 6.6.2.3.3,respectively; the one-stratum languages are of particular interest because theyshow that even languages with reduplication at only one stratum may vary withrespect to whether reduplication occurs at Level 1 or at a later stratum.6.6.2.3.2 One Reduplication-Relevant Stratum (Bella Coola, Tsamosan,Nooksack, Squamish)Languages with one reduplication-relevant stratum include Bella Coola, all fourTsamosan languages (Upper Chehalis, Cowlitz, Lower Chehalis, and Quinault),Nooksack, and Squamish. None of these languages uses multiple reduplication. Ifocus on Upper Chehalis as an example of this type of language.Upper Chehalis has plural C1C2 reduplication and change-of-state C2reduplication, which are shown in (434) and (435), respectively; it makes use ofvowel length to mark the diminutive, rather than C1 reduplication, as discussedin Section 6.6.2.2.1. All three processes are triggered by a prosodic affix, whichmeans by hypothesis they cannot co-occur at the same stratum.386(434) a. PitDEF.DETwa´kw„wakwsPL„go(cf. wakws ‘go’)‘they (sg.) went again and again’ (Kinkade, 1991, p.150, UpperChehalis)b. Pac-y@´măy@mąx. w-ì (cf. y@´mx. wì ‘become round’)STAT-roundăPLą-INTR‘bumps’ (Kinkade, 1991, p.174, Upper Chehalis)(435) a. PitDEF.DETya´ ’ň„a ’ň (cf. ya ’ňì ‘go home’)go.home„COS‘They (sg.) went home slowly.’ (Kinkade, 1991, p.171, UpperChehalis)b. sa´kw„kw-mit-n (cf. sakwm ‘whisper’)whisper„COS-MID-3SUBJ(IPFV)‘They (sg.) are whispering while going.’ (Kinkade, 1991, p.123, UpperChehalis)While C1C2 reduplication and change-of-state C2 reduplication do not co-occur,both may combine with diminutive vowel lengthening, as shown in (436a)and (436b), respectively. The combination of plural and change-of-state is notsemantically impossible, as it is attested in many other Salish languages, such asLillooet (Section 5.4.2.2).(436) a. yo´ă:Pą’t„yu’t-n (cf. yu´ ’t-n ‘stir it’)stirăDIMą„PL-TR‘stir it a little (freq.)’ (Kinkade, 1991, p.176, Upper Chehalis)b. s-Pe´ă:ąìăiìąn-n (cf. Pı´ìn ‘eat’)eatăDIMąăCOSą-3SUBJ(IPFV)‘eat slowly away’ (Kinkade, 1991, p.12, Upper Chehalis)The combination of diminutive vowel lengthening with reduplication in (436),together with the absence of multiple reduplication, suggests that reduplicationhappens at a single stratum, while diminutive is parsed at a different stratum. It ispossible to derive both C1C2 and C2 reduplication with the same grammar: bothare edge-aligned and may copy a vowel. The diminutive morpheme requires a387different ranking because it is aligned to stress and realised as length rather thanreduplication (see discussion of reduplicating vs. lengthening grammars in Section6.6.2.2.1). The fact that the diminutive is aligned to prosodic structure, which isnot present in the input to Level 1, further means that it must be parsed at Level 2(or later).The absence of multiple reduplication in Upper Chehalis is explained on theassumption that only Level 1 has a constraint ranking allowing reduplication (i.e.,WT-IDENT-IO ąą INTEGRITY). If Level 2 had the same ranking rather thanthe reverse (i.e., INTEGRITY ąą WT-IDENT-IO), diminutivity would be markedby reduplication; multiple reduplication would be possible in this case becausereduplication would occur at two different strata.The lexical entries for change of state and plural reduplication, together withdiminutive vowel lengthening, are given in (437a–c), respectively. The lexicalentries for change-of-state and plural morphemes are left unmarked for stratumand therefore are parsed at Level 1, while the diminutive is marked as a Level 2affix.(437) a. σ ôăCOSąb. σN`µ ôăPLąc. µL2 ôăDIMąNot all languages with one relevant stratum have reduplication at the first stratum,as in Upper Chehalis. Reduplication in Bella Coola is positioned to the first moraicsegment (see discussion of C1C2 reduplication in Section 2.4.1), which means thatsome prosodic structure must have been built prior to reduplication. Reduplicationin Bella Coola must therefore happen at Level 2 (or later). Taken together, one-stratum languages show that reduplication is not restricted to the same stratumacross Salish (e.g., Level 1), even in languages with only one reduplication-relevantstratum.6.6.2.3.3 Four Reduplication-Relevant Strata (Thompson River Salish)There are four strata relevant to reduplication in Thompson River Salish. Examplesof multiple reduplication with three morphemes were given in (433b) and (433c)388above: further cases are given below in (438); each type of reduplication in eachexample must happen at a different stratum.28(438) a. c@m„cmăePą„m-e´ă ’mąkst (root: cm- ‘small’)PL„smallăREP+SPZGą„COS-handăDIMą‘have small hands’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.35,Thompson River Salish)b. n@x„ne´ă ’nąx„@x (cf. ne´xkwu ‘have waves’)PL„waveăDIMą„COS‘small, tiny waves, ripples’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996,p.217, Thompson River Salish)c. t@p„t@ătąp„t@p-t (cf. t@pte´p ‘between black and grey’)PL„blackăDIMą„PDEN-CHAR‘a very little black one’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.351,Thompson River Salish)Reduplicative morphemes, excluding the affective/initial C1 pattern (discussed inSection 2.5.3.3), are summarised in Table 6.15.Table 6.15: Reduplication in Thompson River SalishMorpheme Position CombinationsPDEN Edge-Aligned (C1C2- or -C1C2-) PL, DIMPL Edge-Aligned (C1C2-) COS, DIM, PDENCOS Stress-Aligned (-C2-) PL, DIMDIM Stress-Aligned (-C1-) PL, PDEN, COSOn the basis of multiple reduplication, at least three levels are relevant; thegrammar motivates an additional level to distinguish change-of-state and property-denoting reduplication, which require different constraint rankings to predictstress-aligned and edge-aligned patterns, respectively. A morpheme-level mappingis provided in Table 6.16.28See Section B.1.7 in the appendix for examples with two types of reduplication.389Table 6.16: Levels in Thompson River SalishLevel Morpheme1 PDEN (and AFF)2 PL3 COS4 DIMThe order of levels in Table 6.16 is motivated by interactions between morphemes.PL (and DIM) reduplication can copy the inchoative infix -P- (L. C. Thompson& Thompson, 1992, p.97), which means both must occur later than Level 1,where that infix is parsed into the word. DIM and COS are stress-aligned andmay reduplicate suffixed content, which means they must be later than Level1; DIM interacts with morphemes beyond the ones COS interacts with, whichmeans it may be at a later stratum. DIM must be later than PL because otherwisey@ ’qw„yu´ăyą ’qw-n-s ‘splash something/someone a little repeatedly’ (Jimmie,1994, p.31) would be *y@yw„yu´ăyą ’qw-n-s. As the evidence includes a number ofnon-reduplicative morphemes, a full account with examples is beyond the scopeof this section.6.6.2.3.4 SummaryMORPHEME-AFFILIATION and the fact that morphemes are lexically specified forstratum means that the attested combinations of reduplicative morphemes in onelanguage will not necessarily match those in another. For this reason, the inventoryof multiple reduplication can vary across the family and even within branches ofthe family. This is supported by attested variation in the number of strata relevantto reduplication and which morphemes are parsed into the word at each stratum.6.7 Step 6: Post-Reduplication Phonological Processesand Phonetic Implementation (Phonology/Phonetics)The output of any stratum in the word-level derivation is the input to the next one,as described in Section 6.6.1. The output of the final stratum is part of the input to390the postlexical phonology, where phonetic implementation rules apply (see, e.g.,Bermu´dez-Otero 2007).In this section, I discuss how constraint rankings at later strata can affect theform of reduplicative morphemes that are parsed at an earlier stratum (Section6.7.1). Phonetic implementation rules are briefly discussed in Section 6.7.2.6.7.1 Post-Reduplication PhonologyThe morphosyntactic word, which corresponds to a w-span (see Step 1 in Section6.2), is the domain where reduplication occurs in Salish. Constraint rankings atstrata late in the word-level derivation or in the post-lexical component of thegrammar can impact the surface form of a reduplicated word. I use the term “post-reduplication phonology” to refer to phonological processes that result from thegrammar at any stratum following the one where a given reduplicative morphemeis parsed into the word.Post-reduplication phonology accounts for cases where the surface form of areduplicative morpheme does not correspond to the prosodic unit or fixed segmentin its underlying form, such as the “onset” reduplication in Southern Interior Salishdiscussed in Section 6.5.3.3.1: a complex onset results from an affixed syllablewith later vowel deletion. Common post-reduplication phonological processesin Salish include glide vocalisation (see, e.g., discussion of general phonologicalprocesses in Comox Sliammon in Section 4.1.1), stress shift (discussed forword-level reduplication in Lillooet in Section 4.2.4), vowel reduction (see, e.g.,Halkomelem C1 reduplication in Section 5.3.1.1), schwa epenthesis (see, e.g.,Comox-Sliammon C1 reduplication in Section 4.1.4.1.1), and schwa deletion (see,e.g., Lillooet C2 reduplication in Section 4.2.4.1.2).Post-reduplication phonology is independent of reduplication and variation isfully dependent on the grammar of individual languages. I provide an example of avariable post-lexical reduction process in Section 6.7.1.1, followed by an exampleof a word-level post-reduplication process in Section 6.7.1.2.3916.7.1.1 Post-Lexical Phonology: Schwa Deletion in LillooetPost-lexical phonology differs from word-level phonology because processes maybe optional or show variable application across different speech rates (see, e.g.,Kaisse & Shaw, 1985).Schwa deletion in Lillooet is an example of a post-lexical phonological process.The [@] needed to fill an input σN`µ for C1C2 reduplication may be omitted in thesurface form (see Section 4.2.3.2.1); forms with either [@] or ∅ are acceptable, asshown in (439).29(439) a. kw@´z„kwz-@m -or- kw@´z„kw@z-@m (root: kwz- ‘smooth’)PDEN„smooth-CHAR‘smooth’ (H. Davis et al., in prep, Lillooet)b. c@´ì„cì-@m -or- c@´ì„c@ì-@m (root: cì- ‘bright, sober’)PDEN„bright/sober-CHAR‘bright/sober’ (H. Davis et al., in prep, Lillooet)c. ’kı´n„ ’k@n-t -or- ’kı´n„ ’kn-@t (root: ’kin-)dangerous„PDEN-CHAR‘dangerous’ (H. Davis et al., in prep, Lillooet)Deletion of [@] is not limited to reduplicative contexts; it is common in fast speech(H. Davis, p.c.). Variation in the surface form of C1C2 reduplication between [@]or ∅ is therefore consistent with the general post-lexical patterns in the language(i.e., any unstressed schwa may be optionally deleted unless its deletion leads to asonority hierarchy violation).6.7.1.2 Word-Level Post-Reduplication Phonology: CompensatoryLengthening in Bella Coola and Upriver HalkomelemCompensatory lengthening in Bella Coola and Upriver Halkomelem is a word-level phonological process that follows reduplication. I propose that vowel lengthin these languages is derived from an intermediate /P/, which itself results from an29An epenthetic [@] appears later in the word for the ∅ form in (439c).392underlying µ (Upriver Halkomelem) or a [c.g.] feature (Bella Coola).30Vowel length marks the imperfective form of roots that begin with /P/ or /h/ inUpriver Halkomelem, as shown in (440). These forms correspond to those with aninfixed glottal stop in the other two dialects (see data and description in Section5.3.1.1.1). The glottal stop infix is one of the realisations of the imperfective µ inHalkomelem, which was discussed in Chapter 5 (Section 5.3.1.1.2).31(440) a. Pı´ă:ąìt@l (cf. Pe´ìt@l ‘eat a meal’)eatăIPFVą‘eating a meal’ (Galloway, 2009, p.10, Upriver Halkomelem)b. Pı´ă:ą@s (cf. Piw@st ‘advise/teach someone’)advise/teachăIPFVą‘directing, training, teaching, guiding’ (Galloway, 2009, p.128,Upriver Halkomelem)c. he´ă:ą ’kw-@l@s (cf. he´ ’kw@l@s ‘remember someone’)rememberăIPFVą-GOAL‘remembering someone’ (Galloway, 2009, p.97, Upriver Halkomelem)d. ha´ă:ąqw-@t (cf. ha´qw@t ‘smell something’)smellăIPFVą-TR‘smelling something’ (Galloway, 2009, p.106, Upriver Halkomelem)In Bella Coola, the diminutive is expressed with some combination ofreduplication, vowel length, and a suffix (-i). Examples with all three componentsare given in (441). I propose that the lexical entry for the diminutive in BellaCoola contains three components: a prosodic unit (µ), a floating feature ([c.g.]),and a fixed segment (-i).30This analysis of Bella Coola is similar to one proposed by Bagemihl (1991, p.641), whoargues that compensatory lengthening occurs as a general process in Bella Coola following the lossof a glottal stop in coda position. However, he does not connect this analysis to vowel lengthin diminutive forms, nor does he propose an underlying glottal component associated with thediminutive morpheme.31Zimmermann (2017, p.220) analyses the imperfective as an affixed foot and proposes thatlengthening the vowel is needed to create a heavy syllable (σµµ ) which can be parsed as a binaryfoot. In her analysis, a possible reduplicated candidate *PiP@m@x fares worse than the attested formPi:m@x ‘walking’ due to a constraint *P@, which is violated by any syllable consisting of [P@].393(441) a. xi„xnaă:ąs-i (cf. xnas ‘woman’)DIM„womanăDIMą-DIM‘woman (dim.)’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.601, Bella Coola)b. qaăqaąyt-i (cf. qayt ‘hat’)hatăDIMą-DIM‘toadstool (dim.)’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.598, Bella Coola)c. xwn"ăxwnąaă:ąì-i (cf. xwnaì ‘spring of water’)spring.of.waterăDIMąăDIMą-DIM‘spring of water (dim.)’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.615, Bella Coola)The glottal stop is epenthetic in Upriver Halkomelem, as in other dialects (seeanalysis in Section 5.3.1.1.2). The glottal stop in Bella Coola is the realisation of[c.g.], which is realised as a glottal stop following the stressed vowel, similar to thepattern described for the diminutive in Halkomelem in Chapter 5 (Section 5.3.1.2).Both languages have a highly ranked markedness constraint that is violated by [P]in a coda, defined in (442).32 This constraint is ranked high enough at a stratumfollowing reduplication to result in [P] deletion, which leaves its mora to triggercompensatory lengthening of the adjacent vowel.(442) *P]σ : Assign a violation mark for any [P] in a coda.This constraint is independently motivated by the general phonology of eachlanguage because glottal stops do not occur as codas in the Upriver dialect ofHalkomelem (Elmendorf & Suttles, 1960, p.8), nor in Bella Coola (Nater, 1984,p.20).33Table 6.17 shows the position of *P]σ relative to other constraints for bothlanguages. At the stratum where the reduplicative morpheme is parsed into theprosodic word, MAX outranks *P]σ (and DEP), which allows for epenthesis of32Given that I assume all codas are moraic in Halkomelem, I could use a *MORA constraint thatmore generally penalises moraic glottal consonants, as in Section 6.6.2.2.2. However, given the factthat codas were argued to be non-moraic in Bella Coola, this approach would incorrectly predict thatthe glottal stop could lose its mora but remain a coda in Bella Coola.33The Upriver Halkomelem pattern has largely been discussed from a diachronic perspective, as inBrown and Thompson (2005, p.49). However, the imperfective pattern is a synchronic process thatyields a coda [P] at an intermediate level of the derivation. The ban on coda [P] must still be activein the grammar.394[P] into a coda position to provide segmental content to a floating µ in UpriverHalkomelem and a floating [c.g.] feature in Bella Coola. At a subsequent stratum,*P]σ and MAX-µ are ranked above MAX-[C.G.] and WT-IDENT-IO (see Section6.6.2.2.1 for discussion of this constraint), which results in [P] deletion andcompensatory lengthening.Table 6.17: Post-Reduplication Compensatory LengtheningStratum Bella Coola Upriver HalkomelemReduplication Max-[c.g.] ąą *P]σ Max-µ ąą *P]σPost-Reduplication Max-µ , *P]σ ąą Max-[c.g.], WT-IDENT-IOCompensatory lengthening must occur after the insertion of a glottal stop to fillthe imperfective µ or after diminutive reduplication has occurred. Deletion of [P] isa categorical process, in contrast to the variable [@] deletion in Lillooet discussed inthe previous section, meaning that that glottal stops never surface in a coda positionin Upriver Halkomelem or Bella Coola.6.7.2 Phonetic ImplementationThe difference between phonological and phonetic processes can be viewed asa contrast between discrete and continuous values, such that representations inthe lexical and phonological components of the grammar have discrete values(Bermu´dez-Otero, 2007, p.502). Discrete phonological representations cruciallylack the gradient phonetic detail associated with surface forms. For example, placefeatures may be shared between two segments in the phonology, but the options arelimited to [+feature], [–feature], or being under-specified for the feature becausephonological representations are always categorical.In contrast to categorical features present in phonological representations,phonetic realisations are gradient and continuous. For example, a vowel adjacentto a uvular consonant may undergo some amount of lowering that is strongestnear the boundary between the two segments (see, e.g., Bessell 1993; Nolan 2017;Mellesmoen & Huijsmans, 2019a). This allows considerable variation in thesurface realisation of vowels as a result of phonetic implementation.395Differences between Salish languages in the surface form of reduplication,particularly in vowel quality, may sometimes reflect differences in language-specific patterns of phonetic implementation (i.e., how discrete phonologicalrepresentations are mapped to continuous acoustic space). Phonetic implementationis an area that deserves further examination where acoustic data is available.6.8 Implications of the ModelThe model proposed in this chapter is motivated by reduplication patterns foundacross Salish; it also has larger implications for the overall architecture of thephonological side of the grammar and the relationship between its differentcomponents. In the remainder of this chapter, I discuss modularity and theinterface between morphology and phonology (Section 6.8.1), the status of non-concatenative morphology with respect to linearisation and allomorph selection(Section 6.8.2), and the mapping of morphosyntax to phonological domains(Section 6.8.3).6.8.1 Modularity and the Interface between Morphology andPhonologyThe phonological grammar must have access, directly or indirectly, to certain typesof information about morphology. First, in order to derive the correct surface orderof the phonological exponents of morphemes, the phonology must know whethera morpheme was linearised as a prefix or a suffix (see discussion of PREFIX inSection 6.6.1.5). Second, in order to predict gaps in multiple reduplication, thephonology must know, for any pair of phonological elements, whether they belongto the same morpheme (see discussion of MORPHEME-AFFILIATION in Section6.6.1.6).34 Both of these requirements are met by the model of the grammaradopted here.Only information that can be read off the ordered string of phonological contentfollowing Stage II of lexical insertion (described in Section 6.5) is available tothe phonology. All phonological representations associated with the heads that34The phonology is also able to see a diacritic specifying phonological content for a particularlevel (see Section 6.6.1.1 and the following section), though this is marked explicitly on the lexicalentry and therefore not discussed in this section.396comprise a w-span (defined in Section 6.2) are present in the input to the firststratum, though they remain as unparsed groups of phonological material until thestratum where they are parsed into the phonological word. Information relatedto a prefix or suffix position and which phonological content belongs to differentmorphemes is therefore present in the input to Level 1 and remains accessible tothe phonology until the morpheme is parsed into the phonological word.While my approach requires the phonology to be aware of which phonologicalmaterial belongs to the same morpheme, the major assumptions about modularityin Stratal Phonology remain the same (see, e.g., Kiparsky 2015; Bermu´dez-Otero2017): all phonological content parsed into a phonological word is treated as asingle unit in the input to the next stratum. In other words, if the string xxx +yyy + zzz is present in input to Level 1 and the output is (xxxyyy)PrWd +zzz, thephonology “sees” two separate units in the input to Level 2: (xxxyyy)PrWd andzzz. The phonology cannot see, for example, that xxx was a prefix or distinctfrom yyy, which was a root. These assumptions explain why segments associatedwith reduplicative morphemes may be deleted by later phonological processes (seeStep 6 in Section 6.7): the grammar does not see reduplicated segments as anymore meaningful than other segments in the word. The phonology has no access toearlier stages of the derivation, to the specific identity of a morpheme (e.g., whichmorphosyntactic feature bundle it corresponds to), or its syntactic position.6.8.2 Non-Concatenative MorphologyReduplicative morphemes are not “special” under the analysis presented here; non-concatenative morphemes behave like concatenative morphemes and are subject tothe same mechanisms of linearisation and allomorphy.The fact that Salish reduplication can be triggered by both fixed segmentsand prosodic units motivates a theory that can unify linear and non-linearrepresentations. Generalised Nonlinear Affixation is “a line of research that seeksto reduce the role of morphology in all instances of apparently nonconcatenativeexponence to the insertion of pieces of nonlinear phonological representationwhose existence is independently motivated” (Bermu´dez-Otero, 2012, p.53). Ifollow this approach by unifying non-concatenative processes such as reduplication397with vowel length in Section 6.6.2.2.1, but further extend the analysis to includeinstances where reduplication is triggered by linear representations, which includeunderlying fixed segments (see Section 6.5.2.3).In a unified analysis of non-concatenative and concatenative morphology,morphemes with prosodic (non-linear) or segmental (non-linear) representationsare subject to linearisation and allomorphy at the same points in the derivation.Linearisation is determined at three points in the grammar (syntax, morphology,and phonology), while allomorphy is determined at two (morphophonology andphonology); these are discussed in Sections 6.8.2.1 and 6.8.2.2, respectively.6.8.2.1 Linearisation6.8.2.1.1 Linearisation: Syntax, Morphology, PhonologyIn the model I adopt, linearisation is determined across three components: syntax,morphology, and phonology. The syntax partially determines linear order viabasic conditions on phrase structure, in particular the No-Tangling Condition,which prevents crossing branches. However, the No-Tangling Condition does notdetermine the direction of linearisation between sisters in a phrase structure tree.In these cases, the morphology and the phonology jointly determine the surfaceposition of fissioned segments.The surface order of morphemes is determined first by linearisation in themorphology and then can be affected by the phonology. In the morphology, linearorder is determined based on the lexical entry of a morpheme and whether a [prefix]or [suffix] feature is present, as described in Section 6.4. The features determinelinear order between morphemes that are sisters in the syntactic structure. Therelevant part of the lexical entry is therefore its morphological features, not itsphonological content.Linearisation in the phonology is affected by constraint rankings at relevantstrata. For example, the faithfulness constraint LINEARITY is violated if the orderof segments in the output does not match the input; metathesis and infixationviolate LINEARITY. Infixation and metathesis are tolerated if certain markednessconstraints outrank LINEARITY, as discussed in Section 6.4.2.3986.8.2.1.2 Mirror Theory and Mirror Principle-Based ApproachesI assume that the direction of affixation is lexically specified, which is a departurefrom approaches that assume Mirror Theory, as originally developed by Brody(2000). Mirror Theory includes the axiomatic assumption that higher material in aspan must follow lower material when linearised (Svenonius, 2016, p.13). A MirrorTheory analysis therefore entails that all reduplicative affixes in Salish are suffixesin the morphosyntax, despite typically behaving as prefixes in the phonology.Linearisation in a Mirror Theory approach requires additional stipulation toaccount for prefixes. For example, Svenonius and Bye (2012, p.467) propose anantitropal feature, which marks segments within an affix as “not aligned to theedge [they were] introduced in the syntax”. A suffix is moved to the left edgeto satisfy IDENT[ANTITROPAL], a phonological constraint violated if [antitropal]segments remain on the right edge of the word (Svenonius & Bye, 2012, p.470).The purpose of the antitropal feature is therefore to resolve problems that arisefrom linearisation based on Mirror Theory; [antitropal] is not necessary in thepresent approach because morphemes are linearised as prefixes or suffixes priorto the phonology. The phonological grammar therefore is only responsible forinfixation, not turning suffixes into prefixes.An alternative, purely phonology-based approach to linearization is advocatedby Zukoff (2023). He proposes that morphosyntactic representations are mappeddirectly to phonological representations by the Mirror Alignment Principle (MAP),which is effectively a phonological implementation of Baker’s (1985) MirrorPrinciple (MP). On this approach, there is no linearisation until the phonology;phonological alignment constraints are used to derive mirror effects directly inthe phonology. The ranking of alignment constraints depends on the morphemespresent: MAP provides rankings based on the morphosyntactic structure, andlanguage-specific “Default Ranking Statements” are used when MAP rankingsalone are not sufficient (Zukoff, 2023, p.8). The stated goal of the MAP approachis to provide an account of “the formal means by which MP-compliance is enactedin the grammar” (Zukoff, 2023, p.400).The crucial difference between the [antitropal] (Mirror Theory) and MAP(Mirror Principle) approaches is whether morphemes are linearised prior to thephonology: Svenonius and Bye (2012) assume that the input is linearised in the399reverse order to its syntactic representation (i.e., all affixes are suffixes), whileZukoff (2023) assumes morphemes are unordered in the input (i.e., mirror order isa result of constraint ranking in the phonological grammar).The two approaches also differ in their assumptions about how muchinformation the phonology needs to have about the morphosyntax. Svenoniusand Bye (2012) posit an [antitropal] feature which is present in the phonologicalrepresentation of a lexical item; no additional stipulations beyond what I haveproposed in this dissertation need to be made about the phonological grammarto implement this solution. In contrast, a MAP approach requires differentassumptions about the phonological grammar and where it fits in the overallarchitecture. Unlike the approach in Svenonius and Bye (2012) or the one in thisdissertation, Zukoff (2023) assumes that constraints can reference informationbeyond what is present in the phonological representation of a morpheme. Ifmorphemes are unordered in the input, as assumed in MAP, the phonology mustbe able to access not only morphological information, but also information aboutindividual lexical items; it must also be able to access the syntactic structurefollowing lexical insertion to determine the appropriate set of constraints andtheir ranking for a given word. The MAP approach requires the phonologicalcomponent of the grammar to be more powerful than I have proposed in thisdissertation; I assume a modular framework where the phonology can only seeand act upon phonological representations.Both Mirror-based approaches can handle the surface position of fixedsegment allomorphs, such as the repetitive morpheme in Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel, discussed in Section 6.5.3.2; neither is sufficient, however, formorphemes containing non-linear representations (i.e., floating prosodic units).The diminutive in Comox-Sliammon can be used to show why neither approachpredicts the correct surface form when the input consists of both linear andnon-linear phonological content.Recall from Chapter 4 (Section 4.1.3.1.2) that the diminutive has both afixed segment and a prosodic affix allomorph, as shown in (443a) and (443b),respectively.400(443) a. Comox-Sliammon Diminutive: /i/ Allomorph’ti„’ta ’qt (cf. ’ta ’qt ‘mountain’)DIM„mountain‘small mountain’ (JF)b. Comox-Sliammon Diminutive: µ AllomorphPiăPąm@n (cf. Pim@n ‘road, door’)road/doorăDIMą‘narrow walkway (small trail)’ (JF)The tableau in (444) shows violation marks for IDENT[ANTITROPAL] as conceivedby Svenonius and Bye (2012); subscript numbers mark the choice of diminutiveallomorph. The only candidate that violates IDENT[ANTITROPAL] is candidate(444a), which leaves the fixed segment on the right edge. None of the othercandidates violate this constraint; (444b–c) satisfy it because the /i/ is not on theright edge; candidates (444d–e) vacuously satisfy it because [antitropal] is a featureof segments. A prosodic unit cannot be antitropal because it has no linear orderwith respect to segments. In other words, the [antitropal] approach only accountsfor segmental affixes.(444)/CVC + {µ1,i2}[antitropal]/ IDENT[ANTITROPAL]a. CVCi2 ˚b. Ci2CVCc. CVC1Cd. CVCC1The MAP approach also faces challenges with morphemes that include non-linear phonological representations that must be linearised relative to segments,such as the Comox-Sliammon diminutive. The tableau in (445) shows thealignment constraints indicated by a MAP analysis of a word consisting of aroot and a diminutive morpheme in Comox-Sliammon; letters mark whether thesegments belong to the root (a) or the diminutive morpheme (b). The constraintsALIGN-R-ROOT and ALIGN-R-DIM require segments associated with the rootand diminutive respectively to be aligned with the right edge of the word; however,the µ allomorph of the diminutive always vacuously satisfies ALIGN-R-DIM,401regardless of where copied material is positioned in the word.(445)/{µ1,i2}b + CVCa/ ALIGN-R-DIM ALIGN-R-ROOTa. Caib,2CaVaCa ˚˚˚b. ib,2CaVaCa ˚˚˚c. CaVaCaib,2 ˚d. CaVaCa,1Cae. CaVaCaCa,1If a floating mora cannot be directly linearised relative to segments, for reasonslaid out in Section 6.4.2, and the segments associated with the mora in (445c–d)are evaluated as root segments in the phonology, then there is no way to ensure thatboth prosodic unit and fixed segment allomorphs will be aligned to the same edge.A feature-based approach to linearisation does not face the same challenges asthe Mirror Theory and Mirror Principle-based approaches because the morphologylinearises all morphemes, including prefixes, prior to the insertion of phonologicalcontent. Morphological linearisation involves material of the same kind (featurebundles) and therefore linear order can be established across morphemes, includingboth fixed segments and prosodic units, which explains their parallel behaviourwith respect to edge-aligned infixation. Following the insertion of phonologicalcontent, both types of input enter the derivation as prefixes. If prefixation andinfixation are both motivated by an [antitropal] feature, then there is nothingaligning a prosodic affix with either edge. If linearisation does not happen until thephonology, as in the MAP approach, prosodic affixes cannot be ordered relativeto segments, which are on a different tier. Neither Mirror-based approach canaccount for the fact that fixed segment and prosodic affixes may both be alignedrelative to the same edge as each other.6.8.2.2 Allomorph SelectionIn the framework developed in this dissertation, allomorph selection can happen atthe second step of lexical insertion (see Section 6.5.1), or during the phonologicalderivation (see Section 6.6.1.3).Allomorph selection at the point of lexical insertion happens when thereare multiple underlying forms for a morpheme and one is inserted. Allomorph402selection at this stage does not necessarily have phonological motivation; it canbe determined by morphosyntactic features/identity of an adjacent morphemeor include lexically-specified allomorphy where a root determines the choice ofallomorph.Allomorph selection during the phonological derivation involves listedallomorphs. When a set of listed allomorphs is inserted at the point of lexicalinsertion, as described in Section 6.5.1, the choice between these possibleallomorphs is left to the phonological grammar. Listed allomorphs allow thegrammar to wait until the morpheme is parsed into the phonological word beforeselecting from available allomorphs; I refer to this as late allomorph selection.Late allomorph selection is necessary for listed allomorphs in Salish languages.For example, Section 5.3.1.3 describes how the plural in Halkomelem may berealised either as reduplication with prosodic unit input or -l- with a fixed segmentinput. The choice between the two allomorphs provides a way to avoid multiplereduplication at the same stratum, because M-AFFILIATION outranks PRIORITY,the constraint favouring the first of the listed allomorphs. Selecting between thetwo allomorphs is impossible prior to the relevant stratum (Level 2).For both listed allomorphs and repairs, the choice between phonologicallyconditioned allomorphs depends on prosodic structure, which the grammar doesnot start building until the first stratum.6.8.3 Phonological, not Morphological DomainsWork in Stratal Phonology typically assumes a tight relationship betweenmorphological and phonological domains. In fact, Kiparsky (2015, p.6) states that“the reason stem, word, and phrase are likely to be universal is that these are thethree universal cross-categorial morphosyntactic units”. However, it is a majorfinding of this dissertation that the strata motivated by Salish reduplication donot correspond to morphosyntactic domains: they must instead be phonologicaldomains.If the strata were defined with respect to morphosyntactic domains, closelyrelated languages would be expected to show less variation with respect to whichtypes of reduplication occur where in the derivation. Specifically, differences in the403level at which reduplicative morphemes are parsed into the prosodic word woulddirectly reflect differences in their morphosyntax, which in turn reflects differencesin semantic composition; this is not the case.For example, the imperfective form of a verb is the base for diminutivereduplication in Halkomelem (Hukari, 1978; Suttles, 2004; Galloway, 2009),which means that the imperfective is parsed into the word at an earlier stratumthan diminutive reduplication (see Section 5.3.1.2). If the strata were defined bymorphosyntactic domains, this would mean that the imperfective must be lowerin the syntactic tree than the diminutive. However, in Lillooet, the imperfective isan independent word waP (see Section 3.5.1.1), which means it is in a separatew-span from diminutive reduplication. Since the diminutive is part of the samew-span as the verb in Halkomelem, it must therefore be lower than the imperfectivein Lillooet. The imperfective in Halkomelem is not compositionally different fromthe imperfective in Lillooet, however; the differences are purely phonological.Considering microvariation across related languages shows that variation inmorpheme-level mappings does not clearly map to variation in morphosyntax orsemantics. There are also ordering paradoxes within a single language that are notpredicted by morphosyntactically defined phononological domains. For example,change-of-state reduplication happens at Level 3 in Comox-Sliammon (analysisin Section 4.1.5.1.2), but progressive reduplication happens at Level 2 (Section4.1.4.1.2). Given that progressive is a type of viewpoint (outer) aspect, whereaschange-of-state is a type of lexical (inner) aspect, we would expect the oppositeorder of derivation were levels to reflect morphosyntactic domains.Defining strata by morphosyntactic domains also predicts more consistency inpermissible and unattested multiple reduplication patterns between languages thanis the case. For example, a comparison of Interior Salish languages in AppendixB (Section B.1) shows that diminutive C1 reduplication can combine withchange-of-state C2 reduplication in Thompson River Salish, Moses Columbia,Montana Salish-Kalispel-Spokane, and Coeur d’Alene, but not in the closelyrelated languages Lillooet, Shuswap, and Okanagan. There is no semantic reasonwhy the diminutive and change-of-state are compatible in the first group but not inthe second. If the strata were defined by morphosyntactic domain, it would meanthe syntax and hence the semantics (order of composition) would have to differ404across Interior Salish languages to account for incompatibility in one case and notthe other.Attested gaps in multiple reduplication are better explained by the phonology(see discussion of restrictions on multiple reduplication in Section 6.6.1.6), whichis only possible if strata are not defined by the morphosyntax.A further implication of my analysis is that there is no place for amorphological stem in the grammar of reduplication; the only morphosyntacticdomain that matters is the word. While a discussion of stem phenomena innon-Salish languages is beyond the scope of my dissertation, I believe that stemslisted “nonanalytically”, in the sense of Bermu´dez-Otero (2017), can be handled inmy model at the point of lexical insertion. For example, I proposed a portmanteauof property-denoting reduplication and the characteristic suffix -t in Lillooet inChapter 4 (Section 4.2.3.2.2) with the lexical entry in (446b); “stored stems” couldinstead involve lexical insertion of a combined root and affix.(446) Lillooet Property-Denoting C1C2 Reduplication:a. σN+µ ô xPDENyb. σN+µ+t ô xPDEN+IMMEDy6.9 ConclusionThe model of the grammar and reduplication described in this chapter andthroughout this dissertation predicts variation arising from two key areas: lexicalentries and grammar. Reduplication in Salish varies in both areas; the approachtaken here can account for the attested patterns, while providing an explanationfor unattested ones. With respect to lexical entries, reduplicative morphemesvary in their underlying representations (i.e., whether they contain segmental orsuprasegmental units), linearisation features (i.e., whether they are prefixes orsuffixes), and level diacritics (i.e., when they are parsed into the phonologicalword). With respect to the grammar, languages differ in morpheme-level andgrammar-level mappings, which correspond to differences in how reduplicativemorphemes are realised.405ReferencesAdler, F. W. (1961). A bibliographical checklist of Chimakuan, Kutenai, Ritwan,Salishan, and Wakashan linguistics. International Journal of AmericanLinguistics, 27(3), 198–210.Alber, B. (2005). Clash, lapse and directionality. Natural Language & LinguisticTheory, 23(3), 485–542.Alderete, J. (2001). Root-controlled accent in Cupen˜o. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory, 19(3), 455–502.Alderete, J., Beckman, J., Benua, L., Gnanadesikan, A., McCarthy, J., &Urbanczyk, S. (1999). Reduplication with fixed segmentism. LinguisticInquiry, 30(3), 327–364.Amoss, P. T. (1961). Nuksack phonemics (Unpublished master’s thesis).University of Washington.Anderson, G. D. (1997). Reduplicated numerals in Salish. Kansas WorkingPapers in Linguistics, 22(2), 1–10.Anderson, G. D. (1999). Reduplicated numerals in Salish. International Journalof American Linguistics, 65(4), 407–448.Andreatta, M., Recalma, J., Qualicum First Nation, & Urbanczyk, S. (2023).Boas and the Babblefish (part I): Turning pentl’ach vowels into consonants.In D. K. E. Reisinger, L. Griffin, G. Mellesmoen, S. Nederveen, J. Schillo,& B. Trotter (Eds.), International Conference on Salish and NeighbouringLanguages (ICSNL) 58 (pp. 1–9). Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Angermeyer, P. (2003). Copying contiguous gestures: An articulatory account ofBella Coola reduplication. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers inLinguistics, 9(1), 17–30.Bagemihl, B. (1990). Syllable structure in Bella Coola. Proceedings of the 21stNorth Eastern Linguistic Society Meeting (NELS 21), 16–30.Bagemihl, B. (1991). Syllable structure in Bella Coola. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(4),589–646.Baker, M. (1985). The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation.406Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 373–416.Bar-el, L. (1998). Verbal plurality and adverbial quantification: A case study ofSkwxwu´7mesh (Squamish Salish) (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universityof British Columbia.Bar-el, L. (2000). Reduplicants are roots in Skwxwu´7mesh (Squamish Salish). InV. Samiian (Ed.), Proceedings of Western Conference on Linguistics(WECOL 2000) (Vol. 12, pp. 81–99).Bar-el, L. (2006). Aspectual distinctions in Skwxwu´7mesh (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of British Columbia.Bar-el, L. (2008). Verbal number and aspect in Skwxwu´7mesh. Rechercheslinguistiques de Vincenne, 37, 31–54.Bar-el, L., & Watt, L. T. (1998). What determines stress in Skwxwu´7mesh(Squamish). Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Salishianand Neighboring Languages (ICSNL 33), 407–427.Bar-el, L., & Watt, L. T. (2001). Word internal constituency in Skwxwu´7mesh(Squamish Salish). In S. Gessner, S. Oh, & K. Shiobara (Eds.), Proceedingsof the 5th Workshop on the Structure and Constituency in Languages of theAmericas (WSCLA 5). Vancouver: University of British Columbia WorkingPapers.Barthmaier, P. T. (1996). A dictionary of Coeur d’Alene Salish from GladysReichard’s file slips (Unpublished master’s thesis). The University ofMontana.Bates, D. (1986). An analysis of Lushootseed diminutive reduplication. InV. Nikiforidou, M. VanClay, & D. Feder (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12thAnnual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 1–13). Berkeley:Berkeley Linguistics Society.Bates, D. (1990). Internal reduplication and Salish prosodic morphology. InB. M. Birch, K. Hunt, & V. Samiian (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd WesternConference of Linguistics (WECOL 3) (pp. 1–8). Fresno, CA: CaliforniaState University Press.Bates, D. (1999). Distance in narrative time and space: Aspect markers anddeterminer choice in Martha Lamont’s “Pheasant and Raven”. Papers forthe 34th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL 34), 1–11.Bates, D., & Carlson, B. (1989). Prosodic structure in Spokane morphology.Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria, 8(1),75–96.Bates, D., & Carlson, B. (1992). Simple syllables in Spokane Salish. LinguisticInquiry, 23(4), 653–659.Bates, D., & Carlson, B. (1998). Spokane (Npoqı´nisˇcn) syllable structure and407reduplication. In E. Czaykowska-Higgins & D. Kinkade (Eds.), Salishlanguages and linguistics (pp. 99–124). Berlin: Mouten de Gruyter.Bates, D., Hess, T., & Hilbert, V. (1994). Lushootseed dictionary. Seattle:University of Washington Press.Beaumont, R. (1985). She shashishalhem: The Sechelt language. Penticton, BC:Theytus Books.Beaumont, R. (2011). Sechelt dictionary. Sechelt, BC: Sechelt Indian Band.Beck, D., & Hess, T. (2014). Tellings from our elders: Lushootseed syeyehub(volume 1: Snohomish texts). Vancouver: University of British ColumbiaPress.Bell, S. J. (1983). Internal C reduplication in Shuswap. Linguistic Inquiry, 14(2),332–338.Bennett, W. G. (2013). Dissimilation, consonant harmony, and surfacecorrespondence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers University.Benua, L. (1997). Transderivational identity: Phonological relations betweenwords (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts,Amherst.Berg, T. (2022). The directionality of reduplicative plurality. Word Structure,15(1), 1–27.Bermu´dez-Otero, R. (2007). Diachronic phonology. In P. de Lacy (Ed.), TheCambridge handbook of phonology (pp. 497–517). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Bermu´dez-Otero, R. (2012). The architecture of grammar and the division oflabour in exponence. In J. Trommer (Ed.), The morphology and phonologyof exponence (pp. 8–83). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bermu´dez-Otero, R. (2017). Stratal phonology. In S. Hannahs & A. Bosch (Eds.),The Routledge handbook of phonological theory (pp. 100–134). London:Routledge.Bessell, N. (1993a). The case for a pharyngeal glide: Evidence from InteriorSalish. In S. Hargus, G. McMenamin, & V. Samiian (Eds.), Proceedings ofthe Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 93) (Vol. 3, pp. 14–25).Fresno: University of Fresno Department of Linguistics.Bessell, N. (1993b). Towards a phonetic and phonological typology of post-velararticulation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of BritishColumbia.Bessell, N., & Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (1991). Interior Salish evidence forplaceless laryngeals. In Proceedings of Northeastern Linguistics Society(NELS) 22 (pp. 35–49). Amherst: GLSA.Bianco, V. M. (1996). The role of sonority in the prosody of Cowichan(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Victoria.408Bird, S. (2000). Diminutive bare-consonant reduplication in St’a´t’imcets.University of Arizona Linguistics Circle.Bird, S., Caldecott, M., Campbell, F., Gick, B., & Shaw, P. (2008). Oral–laryngealtiming in glottalised resonants. Journal of Phonetics, 36(3), 492–507.Bjorkman, B. (2006). Shuswap double reduplication and input-reduplicantfaithfulness. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, 20(2).Black, D. J. (1996). The morphological and phonological structures of Spokanelexemes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Victoria.Blake, S. J. (1992). Two aspects of Sliammon phonology: Glide/obstruentalternation and vowel length (Unpublished master’s thesis). University ofBritish Columbia.Blake, S. J. (2000). On the distribution and representation of schwa in Sliammon(Salish): Descriptive and theoretical perspectives (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of British Columbia.Boas, F. (1886). Pentlatch materials. American Philosophical Society Library,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Boas, F. (1890). Miscellaneous items on Tillamook [Archived materials].American Philosophical Library: American Council of Learned SocietiesCommittee on Native American Languages, American PhilosophicalSociety (ACLS Collection).Bosworth, Y. (2017). High vowel distribution and trochaic markedness inQue´be´cois. The Linguistic Review, 34(1), 39–82.Brody, M. (2000). Word order, restructuring and Mirror Theory. The Derivationof VO and OV , 27–43.Broselow, E. (1983). Salish double reduplications: Subjacency in morphology.Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 1(3), 317–346.Brown, J. (2004). Marked fixed segments in Salish. In C. Ravinski & Y. Chung(Eds.), Proceedings of Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of theLanguages of the Americas (WSCLA) 9 (pp. 100–113). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Brown, J. (2017). Non-adjacent reduplication requires spellout in parallel.Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 35, 955–977.Brown, J., & Thompson, J. (2005). Is Upriver Halkomelem a tone language? InJ. C. Brown, M. Kiyota, & T. Peterson (Eds.), Papers for the 40thInternational Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages ICSNL 40.Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Butler, R. L. (1941). A bibliographical check list of North and Middle AmericanIndian linguistics in the Edward Ayer collection. Chicago: The NewberryLibrary.Caldecott, M. (2003). A preliminary look at glottalised resonants in St’a´t’imcets409[Manuscript].Caldecott, M. (2009). Non-exhaustive parsing: Phonetic and phonologicalevidence from St’a´t’imcets (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universityof British Columbia.Caldecott, M., & Mellesmoen, G. (2018). A preliminary look at glottalizedresonants in PayPajˇuT@m: Not a piece of caique. In L. Matthewson,E. Guntly, M. Huijsmans, & M. Rochemont (Eds.), Wa7 xweysa´s inqwalu´ttensa i ucwalmı´cwa: He loves the people’s languages (pp.693–707). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Occasional Papers inLinguistics.Camp, K. (2007). An interlinear analysis of seven Kalispel texts from Hans Vogt(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Montana.Campos-Astorkiza, R. (2004). Faith in moras: A revised approach to prosodicfaithfulness. In K. Moulton & M. Wolf (Eds.), Proceedings of NortheasternLinguistics Society (NELS) 34 (Vol. 34, pp. 163–174). Amherst: GLSA.Carlson, B. (1972a). A grammar of Spokane: A Salish language of EasternWashington (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii.Carlson, B. (1972b). Unstressed root vowels in Spokane. Papers for the 7thInternational Conference on Salish Languages (ICSL 7).Carlson, B. (1978). Spokane -e-. Papers for the 13th International Conference onSalish Languages (ICSL 13).Carlson, B. (1980). Spokane -e-. International Journal of American Linguistics,46(2), 78–84.Carlson, B. (1989). Reduplication and stress in Spokane. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics, 55(2), 204–213.Carlson, B. (1990). Compounding and lexical affixation in Spokane.Anthropological Linguistics, 32(1/2), 69–82.Carlson, B. (1996). Situation aspect and a Spokane control morpheme.International Journal of American Linguistics, 62(1), 59–69.Carlson, B., & Bates, D. (1990). Modeling out-of-control reduplication inSpokane. Papers for the 25th International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL 25), 73–80.Carlson, B., & Flett, P. (1989). Spokane dictionary. Missoula: University ofMontana Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Carlson, B., & Thompson, L. C. (1981). Out of control in two (maybe more)Salish languages. Papers for the 16th International Conference on Salishand Neighboring Languages (ICSNL 16).Carlson, B., & Thompson, L. C. (1982). Out of control in two (maybe more)Salish languages. Anthropological Linguistics, 24(1), 51–65.Carlson, K. (1997). Sonority and reduplication in Nakanai and Nuxalk (Bella410Coola) [Manuscript – ROA-230]. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Casali, R. F. (1997). Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: Which vowel goes?Language, 493–533.Cho, Y., & King, T. H. (2003). Semisyllables and universal syllabification. Thesyllable in optimality theory, 183–212.Chomsky, N. (2014). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Clements, G. N., & Hume, E. V. (1995). The internal organization of speechsounds. In J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp.245–306). Blackwell.Coelho, G. (1999). Diminutive reduplication in Thompson River Salish. InS. Bird, A. Carnie, J. Haugen, & P. Norquest (Eds.), Proceedings of the18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 82–93).Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Comrie, B., Haspelmath, M., & Bickel, B. (2008). The Leipzig glossing rules:Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Departmentof Linguistics of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology &the Department of Linguistics of the University of Leipzig..Cook, E.-D. (1994). Against moraic licensing in Bella Coola. Linguistic Inquiry,25(2), 309–326.Crawford, A. (2015). Reduplication in Klallam: A description of themorphology-phonology interface (Unpublished master’s thesis). CaliforniaState University.Currie, E. J. (1997). Topic time: The syntax and semantics of Skwxwu´7meshtemporal adverbials (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of BritishColumbia.Curtis, E. S. (1907–1930). The North American Indian: Being a series of volumespicturing and describing the Indians of the United States, the Dominion ofCanada, and Alaska. Norwood: Plimpton Press.Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (1985). Predicting stress in Columbian Salish. Papersfor the 20th International Conference on Salish and NeighbouringLanguages (ICSNL 20).Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (1990). Retraction in Moses-Columbia Salish. Papersfor the 25th International Conference on Salish and NeighbouringLanguages (ICSNL 25), 81–96.Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (1993a). Cyclicity and stress in Moses-Columbia Salish(Nxa’amxcin). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 11(2), 197–278.Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (1993b). The phonology and semantics ofCVC-reduplication in Moses-Columbian Salish. In A. Mattina &T. Montler (Eds.), American Indian linguistics and ethnography in honor ofLaurence C. Thompson (pp. 47–72). Missoula: University of Montana411Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (1998). The morphological and phonologicalconstituent structure of words in Moses-Columbia Salish (NxaPamxcı´n). InE. Czaykowska-Higgins & D. Kinkade (Eds.), Salish languages andlinguistics (pp. 153–196). Berlin: Mouten de Gruyter.Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (2006). Form and function in the Nxa’amxcı´ninchoative. In A. Fujimori & M. A. R. Silva (Eds.), Workshop on theStructure and Constituency of the Languages of the Americas (pp. 40–52).Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Czaykowska-Higgins, E., & Kinkade, D. (1998). Salish languages and linguistics.In E. Czaykowska-Higgins & D. Kinkade (Eds.), Salish languages andlinguistics (pp. 1–70). Berlin: Mouten de Gruyter.Czaykowska-Higgins, E., & Urbanczyk, S. (2001). Maintaining contrast inNxa’amxcin reduplication. In K. Magerdoomian & L. Bar-el (Eds.),Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp.109–122). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Czaykowska-Higgins, E., & Willett, M. L. (1997). Simple syllables inNxaPamxcı´n. International Journal of American Linguistics, 63(3),385–411.Czaykowski, E. (1983). Morphology and Columbian Salish: An examination ofLieber’s on the organization of the lexicon [MA Forum Paper]. Universityof Toronto.Davis, H. (2004). Locative relative clauses in St’a´t’imcets (Lillooet Salish).Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and NeighbouringLanguages (ICSNL 39).Davis, H. (2011). Stalking the adjective in St’a´t’imcets. Northwest Journal ofLinguistics, 5(2), 1–60.Davis, H. (2014). The count-mass distinction in St’a´t’imcets (and beyond). InN. Weber, E. Sadlier-Brown, & E. Guntly (Eds.), Papers for the 49thInternational Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL49) (pp. 155–181). Vancouver, BC: University of British ColumbiaWorking Papers in Linguistics.Davis, H. (2016). St’a´t’imcets and the nonexistence of T-S-V-O languages[Manuscript]. University of British Columbia.Davis, H. (2019). Salish languages. In D. Siddiqi, M. Barrie, C. Gillon,J. Haugen, & E. Mathieu (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of NorthAmerican languages (pp. 452–472). New York: Routledge.Davis, H. (2024). Going radical in Salish. In R. Autry et al. (Eds.), Proceedingsof the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 39 (pp.303–312). Somerville, MD: Cascadilla Press.412Davis, H. (in prep). A teacher’s grammar of Upper St’a´t’imcets. Vancouver andLillooet: PNWLL Press/The Upper St’a´t’imc Language, Culture, andEducation Society.Davis, H., Frank, B., Whitley, R. A., & The Upper St’a´t’imc Language Authority.(in prep). Nqwal’uttenlhka´lha: An English-Upper St’a´t’imcets dictionary.Vancouver and Lillooet: PNWLL Press/The Upper St’a´t’imc Language,Culture, and Education Society.Davis, H., & Huijsmans, M. (2024). Clitics and coordination in two Salishlanguages. In R. Autry et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the West CoastConference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 39 (pp. 504–511). Somerville,MD: Cascadilla Press.Davis, H., Huijsmans, M., & Mellesmoen, G. (2020). Statives in PayPajˇuT@m andSt’a´t’imcets. In D. K. E. Reisinger, H. Green, M. Huijsmans,G. Mellesmoen, & B. Trotter (Eds.), Papers for the 55th InternationalConference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 55) (pp.107–132). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers inLinguistics.Davis, H., & Matthewson, L. (2003). A note on remote: The temporal enclitic tu7in St’a´t’imcets. Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL 38), 47–64.Davis, H., & Matthewson, L. (2022). St’a´t’imcets frustratives as not-at-issuemodals. Linguistics, 60, 1337–1397.Davis, H., & Mellesmoen, G. (2023). A newly discovered reduplication pattern inSt’a´t’imcets and its implications. In D. K. E. Reisinger, L. Griffin,G. Mellesmoen, S. Nederveen, J. Schillo, & B. Trotter (Eds.), Papers forthe 58th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL) 58 (pp. 10–46). Vancouver: University of British ColumbiaWorking Papers in Linguistics.Davis, H., & Trotter, B. (2023). Root clusters in St’a´t’imcets and the organizationof the mental lexicon. In D. K. E. Reisinger, L. Griffin, G. Mellesmoen,S. Nederveen, J. Schillo, & B. Trotter (Eds.), International Conference onSalish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL) 58 (pp. 47–65). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Davis, J. (1970a). Notes on Mainland Comox phonology. Papers for the 5thConference on Salish Languages (ICSL 5).Davis, J. (1970b). Some phonological rules in Mainland Comox (Unpublishedmaster’s thesis). University of Victoria.Davis, J. (1971). Four forms of the verb in Sliammon. Papers for the 6thInternational Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL6).413Davis, J. (2019). Reflexes of Proto-Salish *Pas-stative and *Pis-durative intoday’s Comox. In D. K. E. Reisinger & G. Mellesmoen (Eds.), Papers forthe 54th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL 54) (pp. 53–62). Vancouver: University of British ColumbiaWorking Papers in Linguistics.Davis, J. (2020). The expression of collective in Mainland Comox. InD. K. E. Reisinger, H. Green, M. Huijsmans, G. Mellesmoen, & B. Trotter(Eds.), Papers for the 55th International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL 55) (pp. 143–150). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Davis, S. (1984). Squamish stress clash. In Coyote papers: Working papers inlinguistics from A-Z, studies on Native American Languages, Japanese andSpanish (pp. 2–18). Tucson: University of Arizona Linguistics Circle.Davis, S. (1988). On the nature of internal reduplication. In M. Hammond &M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modernlinguistics (pp. 305–323). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Davis, S., & Ueda, I. (2006). Prosodic vs. morphological mora augmentation.Lexicon Forum, 2, 121–143.de Lacy, P. (2020). The feature [stress]. In E.-A. Urua, F. Egbokhare, O. Ade´s.o. la´,& H. Adeniyi (Eds.), African languages in time and space: A festschrift inhonour of Professor Akinbiyi Akinlabi. Ibadan: Zenith BookHouse.Demers, R. (1974). Alternating roots in Lummi. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics, 40(1), 15–21.Demers, R., & Horn, G. M. (1978). Stress assignment in Squamish. InternationalJournal of American Linguistics, 44(3), 180–191.Demers, R., & Jelinek, E. (1984). Word-building rules and grammaticalcategories of Lummi. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of theUniversity of Victoria, 4(2), 39–49.Demers, R., & Jelinek, E. (1996). Reduplication, quantification, and aspect inStraits Salish. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL 31), 75–78.Doak, I. (1997). Coeur d’Alene grammatical relations (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of Michigan Ann Arbor.Doak, I. (2004). Notes on reduplication in Coeur d’Alene. In D. Gerdts &L. Matthewson (Eds.), Studies in Salish linguistics in honour of M. DaleKinkade (pp. 119–131). Missoula: University of Montana OccasionalPapers in Linguistics.Doak, I. (2023). Reichard’s Coeur d’Alene texts - glossary. Retrieved fromhttp://ivydoak.com/Coeurd’Alene/porth/glossaryP.htm414Downing, L. J. (2008). Co-phonologies and morphological exponence in OT[Conference Handout]. (3rd Exponence Network meeting and Workshop onTheoretical Morphology)Downing, L. J., & Inkelas, S. (2015). What is reduplication? Typology andanalysis part 2/2: The analysis of reduplication. Language and LinguisticsCompass, 9, 516–528.Drachman, G. (1969). Twana phonology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Ohio State University.Dyck, R. A. (2004). Prosodic and morphological factors in Squamish(Skwxwu´7mesh) stress assignment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Victoria.Edel, M. (1935). Tillamook combined vocabulary [Archived materials].American Philosophical Library: American Council of Learned SocietiesCommittee on Native American Languages, American PhilosophicalSociety (ACLS Collection). (Combines materials recorded by Franz Boas,Melville Jacobs, and May Edel.)Edel, M. (1939). The Tillamook language. International Journal of AmericanLinguistics, 10(1), 1–57.Efrat, B. (1969). A grammar of non-particles in Sooke, a dialect of Straits CoastSalish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.Egesdal, S., & Thompson, M. T. (1996). A fresh look at Tillamook inflectionalmorphology. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL 31), 143–158.Egesdal, S., & Thompson, M. T. (1998). A fresh look at Tillamook (Hutye´yu)inflectional morphology. In E. Czaykowska-Higgins & D. Kinkade (Eds.),Salish languages and linguistics (pp. 235–274). Mouten de Gruyter.Elmendorf, W. W., & Suttles, W. (1960). Pattern and change in HalkomelemSalish dialects. Anthropological Linguistics, 1–32.Fidelholtz, J. L. (1978). Plurals and diminutives in Skagit [Manuscript]. MariaCurie-Skłodowska University.First Peoples’ Cultural Council. (2018). Report on the status of B.C. First Nationslanguages. Retrieved from http://www.fpcc.ca/files/PDF/FPCC-LanguageReport-180716-WEB.pdfFitzpatrick, J. (2006). Sources of multiple reduplication in Salish and beyond. InS. T. Bischoff, L. Butler, P. Norquest, & D. Siddiqi (Eds.), Studies inSalishan (pp. 211–240). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology: Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages.Fitzpatrick, J., & Nevins, A. (2003). Phonological occurrences: Relations andcopying [Manuscript]. MIT.Frampton, J. (2009). Distributed reduplication. Cambridge: Massachusetts415Institute of Technology Press.Galloway, B. (1973). Reduplication in the Chilliwack dialect of Halkomelem.Papers for the 8th International Conference on Salish (ICSL 8).Galloway, B. (1977). A grammar of Chilliwack Halkomelem (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation). University of California.Galloway, B. (1980). The structure of Upriver Halkomelem, a grammatical sketchand classified word list for Upriver Halkomelem. Chilliwack: CoqualeetzaEducation Training Center.Galloway, B. (1984a). Examples of reduplication in Upriver Halkomelem[Presentation Handout]. (5th WCOCCSL)Galloway, B. (1984b). Nooksack reduplication. Working Papers of the LinguisticsCircle of the University of Victoria, 4(2), 81–100.Galloway, B. (1986). Samish phonology. Papers for the 21st InternationalConference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 21).Galloway, B. (1988). Some Proto-Central Salish sound correspondences. InW. Shipley (Ed.), In honor of Mary Haas: From the Mary Haas Festival onNative American linguistics (pp. 293–343). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Galloway, B. (1990). A phonology, morphology, and classified word list for theSamish dialect of Straits Salish. Gatineau: Canadian Museum ofCivilization.Galloway, B. (1991). A Salish language with tone and other interestingphonological complexities [Conference Paper]. Chicago. (30th CAIL/90thAAA Annual Meeting, 1991)Galloway, B. (1993a). A grammar of Upriver Halkomelem. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.Galloway, B. (1993b). Nooksack reduplication. In A. Mattina & T. Montler(Eds.), American Indian linguistics and ethnography in honor of LaurenceC. Thompson (pp. 93–112). Missoula: University of Montana OccasionalPapers in Linguistics.Galloway, B. (2009). Dictionary of Upriver Halkomelem. University ofCalifornia Press.Galloway, B., Adams, G., Burton, S., Davis, H., & Trotter, B. (in prep). Nooksackgrammar [Manuscript].Gardiner, D. (1996). Determiner phrases in Secwepemctsin (Shuswap). Papersfor the 31st International Conference on Salish and NeighbouringLanguages (ICSNL 31), 175–183.Gerdts, D. B., & Peter, R. M. (2021). The form and function of nativized namesin Hul’q’umi’num’. Anthropological Linguistics, 63(1/2), 226–242.Ghomeshi, J., Jackendoff, R., Rosen, N., & Russell, K. (2004). Contrastive focusreduplication in English (the salad-salad paper). Natural Language &416Linguistic Theory, 22(2), 307–357.Gibbs, G. (1863). Alphabetical vocabularies of the Clallam and Lummi. NewYork: Cramoisy Press.Gibbs, G. (1877). A dictionary of the Nisqwalli (Nisqually) Indian language,Western Washington. In Contributions to North American ethnology (pp.286–361). Washington: Government Printing Office.Gibson, J. (1964). Quinault phonemics (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universityof Washington.Gibson, J. (1973). Shuswap grammatical structure (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of Hawaii.Gibson, M. (1995). A preliminary analysis of Bella Coola syllable strucure withinan OT framework. Papers in Experimental and Theoretical Linguistics, 3,37–52.Gillon, C. S. (2006). The semantics of determiners: domain restriction inSkwxwu´7mesh (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of BritishColumbia.Giorda, J. (1879). A dictionary of the Kalispel or Flat-head Indian language.Montana: St. Ignatius Print.Goldsmith, J. A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Haag, M. (1998). Word-level evidence for lexical categories in Salishanlanguages. International Journal of American Linguistics, 64(4), 379–393.Haeberlin, H. K. (1918). Types of reduplication in the Salish dialects.International Journal of American Linguistics, 1(2), 154–174.Hage`ge, C. (1981). Le comox lhaamen de Colombie britannique. Pre´sentationd’une langue ame´rindienne. Paris: Revue d’EthnolinguistiqueAme´rindienne.Hale, H. (1846). Ethnography and philology. vol. 6 of United States exploringexpedition during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842. Philadelphia:Lea and Blanchard.Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces ofinflection (Vol. 20). MIT Press.Hammond, M. (1993). Heavy trochees in Choctaw morphology. Phonology,10(2), 325–336.Harris, H. (1981). A grammatical sketch of Comox (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of Kansas.Hayes, B. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. LinguisticInquiry, 20(2), 253–306.Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Universityof Chicago Press.417Heinz, J. (2005). Reconsidering linearity: Evidence from CV metathesis. InJ. Alderete, C. hye Han, & A. Kochetov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24thWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 24) (pp. 200–208).Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Hendricks, S. (1998). Shuswap diminutive reduplication. Department ofLinguistics, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ).Hendricks, S. (1999). Reduplication without template constraints: A study inbare-consonant reduplication (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Arizona.Hess, T. (1966). Snohomish chameleon morphology. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics, 32(4), 350–356.Hess, T. (1967). Snohomish grammatical structure (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of Washington.Hess, T. (1995). Lushootseed reader with introductory grammar (Vol. 1).Missoula: University of Montana.Hess, T. (1998). Lushootseed reader with intermediate grammar (Vol. 2).Missoula: University of Montana.Hess, T. (2006). Lushootseed reader with English translations (Vol. 3). Missoula:University of Montana.Hilbert, V. (1974). On transcribing the Metcalf tapes. Papers for the 9thInternational Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL9).Hill-Tout, C. (1904). Report on the ethnology of the Siciatl of British Columbia, acoast division of the Salish stock. The Journal of the AnthropologicalInstitute of Great Britain and Ireland, 34, 20–91.Hinkson, M. (1999). Salishan lexical suffixes: a study in the conceptualization ofspace (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Simon Fraser University.Howett, C. D. (1993). On the classification of predicates in NìePke´pmx(Thompson River Salish) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University ofBritish Columbia.Huijsmans, M. (2023a). Second-position clitics, from morphosyntax to semantics:the PayPajˇuT@m (Comox-Sliammon) perspective (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of British Columbia.Huijsmans, M. (2023b). PayPajˇuT@m lexical categories. In D. K. E. Reisinger,L. Griffin, G. Mellesmoen, S. Nederveen, J. Schillo, & B. Trotter (Eds.),International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL)58 (pp. 159–187). Vancouver: University of British Columbia WorkingPapers in Linguistics.Huijsmans, M., & McCarthy, M. (2024). The puzzle of plurals in PayPajˇuT@m. InD. K. E. Reisinger et al. (Eds.), International Conference on Salish and418Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL) 59 (pp. 169–186). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Huijsmans, M., & Mellesmoen, G. (2021). How to distribute events: PayPajˇuT@mpluractionals. International Journal of American Linguistics, 87(3),339–368.Huijsmans, M., Mellesmoen, G., & Urbanczyk, S. (2018). To copy or not to copy,that is the question regarding consonant-vowel interactions in PayPajˇuT@mimperfective reduplication. In L. Matthewson, E. Guntly, M. Huijsmans, &M. Rochemont (Eds.), Wa7 xweysa´s i nqwalu´ttensa i ucwalmı´cwa: He lovesthe people’s languages (pp. 661–676). Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Hukari, T. (1976). /h/ reduplication in Cowichan: A sonorant devoicing rule[Manuscript]. University of Victoria.Hukari, T. (1977). Resonant devoicing in Cowichan. Canadian Journal ofLinguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 22(1), 47–61.Hukari, T. (1978). Halkomelem nonsegmental morphology. Papers for the 13thInternational Conference on Salish Languages (ICSL 13), 157–208.Hukari, T. (1981a). Glottalization in Cowichan. Working Papers of theLinguistics Circle of the University of Victoria, 1(2), 233–250.Hukari, T. (1981b). Some phonological problems in the Cowichan l-infix plural.Papers for the 16th International Conference on Salish and NeighbouringLanguages (ICSNL 16).Hukari, T. (1984). The truth about Cowichan imperfectives. Working Papers ofthe Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria, 4(2), 147–161.Hukari, T., & Peter, R. (1995). Cowichan dictionary. Duncan, BC: CowichanTribe.Hyman, L. (1985). A theory of phonological weight. Berlin, Boston: De GruyterMouton.Hyman, L., Inkelas, S., & Sibanda, G. (2008). Morphosyntactic correspondencein Bantu reduplication. In K. Hanson & S. Inkelas (Eds.), In the nature ofthe word: Essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge: MIT Press.Idris, A. A. (1981). The semantic structure of verbal reduplication: a case studyof reduplication in Amharic, Hindi, Malay, Salish and Siroi. KansasWorking Papers in Linguistics, 6, 17–41.Ignace, M., & Ignace, R. (2017). Secwe´pemc people, land, and laws: Yerı´7 reStsq’ey’s-kucw. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.Ingram, D. (1973). The diminutive in Bella Coola. Papers for the 8thInternational Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSL 8).Inkelas, S. (2008). The dual theory of reduplication. Linguistics, 46(2), 351–401.Inkelas, S. (2014). The interplay of morphology and phonology (Vol. 8). Oxford419University Press.Iosad, P. (2016). Prosodic structure and suprasegmental features: Short-vowelstød in Danish. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 19,221–268.Jacobs, P. (2011). Control in Skwxwu´7mesh (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of British Columbia.Jacobs, P. (2012). Vowel harmony and schwa strengthening in Skwxwu´7mesh. InJ. Dunham, J. Lyon, & N. Weber (Eds.), Papers for the 47th InternationalConference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 47) (pp.99–146). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers inLinguistics.Jaker, A., & Kiparsky, P. (2020). Level ordering and opacity in Tetso¸´t’Ine´: AStratal OT account. Phonology, 37(4), 617–655.Jelinek, E., & Demers, R. (1997). Reduplication as a quantifier in Salish.International Journal of American Linguistics, 63(3), 302–315.Jimmie, M. (1994). A prosodic analysis of NìePkepmx reduplication(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of British Columbia.Jones, M. K. (1976). Morphophonemic properties of Cowichan actual aspect(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Victoria.Kager, R. (1999). Optimality theory. Cambridge university press.Kaisse, E. M., & Shaw, P. (1985). On the theory of lexical phonology. In C. Ewen& J. Anderson (Eds.), Phonology yearbook (Vol. 2, pp. 1–30). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Kastner, I., & Tucker, M. (2019). Non-concatenative morphology [Manuscript].Humboldt-Universita¨t zu Berlin and Oakland University.Kenstowicz, M. J. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar (Vol. 7).Cambridge: Blackwell.Kim, H. (1992). Minimality in Lushootseed. University of Washington WorkingPapers in Linguistics, 10, 71–82.Kim, H. (2017a). The truncated reduplication in Twana: Another case ofsynergistic weakening. In A. Anghelescu, M. Fry, M. Huijsmans, &D. Reisinger (Eds.), Papers for the 52nd International Conference on Salishand Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 52) (pp. 119–136). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Kim, H. (2017b). Wrong side reduplications in Salish and Korean. The Discourseand Cognitive Linguistics Society of Korea Conference Papers, 11,167–185.Kim, H., & Gardiner, D. (2016). The truncated reduplication in Tillamook andShuswap: weakening by synergy of dissimilation and cluster simplification.In M. Huijsmans, T. J. Heins, O. Tkachman, & N. Weber (Eds.), Papers for420the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL 42) (pp. 93–107). Vancouver: University of British ColumbiaWorking Papers in Linguistics.Kinkade, M. D. (1963). Phonology and morphology of Upper Chahalis(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Indiana.Kinkade, M. D. (1971). Roster of linguists studying North American Indianlanguages. International Journal of American Linguistics, 37(2), 114–121.Kinkade, M. D. (1975). Pluralization in Upper Chehalis. Papers for the 10thInternational Conference on Salish Languages (ICSL 10).Kinkade, M. D. (1981). Dictionary of the Moses-Columbia language. Nespelem,Washington: Colville Confederated Tribes.Kinkade, M. D. (1982). Columbian (Salish) C2. Anthropological Linguistics,24(1), 66–72.Kinkade, M. D. (1983). Salish evidence against the universality of ‘noun’ and‘verb’. Lingua, 60(1), 25–39.Kinkade, M. D. (1985). Upper Chehalis slow reduplication. Papers for the 20thInternational Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL20), 189–196.Kinkade, M. D. (1989). Inchoatives in Columbian Salish. Papers for the 24thInternational Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages (ICSNL24), 114–119.Kinkade, M. D. (1990). Prehistory of Salishan languages. Papers for the 25thInternational Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL25), 197–208.Kinkade, M. D. (1991). Upper Chehalis dictionary. Missoula: LinguisticsLaboratory, University of Montana.Kinkade, M. D. (1993). The non-lexical basis for a Tsamosan branch of Salish.Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and NeighbouringLanguages (ICSNL 28), 175–203.Kinkade, M. D. (1995). A plethora of plurals: Inflection for number in UpperChehalis. Anthropological Linguistics, 37(3), 347–365.Kinkade, M. D. (1996). Reconstructing aspect in Salishan languages. Papers forthe 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL 31), 185–196.Kinkade, M. D. (1998). How much does a schwa weigh? InE. Czaykowska-Higgins & D. Kinkade (Eds.), Salish languages andlinguistics (pp. 197–218). Berlin: Mouten de Gruyter.Kinkade, M. D. (2004). Cowlitz dictionary and grammatical sketch. Missoula,MT: University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In H. van der421Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations (pp.131–175). Dordrecht: De Gruyter.Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. In C. Ewen &J. Anderson (Eds.), Phonology yearbook (Vol. 2, pp. 85–138). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Kiparsky, P. (2015). Stratal OT: A synopsis and FAQs. In Y. E. Hsiao & L. Wee(Eds.), Capturing phonological shades within and across languages (pp.2–44). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Kirchner, J. S. (2010). Minimal reduplication (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of California.Kirkham, S. (1991). A preliminary analysis of reduplication in Lushootseed: Aprosodic approach. Papers for the 26th International Conference on Salishand Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 26), 241–257.Kirkham, S. (1992). Reduplication in Lushootseed: A prosodic analysis(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Victoria.Kiyota, M. (2008). Situation aspect and viewpoint aspect: From Salish toJapanese (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of BritishColumbia.Ko¨hnlein, B. (2018). Metrically conditioned pitch accent in Uspanteko. InR. Goedemans, J. Heinz, & H. van der Hulst (Eds.), The study of wordstress and accent: Theories, methods and data (pp. 293–322). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Kroeber, P. (1988). Inceptive reduplication in Comox and Interior Salishan.International Journal of American Linguistics, 54(2), 141–167.Kroeber, P. (1999). The Salish language family: Reconstructing syntax. Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.Kroeber, P., & Watanabe, H. (2004). Word-initial developments in NorthernCentral Salish. In D. Gerdts & L. Matthewson (Eds.), Studies in Salishlinguistics in honour of M. Dale Kinkade (pp. 257–278). Missoula:University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Kuipers, A. H. (1967). The Squamish language: Grammar, texts, dictionary.Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Kuipers, A. H. (1974a). The Shuswap language: Grammar, texts, dictionary.Hague: Mouton.Kuipers, A. H. (1974b). Truncated reduplication in Shuswap. Papers for the 9thInternational Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages (ICSNL 9),26–31.Kuipers, A. H. (1989). A report on Shuswap, with a Squamish lexical appendix(Vol. 2). Leuven: Peeters Publishers.Kuipers, A. H. (2002). Salish etymological dictionary. Missoula: Linguistics422Laboratory University of Montana.Kurisu, K. (2001). The phonology of morpheme realization. University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz.Kye, T. (2023). A grammar of Lushootseed: Phonetics, phonology, morphology(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington.Lai, I.-J. S. (1998). The grammar and acquisition of Secwepemctsı´n independentpronouns (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of British Columbia.Leben, W. R. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Legendre, G., Smolensky, P., & Wilson, C. (1998). When is less more?faithfulness and minimal links in wh-chains. In B. Pillar (Ed.), Is the bestgood enough? (pp. 249–289). Cambridge: MIT Press.Leonard, J. (2009). Preliminary investigation of the relationship betweenmorphology and phonology in SENC´OTEN (Saanich). In Proceedings ofthe 23rd Northwest Linguistics Conference (NWLC 23) (pp. 141–152).Victoria: Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University ofVictoria.Leonard, J. (2019). The phonological representation and distribution of vowel inSENC´OTEN (Saanich) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University ofVictoria.Leonard, J., & Turner, C. (2010). Predicting the shape of SENC´OTENimperfectives. In D. Beck (Ed.), Festschrift for Thomas M. Hess on theoccasion of his 70th birthday (pp. 82–112). Bellingham: WhatcomMuseum Publication.Leslie, A. R. (1979). A grammar of the Cowichan dialect of Halkomelem Salish(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia.Levin, J. (1985). A metrical theory of syllabicity (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Lieber, R. (1992). Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactictheory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lombardi, L., & McCarthy, J. (1991). Prosodic circumscription in Choctawmorphology. Phonology, 8(1), 37–72.Lonsdale, D. W. (2001). A two-level implementation for Lushootseedmorphology. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL 36), 203–214.Loriot, J. (1964). A selected bibliography of comparative American Indianlinguistics. International Journal of American Linguistics, 30(1), 62–80.Luntzlara, N. (in prep). NìePkepmxcı´n diminutive reduplication [Manuscript].University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Lyon, J. (2010). Lawrence Nicodemus’s Snchitsu’umshtsn file card collection in423dictionary format. Northwest Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 1–110.Lyon, J., & Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (2020). Orbital clitics in NxaPamxcˇı´n. InD. K. E. Reisinger, H. Green, M. Huijsmans, G. Mellesmoen, & B. Trotter(Eds.), Papers for the 55th International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL 55) (pp. 199–237). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Lyon, J., & Greene-Wood, R. (2007). Lawrence Nicodemus’s Coeur d’Alenedictionary in root format. Missoula: University of Montana OccasionalPapers in Linguistics.Lyon, J., & Ignace, M. (2021). Comparing futures: Nsyilxcn mi andSecwepemctsin me7. In D. K. E. Reisinger, L. G. Hannah Green,M. Huijsmans, G. Mellesmoen, & B. Trotter (Eds.), Papers for the 56thInternational Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages ICSNL 56(pp. 167–225). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papersin Linguistics.Lıˇ, Y., & Ponsford, D. (2018). Predicative reduplication: Functions, theirrelationships and iconicities. Linguistic Typology, 22(1), 51–117.Marantz, A. (1982). Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(3), 435–482.Marinakis, A. (2004). A preliminary description of consonant clusters in UpriverHalq’emeylem. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL 39), 283–302.Marlo, M. (2004). CVX theory in CCCCCCVX languages: Implications foruniversal grammar. Journal of Universal Language, 5(2), 75–99.Martin, J. (1975). A survey of the current study and teaching of North AmericanIndian languages in the United States and Canada. CAL-ERIC/CLL Serieson Languages and Linguistics.Mascaro´, J. (2007). External allomorphy and lexical representation. LinguisticInquiry, 38(4), 715–735.Matthewson, L. (1992). Prosodic morphology in Alabama negation. Printed byMultilih Department Victoria University of Welington, 38.Matthewson, L. (1994). Syllable structure in St’a´t’imcets. Proceedings of CLA1994.Matthewson, L. (2000). On distributivity and pluractionality. Semantics andLinguistic Theory, 10, 98–114.Matthewson, L. (2005). When I was small: I wan kwikws. University of BritishColumbia Press.Matthewson, L., Rullman, H., & Davis, H. (2005). Modality in St’a´t’imcets. InJ. C. Brown, M. Kiyota, & T. Peterson (Eds.), Papers for the 40thInternational Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages ICSNL 40(pp. 166–183). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers424in Linguistics.Mattina, A. (1973). Colville grammatical structure (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of Hawaii.Mattina, A. (1979). The morphophonotactics of Colville full vowels. Papers forthe 14th International Conference on Salish Languages (ICSL 14).Mattina, A. (1987). Colville-Okanagan dictionary. Missoula, Montana:University of Montana.Mattina, A. (1989). Interior Salish post-Vogt: A report and bibliography.International Journal of American linguistics, 55(1), 85–94.Mattina, A. (1993). (V)C2 reduplication in Colville-Okanagan, with historicalnotes. In A. Mattina & T. Montler (Eds.), American Indian linguistics andethnography in honor of Laurence C. Thompson (pp. 215–233). Missoula:University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Mattina, A., & Peterson, S. (1997). Diminutives in Colville-Okanagan. Papersfor the 32nd International Conference on Salish and NeighbouringLanguages (ICSNL 32), 317–324.Mattina, N. (1996). Aspect and category in Okanagan word formation(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Simon Fraser University.McCarthy, J. (1986). OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. LinguisticInquiry, 17(2), 207–263.McCarthy, J. (1995). Extensions of faithfulness: Rotuman revisited. LinguisticsDepartment Faculty Publication Series, 36.McCarthy, J. (2000). Faithfulness and prosodic circumscription. In J. Dekkers,F. van der Leeuw, & J. van de Weijer (Eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology,syntax, and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.McCarthy, J. (2003). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology, 20(1), 75–138.McCarthy, J., & Broselow, E. (1983). A theory of internal reduplication. TheLinguistic Review, 3(1), 25–88.McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1986). Prosodic Morphology [Manuscript].University of Massachusetts and Brandeis University.McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: Optimalityin Prosodic Morphology. In M. Gonza`lez (Ed.), Proceedings of the NorthEast Linguistic Society (NELS) 24 (pp. 333–379). Amherst: GLSA.McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity.Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series, 10.McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1999). Faithfulness and identity in ProsodicMorphology. In R. Kager, H. van der Hulst, & W. Zonneveld (Eds.), Theprosody-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. S. (1990). Foot and word in Prosodic Morphology:The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 8(2),425209–283.McCarthy, J., & Wolf, M. (2007). Less than zero: Correspondence and the nulloutput [Manuscript – ROA-722]. (Rutgers Optimality Archive)Mellesmoen, G. (2017). All the small things: Diminutive reduplication asinfixation in PayPajˇuT@m. In A. Anghelescu, M. Fry, M. Huijsmans, &D. Reisinger (Eds.), Papers for the 52nd International Conference on Salishand Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 52) (pp. 151–169). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Mellesmoen, G. (2018a). A one (morpheme) by one (morpheme) approach topaPapyaP: -VP- as a temporal pluractional infix in Comox-Sliammon. InM. Huijsmans, R. Lo, O. Tkachman, & D. Reisinger (Eds.), Papers for the53rd International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL 53) (pp. 143–160). Vancouver: University of British ColumbiaWorking Papers in Linguistics.Mellesmoen, G. (2018b). Sonorant voicing ([SV]) in Comox-Sliammon. InM. Huijsmans, R. Lo, O. Tkachman, & D. Reisinger (Eds.), Papers for the53rd International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL 53) (pp. 125–141). Vancouver: University of British ColumbiaWorking Papers in Linguistics.Mellesmoen, G. (2020). A reanalysis of CV-reduplication in Comox-Sliammon.In Proceedings of the 35th annual Northwest Linguistics Conference(NWLC 35) (pp. 1–10). Victoria: Working Papers of the Linguistics Circleof the University of Victoria.Mellesmoen, G. (2021a). Endangered languages as heritage languages:Divergent attainment and phonological regularization of diminutivereduplication in Comox-Sliammon (Salish) [Presentation]. (Talk given atWorkshop on Heritage Languages and Bilingualism: Collaboration andSynthesis (at 12th International Conference of Nordic and GeneralLinguistics)Mellesmoen, G. (2021b). Syllables and reduplication in Bella Coola (Nuxalk). InD. K. E. Reisinger, L. G. Hannah Green, M. Huijsmans, G. Mellesmoen, &B. Trotter (Eds.), Papers for the 56th International Conference on Salishand Neighbouring Languages ICSNL 56 (pp. 226–243). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Mellesmoen, G. (2022). DIG reconstruction and the secret life of Proto-Salishdiminutives: An amphichronic analysis of diminutives in Upper Chehalis.In D. K. E. Reisinger, L. Griffin, G. Mellesmoen, S. Nederveen, B. Oliver,& B. Trotter (Eds.), Papers for the 57th International Conference on Salishand Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 57) (pp. 67–86). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.426Mellesmoen, G. (2023). The mora is key to unified analysis of microvariation inreduplication: The distribution and form of plural reduplication acrossdialects of Straits (Salish) [Presentation]. (Talk given at the 30thManchester Phonology Meeting (mfm30): Fringe Workshop - Moraic vs.X-Slot Syllabification)Mellesmoen, G. (2024a). Phonetic, phonological, and morphological sources ofvowel reduplication: The innovation of V1 reduplication in Salish. InD. K. E. Reisinger et al. (Eds.), International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL) 59 (pp. 300–320). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Mellesmoen, G. (2024b). Reduplicative morphemes and their non-reduplicativeallomorphs in Stratal OT: Stem-level and word-level reduplication inHul’q’umi’num’. In R. Autry et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the West CoastConference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 39 (pp. 346–351). Somerville,MD: Cascadilla Press.Mellesmoen, G. (in press). Monomoraic syllables with non-moraic vowels inSalish: The structure of a monomoraic syllable in Comox-Sliammonreduplication. In Proceedings of the 41st West Coast Conference on FormalLinguistics (WCCFL) 41. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Mellesmoen, G., Davis, H., & Matthewson, L. (2020). Decomposing distributivenumerals in PayPajˇuT@m (Comox-Sliammon Salish). In M. Franke,N. Kompa, M. Liu, J. L. Mueller, & J. Schwab (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinnund Bedeutung (SuB) 24 (Vol. 2, pp. 72–89). Osnabru¨ck and Berlin:Osnabru¨ck University and Humboldt University of Berlin.Mellesmoen, G., & Huijsmans, M. (2019a). The relationship betweenpronunciation and orthography: Using acoustic analysis as a practicalillustration of PayPajˇuT@m (Comox-Sliammon) vowel quality. InS. Calhoun, P. Escudero, M. Tabain, & P. Warren (Eds.), Proceedings of the19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Melbourne,Australia (pp. 979–983). Canberra: Australasian Speech Science andTechnology Association Inc.Mellesmoen, G., & Huijsmans, M. (2019b). Stative allomorph selection andraised pitch in PayPajˇuT@m. In D. K. E. Reisinger & G. Mellesmoen (Eds.),Papers for the 54th International Conference on Salish and NeighbouringLanguages (ICSNL 54) (pp. 139–162). Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Mellesmoen, G., & Huijsmans, M. (2019c). Types of pluractionality and pluralityacross domains in PayPajˇuT@m. In K. Blake, F. Davis, K. Lamp, & J. Rhyne(Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Semantics and Linguistic Theory conference(SALT 29) (pp. 103–116). Linguistics Society of America.427Mellesmoen, G., & Urbanczyk, S. (2020). Mora affixation and Halkomelemimperfective allomorphy. In D. K. E. Reisinger, H. Green, M. Huijsmans,G. Mellesmoen, & B. Trotter (Eds.), Papers for the 55th InternationalConference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 55) (pp.238–256). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers inLinguistics.Mellesmoen, G., & Urbanczyk, S. (2021a). Avoiding multiple reduplicationwithout INTEGRITY. In D. K. E. Reisinger & M. Huijsmans (Eds.),Proceedings of the 37th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics(WCCFL 37) (pp. 169–178). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Mellesmoen, G., & Urbanczyk, S. (2021b). Binarity in Prosodic Morphology andelsewhere. In R. Bennett et al. (Eds.), Supplemental proceedings of the2020 Annual Meeting on Phonology (AMP). Washington: LinguisticSociety of America.Mellesmoen, G., & Urbanczyk, S. (2021c). Some remarks on the distribution andrepresentation of glottalized resonants in Salish. In D. K. E. Reisinger,L. G. Hannah Green, M. Huijsmans, G. Mellesmoen, & B. Trotter (Eds.),Papers for the 56th International Conference on Salish and NeighbouringLanguages ICSNL 56 (pp. 244–267). Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Mellesmoen, G., & Urbanczyk, S. (2024). Reduplication and “vowel reduction”in Lushootseed. In D. K. E. Reisinger et al. (Eds.), International Conferenceon Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL) 59 (pp. 321–338).Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Mitchell, M. (1975). A dictionary of Songish, a dialect of Straits Salish(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Victoria.Mitchell, S. (2022). Wa7 sqwe´qwel’ sSam: St’a´t’imcets stories from Sam Mitchell(J. Lyon & H. Davis, Eds.). Lillooet and Vancouver: The Upper St’a´t’imcLanguage Culture and Education Society and the Pacific NorthwestLanguages and Literatures Press.Modrow, R. H. (1969). Introduction to the Quinault language. Taholah: QuinaultIndian Tribe of Washington.Modrow, R. H. (1971). The Quinauult dictionary. Taholah: Quinault IndianNation.Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Lexical phonology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Monahan, P. (2002). Varied alignment in the Halkomelem continuativereduplicant [Manuscript – ROA-508]. Rutgers Optimality Archive.Montler, T. (1986). An outline of the morphology and phonology of Saanich,North Straits Salish. Missoula, MT: University of Montana Occasional428Papers in Linguistics.Montler, T. (1988). Infixation, reduplication, and metathesis in the Saanich actualaspect. Papers for the 23rd International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL 23), 1–15.Montler, T. (1989). Infixation, reduplication, and metathesis in the Saanich actualaspect. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 9(1), 92–107.Montler, T. (2012). Klallam dictionary. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Montler, T. (2015). Klallam grammar. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Montler, T. (2018). SENC´OTEN: A dictionary of the Saanich language. Seattle:University of Washington Press.Montler, T., & Bates, D. (1998). The major processes affecting Klallam vowels.Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Salishian andNeighboring Languages (ICSNL 33), 366–373.More´n, B. T. (1997). Markedness and faithfulness constraints on the associationof moras: The dependency between vowel length and consonant weight(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Maryland.More´n, B. T. (1999). Distinctiveness, coercion and sonority: A unified theory ofweight (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland.Myers, S. (1997). OCP effects in optimality theory. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory, 15(4), 847–892.Nakamura, Y. (2000). Secwepmctsı´n (Shuswap) reduplication. In S. Gessner &S. Oh (Eds.), Papers for the 35th International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL 35) (pp. 171–184). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Nater, H. (1978). Reduplication patterns in Bella Coola. Papers for the 13thInternational Conference on Salish Languages (ICSL 13), 1-12.Nater, H. (1984). The Bella Coola language. Ottawa: National Museums ofCanada.Nater, H. (1989). Reduplication in Bella Coola: Concluding observations. Papersfor the 24th International Conference on Salish and NeighboringLanguages (ICSNL 24), 42–45.Nater, H. (1990). A concise Nuxalk-English dictionary. Ottawa: University ofOttawa Press.Nelson, N. (1998). Right anchor, aweigh [Manuscript – ROA-284]. RutgersOptimality Archive.Nelson, N. (2003). Asymmetric anchoring (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Rutgers University.Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology (Vol. 28). Walter de Gruyter.Newman, S. (1937). Bella Coola grammatical summaries [Manuscript].American Philosophical Society. (Nuxalk materials, ACLS collection)429Newman, S. (1947). Bella Coola I: Phonology. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics, 13(3), 129–134.Newman, S. (1971). Bella Coola reduplication. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics, 37(1), 34–38.Nicodemus, L. G. (1975). Snchitsu’umshtsn: The Coeur d’Alene language. TheCoeur D’Alene Tribe.Nolan, T. (2017). A phonetic investigation of vowel variation in Lekwungen(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Victoria.O¨zc¸elik, O¨. (2014). Prosodic faithfulness to foot edges: the case of Turkish stress.Phonology, 31(2), 229–269.Palmer, G. B., Kinkade, M. D., & Turner, N. J. (2003). The grammar ofSnchı´tsu’umshtsn (Coeur d’Alene) plant names. Journal of Ethnobiology,23(1), 65–100.Park, M. (1999). Evidence for phonological derivations: A case of opacity inLushootseed [Conference Paper]. (Papers for the Mid-America LinguisticsConference)Park, M. (2000). Surface opacity and phonological issues in Klamath andLushootseed (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University ofWisconsin–Madison.Parker, S. (2011). Sonority. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, &K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology (Vol. 2, pp.1160–1184). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Paschen, L. (2018). The interaction of reduplication and segmental mutation: Aphonological account (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universita¨tLeipzig.Pattison, L. C. (1978). Douglas Lake Okanagan: Phonology and morphology(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of British Columbia.Pete, T. (2010). selisˇ nyoPnumtn: Medicine for the Salish language. (English toSalish translation dictionary). Salish Kootenai College Press.Pierrehumbert, J. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In C. Gussenhoven &N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 101–140). Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter.Pilling, J. C. (1893). Bibliography of the Salishan languages. Washington: USGovernment Printing Office.Post, J. A. (1904). Kalispel grammar [manuscript]. Archives of the OregonProvince of the Society of Jesus, Crosby Library, Gonzaga University.Prillop, K. (2013). Feet, syllables, moras and the Estonian quantity system.Linguistica Uralica, 49(1), 1–29.Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction ingenerative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.430Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2008). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction ingenerative grammar. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Pulhug, A. (2023). Reconstructing pentl’ach reduplication for languagereclamation [Poster]. University of Victoria. (Jamie Cassels UndergraduateResearch Awards)Pulleyblank, D. (2008). Patterns of reduplication in Yoruba. In K. Hanson &S. Inkelas (Eds.), The nature of the word: Studies in honor of PaulKiparsky. MIT Press.Raffo, Y. A. (1970). Songish aspectual system. Papers for the 5th Conference onSalish Languages (ICSL 5).Raffo, Y. A. (1972). A phonology and morphology of Songish, a dialect of StraitsSalish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas.Raimy, E. (2009). A case of appendicitis. In E. Raimy & C. E. Cairns (Eds.),Contemporary views on architecture and representations in phonology (pp.177–188). Cambridge: MIT Press.Raimy, E., & Idsardi, W. (1997). A minimalist approach to reduplication inOptimality Theory. In North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 27 (pp.369–382). Amherst: GLSA.Ransom, J. E. (1945). Notes on Duwamish phonology and morphology.International Journal of American Linguistics, 11(4), 204–210.Reichard, G. A. (1938). Coeur d’Alene. In F. Boas & H. Hoijer (Eds.), Handbookof American Indian Languages, part 3 (pp. 515–707). New York: JJAugustin.Reichard, G. A. (1959). A comparison of five Salish languages: V. InternationalJournal of American Linguistics, 25(4), 239–253.Reisinger, D. (2024). The count-mass distinction in PayPajˇuT@m. InD. K. E. Reisinger et al. (Eds.), International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL) 59 (pp. 466–481). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Reisinger, D., & Griffin, L. (2022). Unearthing long-forgotten treasures: Theearly Comox-Sliammon materials. In D. K. E. Reisinger, L. Griffin,G. Mellesmoen, S. Nederveen, B. Oliver, & B. Trotter (Eds.), Papers for the57th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL 57) (pp. 87–142). Vancouver: University of British ColumbiaWorking Papers in Linguistics.Revithiadou, A. (1999). Headmost accent wins: Head dominance and idealprosodic form in lexical accent systems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Universiteit Leiden.Roberts, T. (1993). Lillooet stress shift and its implications for syllable structureand prosody. Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and431Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 28), 293–315.Robertson, D. (2004). On the meaning of Thompson resonant glottalization.ICSNL.Robertson, D. (2011). Kamloops Chinu´k Wawa, Chinuk pipa, and the vitality ofpidgins (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Victoria.Robertson, D. (2014). ì@ ’wa´’lm@sˇ (Lower Chehalis) morphosyntax. In N. Weber,E. Sadlier-Brown, & E. Guntly (Eds.), Papers for the 49th InternationalConference on Salish and Neighboring Languages (pp. 89–153).Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Working Papers inLinguistics.Rowicka, G. J. (2006). Pronominal markers in Quinault (Salish). InternationalJournal of American Linguistics, 72(4), 451–476.Rubino, C. (2013). Reduplication (v2020.3) [Data set]. In M. S. Dryer &M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online.Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrievedfrom https://wals.info/Saba Kirchner, J. (2013). Minimal reduplication and reduplicative exponence.Morphology, 23(2), 227–243.Sagey, E. C. (1986). The representation of features and relations in non-linearphonology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.Samuels, B. (2010). The topology of infixation and reduplication. The LinguisticReview, 27(2), 131–176.Sapir, E. (1915). Noun reduplication in Comox, a Salish language of VancouverIsland. Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau.Saunders, R., & Davis, P. (1972). Verbal categories in Bella Coola reduplication[Conference Paper]. San Diego. (Paper presented at XIth Conference onAmerican Indian Languages)Schillo, J. (2024). Predictability of vowel retraction in Secwepemctsı´n localretraction contexts (Unpublished master’s thesis). Simon Fraser University.Scouler, J. (1841). Observations on the Indigenous tribes of the N.W. coast ofAmerica. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London, 11,215–251.Selkirk, E. O. (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure.In T. Fretheim (Ed.), Nordic prosody II (pp. 111–140). Trondheim: TAPIR.Shaw, P. (1993). The prosodic constituency of minor syllables. In E. Duncan,D. Farkas, & P. Spaelti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th West CoastConference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 12) (pp. 117–132). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Shaw, P. (2002). On the edge: Obstruent clusters in Salish. In L. Bar-el, L. Watt,432& I. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Structure andConstituency in the Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) 7 (pp. 119–136).Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Shaw, P. (2004). Reduplicant order and identity: Never trust a Salish CVC either.In D. Gerdts & L. Matthewson (Eds.), Studies in Salish linguistics inhonour of M. Dale Kinkade (pp. 1–26). Missoula: University of MontanaOccasional Papers in Linguistics.Shaw, P. (2005). Non-adjacency in reduplication. In B. Hurch (Ed.), Studies onreduplication (pp. 161–210). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Shaw, P. (2008). Inside access: The prosodic role of internal morphologicalconstituency. In K. Hanson & S. Inkelas (Eds.), The nature of the word:Studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky (p. 241—272). Cambridge: MIT Press.Shaw, P., Blake, S., Campbell, J., & Shepherd, C. (1999). Stress inhen’q’emin’em’ (Musqueam) Salish. In M. Caldecott, S. Gessner, &E. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Structure and Constituencyin the Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) 4 (pp. 131–163). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Skokomish Indian Tribe. (2020). tuwaduq: The Twana language e-dictionaryproject. Skokomish: Skokomish Nation.Snow, C. T. (1969). A Lower Chehalis phonology (Unpublished master’s thesis).University of Kansas.Snyder, W. A. (1968). Southern Puget Sound Salish: Phonology andmorphology. Sacremento, CA: Sacramento Anthropological Society.Speck, B. J. (1977). An edition of Father Post’s Kalispel grammar (Unpublishedmaster’s thesis). The University of Montana.Squamish Nation Education Department. (2011). Skwxwu´7mesh Snı´chimXwelı´ten Snı´chim: Skexwts. North Vancouver and Seattle: Squamish NationEducation Department and University of Washington Press.Steiner, R. (in prep). Semantics of lexical suffixes in nìePkepmxcı´n [Manuscript].University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Stonham, J. (1994). Combinatorial morphology. Amsterdam and Philidelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.Stonham, J. (2007). Metathesis as prosodic repair. Studies in Phonetics,Phonology, and Morphology, 13(1), 3–24.Struijke, C. (2000). Why constraint conflict can disappear in reduplication. InM. Hirotani (Ed.), Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistics Society(NELS) 30 (pp. 613–626). Amherst: CLSA.Suttles, W. (1990). Handbook of North American Indians: Northwest Coast(volume 7). Smithsonian Institution.Suttles, W. (2004). Musqueam reference grammar. Vancouver: University of433British Columbia Press.Suttles, W. (n.d.). Pacific Northwest languages by family Map.Svenonius, P. (2012). Spanning [Manuscript]. University of Tromsø.Svenonius, P. (2016). Spans and words. In D. Siddiqi & H. Harley (Eds.),Morphological metatheory (pp. 201–222). John Benjamins PublishingCompany.Svenonius, P. (2022). Verb clusters in North Germanic: A spanning analysis[Manuscript]. University of Tromsø.Svenonius, P., & Bye, P. (2012). Non-concatenative morphology asepiphenomenon. In J. Trommer (Ed.), The morphology and phonology ofexponence (pp. 427–495). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Swan, J. (1857). The Northwest coast: Or, three years’ residence in WashingtonTerritory. New York: Harper.Taylor, T. M. (1996). Shuswap glottal dissimilation and locality theory inphonology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota.Thomason, S. (1996). Irregular velar developments in Montana Salish. Papers forthe 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL 31), 313–320.Thomason, S. (1997). Plurals and transitivity in Montana Salish. Papers for the32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL 32), 352–362.Thomason, S. (1999). Crackle, plop, twinkle: Sound-symbolic words in MontanaSalish. Papers for the 34th International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL 34), 251–266.Thompson, J. (2005a). Plurality in the verbal domain of Upriver Halkomelem.Proceedings from the 8th Workshop on American Indigenous Languages(WAIL 8), 63–77.Thompson, J. (2005b). Vowel duration in Upriver Halkomelem. Papers for the40th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL 40), 225–233.Thompson, J. (2009). On verbal number in Upriver Halkomelem. [Manuscript].University of British Columbia.Thompson, J. (2012). Syntactic nominalization in Halkomelem Salish(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia.Thompson, L. C. (1985). Control in Salish grammar. In F. Plank (Ed.), Relationaltypology (pp. 391–428). Berlin: Mouton.Thompson, L. C., & Thompson, M. T. (1968). Metathesis as a grammaticalprocess in Clallam. Papers for the 3rd International Conference on SalishLanguages (ICSL 3).Thompson, L. C., & Thompson, M. T. (1971). Clallam: A preview. In J. Sawyer434(Ed.), Studies in American Indian languages 65 (pp. 251–294). LosAngeles, CA: University of California Publications Linguistics.Thompson, L. C., & Thompson, M. T. (1981). Affective derivatives in ThompsonRiver Salish. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics, 3,119–127.Thompson, L. C., & Thompson, M. T. (1985). A Grassmann’s law for Salish.Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications, 20, 134–147.Thompson, L. C., & Thompson, M. T. (1992). The Thompson language.Missoula: University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Thompson, L. C., & Thompson, M. T. (1996). Thompson River Salish dictionary.University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Thompson, L. C., Thompson, M. T., & Egesdal, S. M. (1996). Sketch ofThompson, a Salish language. In I. Goddard (Ed.), Handbook of AmericanIndians, volume 17: Languages (pp. 609–643). Washington: SmithsonianInstitute.Thompson, N. (1979). Twana dictionary. Twana Language Project: SkokomishIndian Tribe.Thompson, N. (1985). Twana baby talk and its theoretical implications(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington.Topintzi, N. (2005). Word minimality in Bella Coola as evidence for moraiconsets. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago LinguisticSociety, 41(1), 489–503.Topintzi, N. (2006). Moraic onsets. London: University of London/UniversityCollege London.Topintzi, N. (2010). Onsets: Suprasegmental and prosodic behaviour. CambridgeUniversity Press.Trommer, J. (2023). Dominance meets ghost vowels: Moses-Columbia Salishaccent revisited [Presentation]. (Talk given at the 30th ManchesterPhonology Meeting)Truth & Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Canada’s residentialschools: The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission ofCanada (vol. 1). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.Turner, C. (2005). Resultatives and actuals in SENC´OTEN. In J. C. Brown,M. Kiyota, & T. Peterson (Eds.), Papers for the 40th InternationalConference on Salish and Neighboring Languages ICSNL 40.Turner, C. (2006). SENC´OTEN resultive construction (Unpublished master’sthesis). University of Victoria.Turner, C. (2007). The SENC´OTEN resultative construction. Northwest Journalof Linguistics, 1(3), 1–92.Turner, C. (2010). Aspectual properties of SENC´OTEN reflexives. In J. Dunham435& J. M. Lyon (Eds.), Papers for the 45th International Conference on Salishand Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 45) (pp. 245–268). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Turner, C. (2011). Representing events in Saanich (Northern Straits Salish): Theinteraction of aspect and valence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Surrey.Tweddell, C. E. (1950). The Snoqualmie-Duwamish dialects of Puget SoundCoast Salish. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Urbanczyk, S. (1996a). Morphological templates in reduplication. InK. Kusumoto (Ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society(NELS) 26 (pp. 425–440). Boston: University of Massachusetts.Urbanczyk, S. (1996b). Preliminary remarks on Lushootseed syncope. Papers forthe 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL 31), 321–325.Urbanczyk, S. (1998). Avoidance of the marked [Manuscript]. University ofBritish Columbia and University of Victoria.Urbanczyk, S. (1999). Double reduplications in parallel. In R. Kager, H. van derHulst, & W. Zonneveld (Eds.), The prosody-morphology interface (pp.390–428). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Urbanczyk, S. (2000). Reduplicative size-segmentism correlations as root-affixasymmetries. Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics, 22, 93–146.Urbanczyk, S. (2001). Patterns of reduplication in Lushootseed. New York:Garland Publishing Inc.Urbanczyk, S. (2004a). A note on paradigm uniformity and priority of the root.In L. J. Downing, T. A. Hall, & R. Raffelsiefen (Eds.), Paradigms inphonological theory, Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics. Oxford:Oxford Academic.Urbanczyk, S. (2004b). Plurality and ablaut in Central Salish. In D. Gerdts &L. Matthewson (Eds.), Studies in Salish linguistics in honour of M. DaleKinkade (pp. 429–453). Missoula: University of Montana OccasionalPapers in Linguistics.Urbanczyk, S. (2005). Enhancing contrast in reduplication. In B. Hurch (Ed.),Studies on reduplication (pp. 211–237). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Urbanczyk, S. (2006). Reduplicative form and the root-affix asymmetry. NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory, 24, 179-240.Urbanczyk, S. (2010). Evolution of Halkomelem aspectual allomorphy. InD. Beck (Ed.), Festschrift for Thomas M. Hess on the occasion of his 70thbirthday (pp. 148–178). Bellingham: Whatcom Museum Publication.Urbanczyk, S. (2011). Evidence from Halkomelem for word-based morphology.In Papers for 46th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring436Languages (ICSNL 46) (pp. 470–489). University of British ColumbiaWorking Papers in Linguistics.Urbanczyk, S. (2019). Prosodic morphology and reduplication. In D. Siddiqi,M. Barrie, C. Gillon, J. Haugen, & E. Mathieu (Eds.), The Routledgehandbook of North American languages (pp. 91–113). New York:Routledge.Van Eijk, J. (1981a). Reduplication in Lillooet. Papers for the 16th InternationalConference on Salish and Neighboring Languages (ICSNL 16), 91–102.Van Eijk, J. (1981b). Stress in Lillooet. Papers for the 16th InternationalConference on Salish and Neighboring Languages (ICSNL 16).Van Eijk, J. (1990a). Syllable-based reduplication in Shuswap: An analysis ofstudent errors. Papers for the 25th International Conference on Salish andNeighbouring Languages (ICSNL 25), 125–132.Van Eijk, J. (1990b). VC reduplication in Salish. Anthropological Linguistics,32(3/4), 228–262.Van Eijk, J. (1993). CVC reduplication and infixation in Lillooet. In A. Mattina& T. Montler (Eds.), American Indian linguistics and ethnography in honorof Laurence C. Thompson (pp. 317–326). Missoula: University of MontanaOccasional Papers in Linguistics.Van Eijk, J. (1997). The Lillooet language: Phonology, morphology, syntax.Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Van Eijk, J. (1998a). CVC reduplication in Salish. In E. Czaykowska-Higgins &D. Kinkade (Eds.), Salish languages and linguistics (pp. 453–476). Berlin:Mouten de Gruyter.Van Eijk, J. (1998b). The morphological status of partial reduplication: Evidencefrom Lushootseed and Lillooet. In M. Janse (Ed.), Productivity andcreativity: Studies in general and descriptive linguistics in honor of E. M.Uhlenbeck (pp. 433–448). Berlin: de Gruyter.Van Eijk, J. (2008). A bibliography of Salish linguistics. Northwest Journal ofLinguistics, 2(3), 1–128.Van Eijk, J. (2011). Look out for number one, kid: An exercise in Lillooetmorphology. In J. Lyon & J. Dunham (Eds.), Papers for 46th InternationalConference on Salish and Neighboring Languages (ICSNL 46) (pp.490–498). University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Van Eijk, J. (2013). Lillooet-English dictionary. Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Van Eijk, J., & Hess, T. (1986). Noun and verb in Salish. Lingua, 69, 319–331.Van Oostendorp, M. (2006). A theory of morphosyntactic colours [Manuscript].Meertens Institute, Amsterdam.Vassilaki, E. (2017). “LiGo akoma liGo”: The periphrastic diminutive in Modern437Greek. In A. Baicchi & E. Pinelli (Eds.), Cognitive modelling in languageand discourse across cultures (pp. 27–41). Newcastle upon Tyne:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Vaux, B., & Wolfe, A. (2009). The appendix. In E. Raimy & C. E. Cairns (Eds.),Contemporary views on architecture and representations in phonology.Cambridge: MIT Press.Vincent, A. (2014). Coeur d’Alene aspect (Unpublished master’s thesis).University of British Columbia.Vogt, H. (1940). The Kalispel language: An outline of the grammar with text,translations and dictionary. Oslo: I kommisjon hos Jacob Dybwad.Walker, D. E. (1998). Handbook of North American Indians: Plateau (volume12). Smithsonian Institution.Watanabe, H. (1994a). A report on Sliammon (Mainland Comox) phonology andreduplication (Unpublished master’s thesis). Hokkaido University.Watanabe, H. (1994b). A report on Sliammon (Mainland Comox) reduplication.Papers for the 29th International Conference on Salish and NeighboringLanguages (ICSNL 29), 321–342.Watanabe, H. (1997). Mainland Comox ‘plurals’: A working paper. Papers forthe 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages(ICSNL 32), 363–375.Watanabe, H. (2003). A morphological description of Sliammon, MainlandComox Salish: With a sketch of syntax. Endangered Languages of thePacific Rim, Faculty of Informatics, Osaka Gakuin University.Watanabe, H. (2010). A look at “noun” and “verb” in Sliammon. In D. Beck(Ed.), A festschrift for Thomas M. Hess on the occasion of his 70th birthday(pp. 179–196). Bellingham: Whatcom Museum Publication.Watanabe, H. (2021). A Sliammon text: ”First Pregnancy”, as told by MaryGeorge. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics 15.Watanabe, H. (2024). Salish. In C. Dagostino, M. Mithun, & K. Rice (Eds.), Thelanguages and linguistics of Indigenous North America: A comprehensiveguide, vol. 2 (pp. 1053–1114). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Watkins, D. (1970). A description of the phonemes and position classes in themorphology of Head of the Lake Okanagan (Salish) (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of Alberta.Watkins, D. (1974). A Boas original. International Journal of AmericanLinguistics, 40(1), 29–43.Wilbur, R. B. (1973). The phonology of reduplication. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Linguistics Club.Willett, M. L. (2003). A grammatical sketch of Nxa’amxcin (Moses-ColumbiaSalish) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Victoria.438Willett, M. L., & Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (1995). Towards an reanalysis ofsyllable structure in NxaPamxcin. Papers for the 30th InternationalConference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages (ICSNL 30).Wiltschko, M. (2005). The syntax of precategorial roots. In S. Armoskaite &J. Thompson (Eds.), Proceedings of Workshop on the Structure andConstituency of the Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) 10 (pp. 100–113).Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Wiltschko, M. (2008). The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. NaturalLanguage & Linguistic Theory, 26(3), 639–694.Wiltschko, M., & Steriopolo, O. (2007). Parameters of variation in the syntax ofdiminutives. In Proceedings of the 2007 Canadian Linguistics Association(CLA) (pp. 1–12).Wolf, M. (2005). For an autosegmental theory of mutation. In Proceedings of the24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 24) (pp.370–378). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Wolff, H. (1947). Bibliography of bibliographies of North American Indianlanguages still spoken. Bloomington: Indiana University.Yu, A. (2005). Toward a typology of compensatory reduplication. In Proceedingsof the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 24).Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Yu, A. (2007). A natural history of infixation. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.Zahir, Z. (2009). A Lushootseed analysis of a 1877 dictionary by George Gibbs.Zahir Consulting Services.Zec, D. (1988). Sonority constraints on prosodic structure (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). Stanford University.Zimmermann, E. (2009). Foot affixation in Upriver Halkomelemnon-concatenative allomorphy as templatic morphology. Conference of theStudent Organisation of Linguistics in Europe (ConSOLE) XVIII.Zimmermann, E. (2013). Non-concatenative allomorphy is generalized prosodicaffixation: The case of Upriver Halkomelem. Lingua, 134, 1–26.Zimmermann, E. (2017). Morphological length and prosodically defectivemorphemes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Zimmermann, E. (2021a). Faded copies: Reduplication as distribution of activity.Glossa, 6(1).Zimmermann, E. (2021b). Two is too much... in the phonology! The LinguisticReview, 38(3), 537–572.Zimmermann, E., & Trommer, J. (2013). The linearization of morphologicalweight. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, 90, 123–161.Zoll, C. C. (1996). Parsing below the segment in a constraint-based framework439(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.Zukoff, S. (2023). The mirror alignment principle: Morpheme ordering at themorphosyntax-phonology interface. Natural Language & LinguisticTheory, 41(1), 399–458.440Appendix ASurvey of Reduplication PatternsA.1 Survey Methods, Sources, and TranscriptionThis survey is not a complete overview of everything that has been published onSalish reduplication: it largely draws on phonological analyses and descriptivegrammars. Other work, such as syntactic analyses, are considered if they explicitlyconsider reduplication. Those interested in learning more about the syntax orsemantics of reduplication will find that searching for “function” labels, such as“plural” or “pluractional”, will bring up additional sources beyond this literaturereview. Further, the bibliography includes additional sources.The amount of detail and description given for each language and reduplicativeprocess varies based on available documentation. The available sources for eachlanguage are discussed in Chapter 1. The appendix is sorted by branch: InteriorSalish (Section A.2), Central Salish (Section A.3), Tsamosan (Section A.4),Tillamook (Section A.5), and Bella Coola (Section A.6). The languages areorganised alphabetically within branch. Different types of reduplication aregiven in subsections under each language; C1C2 processes are always given first,followed by C1, C2, and V1 processes, as applicable. Additional patterns withunknown status are given in a final subsection for each language.The first line of each example is a phonemic transcription. A morphemictranscription is also provided when it provides additional information: for example,the identity of the morphemes is obscured by phonological processes in (447).441I use // as brackets for morphemic transcriptions. Bold text marks the relevantreduplicative morpheme in each example.(447) ’kwe ’kwu´’liPs (cf. ’kwu´ ’l@ntxw ‘You did it.’)// ’kwe„ ’kwu´’l-n-t-es//REP„make.do-CTR-TR-3ERG‘They (sg.) kept making things to see if they worked (like a puzzle).’(B. Carlson, 1978, p.89, Spokane)Transcription lines are followed by glossing and translation lines. Glossing labelsvary between languages for some affixes, for example, CTR (“control transitive”),TR (“transitive”), and DRV/DIR (“directive transitive”) are all used to refer to the-n and -t transitive markers found across the family. I have followed the originalsources for glossing for in many places. I provide a non-reduplicated form or a rootfor comparison with the reduplicated form. The non-reduplicated form is given aspart of the last line if there is not space in the first line.I distinguish between [@] and any other vowel when describing patterns ofreduplication. I use the term “moraic vowel” to refer to any non-[@] vowel.1There are examples where I follow the original sources and do not write [@] eventhough it is likely present in the surface form; I only add [@] where it is associatedwith a reduplicative morpheme, supported by other documentation, or informed byphonological descriptions.The position of morpheme breaks and which segments to gloss as thereduplicative morpheme is informed by:• assumptions necessary to derive the correct surface forms in thephonological analyses given in the case studies in this dissertation(Comox-Sliammon, Lillooet, Halkomelem)• absence of stress and/or presence of [@], rather than an underlying vowel(Coeur d’Alene, Moses Columbia, Okanagan, Montana Salish-Spokane-1Moraic vowels are known as “full vowels” elsewhere in the literature on Salish languages. Ido not use the term “full vowel” because it is often used outside of Salish linguistics to discussspecific alternations between stressed (full) and unstressed (reduced) vowels. Schwa may be stressedin Salish languages; it is more often epenthesized than the product of vowel reduction.442Kalispel, Shuswap, and Thompson River Salish, Northern Straits andKlallam, Sechelt, Cowlitz, Quinault, Upper Chehalis, Bella Coola)• comparison with closely related languages and/or consideration of previousdescriptions (Lushootseed, Nooksack, Pentlatch, Squamish, Twana, LowerChehalis, Tillamook)Other transcription and glossing conventions that apply to the wholedissertation, including the appendices, can be found in Section 1.4.4 and Section2.2.1.Decisions related to standardising or formatting examples for specificlanguages are given at the start of the relevant section; I also note other sourcesused to identify unreduplicated forms, which are provided for each example. Ionly note changes in glossing and transcription where they mark divergences inanalysis (e.g., splitting C1 reduplication in Lillooet documented in Van Eijk, 1997into DIM and C1.PL following the reanalysis is H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023).443A.2 Interior Salish ReduplicationA.2.1 Coeur d’Alene ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Coeur d’Alene is summarised in Table A.1.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓PDEN ✓DIM ✓COS ✓INCH ✓Other “Intensive” C1 ReduplicationTable A.1: Reduplication in Coeur d’AleneA.2.1.1 Coeur d’Alene Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Reichard (1938), Doak (1997), and Doak (2023). Someunreduplicated forms provided for comparison come from Barthmaier (1996),drawing on file slips from Reichard (1938), or Lyon (2010), drawing on file cardsfrom Nicodemus (1975). I also refer to the glossary provided on Ivy Doak’swebsite (Doak, 2023, http://ivydoak.com/Coeurd’Alene).Sources for Coeur d’Alene typically omit schwa; I only write schwas where avowel is present in one of the source materials, because it is unclear when syllablesare best analysed as having schwa-sonorant sequences or sonorant consonantsas nuclei (e.g., [tcˇe ’nm"] or [tcˇe ’n@m] for ‘take hold of’ from Doak 2023). Someinstances of unstressed e in the following sections may correspond to schwas.I retranscribe Coeur d’Alene examples from Reichard (1938) in this section.Decisions about vowels are based on Doak (1997), as well as texts available onher website.In several examples, such as (454f), schwa is lowered to [a] because the vowelis next to [Q] or [r]. Moraic vowels, rather than [@], are also seen in some examplesbefore [P] to avoid a [@P] sequence.444A.2.1.2 Coeur d’Alene C1C2 Plural/Pluractional ReduplicationIn plural/pluractional C1C2 reduplication, the first two consonants of the root arecopied, as shown in (448); the surface form of this type of reduplication is -C@C-.(448) a. h@n- ’cˇe´m„ ’cˇ@m-encˇ (cf. hn ’cˇe´mencˇ ‘wall’)LOC-surface„PL-interior‘walls’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)b. Pec-wı´sˇ„w@sˇ (cf. Pecwı´sˇ ‘house’)CUST-build„PL‘houses’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)c. Pi[c]- ’ce´l„ ’c@l (cf. ’ce´lisˇ ‘s/he stood up’)CONT-upright„PL‘trees’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)d. ya´r„y@r-p (cf. Pu:ya´r ‘circle’)round„PL-INCH‘They roll.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.639, Coeur d’Alene)e. t-cˇe´ ’n„cˇ@ ’n-@m (cf. tcˇe ’nm ‘take hold of’)LOC-hold„PL-MID‘They held on with both hands.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.635, Coeurd’Alene)f. de´s„d@s-t (cf. tu:sde´st ‘went to camp’)camp-PL-STAT‘They camped.’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)In addition to infixed -C@C- forms, such as those in (448) above, Reichard (1938)also describes prefixed C@C- forms. Infixed and prefixed forms are distinguishedby stress: stress falls on the first syllable in (448) above, but on the second syllablein (449). Doak (1997, p.29) notes that the prefixed pattern is uncommon.(449) a. t-c@qw„ce´qw-ePst (cf. ce´qwilsˇ ‘tamarack’)CISL-PL„light.red-round.obj‘They’re red hot on the surface.’ (Doak, 1997, p.29, Coeur d’Alene)445b. Pu-cˇ@p„cˇı´p (cf. cˇip ‘soften’)INHER-PL„soft‘Each is soft.’ / ‘It is soft here and there.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.636,Coeur d’Alene)c. Pu-sˇ@’t„sˇe´’t (cf. Pu:sˇe´ ’t ‘It is level.’)INHER-PL„be.level‘They are each level, it is level here and there.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.636,Coeur d’Alene)C1C2 reduplication in Coeur d’Alene can mark plural entities with nouns, as shownin (448a–c) above, as well as plural participants and events with verbs, as shown in(448d–f, 450) and (451), respectively. C1C2 reduplication can mark either pluralparticipants or spatial distribution with adjectives, as in (449b–c) above.(450) a. ’qe´’t„ ’q@’t-p (cf. ’qe ’tp ‘climb’)climb„PL-INCH‘They each climbed.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.635, Coeur d’Alene)b. se´l„s@l-p (root: sel- ‘turn rapidly’)turn.rapidly„PL-INCH‘They each spin about.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.635, Coeur d’Alene)c. cˇ-se´xwăs@xwąq (root: sexwq- ‘splash’)LOC-splashăPLą‘Each of them splashed.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.636, Coeur d’Alene)d. se´tăs@tącˇ-@n-c (cf. se´tcˇ@nc ‘They (sg.) twisted it.’)twistăPLą-TR-CTR+3ERG‘They (sg.) twisted them one by one.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.562, Coeurd’Alene)(451) a. Qa´w„Qaw-p (cf. Qawp ‘liquid dropped’)drop„PL-INCH‘It dropped here and there.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.635, Coeur d’Alene)b. gwe´l„gw@l-p (cf. sgwelp ‘fire’)burn„PL-INCH‘It blazed here and there.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.635, Coeur d’Alene)446c. ’ca´lă ’c@ląx. -@n-c (cf. ’ca´lx. ‘claw’)clawăPLą-TR-CTR+3ERG‘They (sg.) clawed it here and there.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.636, Coeurd’Alene)A.2.1.3 Coeur d’Alene C1C2 Property-Denoting ReduplicationProperty-denoting C1C2 reduplication in Coeur d’Alene has the same form asplural/pluractional reduplication discussed in the preceding section, as shown in(452). It often co-occurs with the adjectival suffix -t, as shown in (452c–g). I treatthis type of reduplication as an infix because stress falls on the first vowel; this isfurther supported by the fact that [@] typically surfaces in the second syllable.2(452) a. p@s„p@s-u´l (cf. p@sa´cˇstm@n ‘I play a trick on you.’)astonish„PDEN-HAB‘It has astonishing effect.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.578, Coeur d’Alene)b. Pec-puPăpuPąs-ı´ncˇ (cf. hi:cpu´Ps ‘my heart’)CUST-heartăPDENą-belly‘sorrowful’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)c. ’cˇı´n„ ’cˇ@n-t (root: ’cˇı´n- ‘dangerous’)dangerous„PDEN-CHAR‘It is dangerous.’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)d. ’tı´ ’kw„’t@ ’kw-t (cf. sniP ’tı´ ’kwt ‘oldest one’)old„PDEN-CHAR‘elder’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)e. ’yc-xwe´l„xw@l-t (cf. xwel ‘be alive’)CONT-live„PDEN-CHAR‘be living’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)f. lu´p„l@p-t (cf. lup ‘be dry’)dry„PDEN-CHAR‘It (shed) keeps dry.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.578, Coeur d’Alene)2The example in (452) is exceptional because it has /P/ in C2 position; moraic vowels are oftenrecorded before /P/, rather than schwa.447g. sˇa´r„sˇar-t (cf. lut Pecsˇa´r ‘They’re not lazy.’)be.difficult„PDEN-CHAR‘It is too difficult to attempt.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.635, Coeur d’Alene)While property-denoting C1C2 reduplication applies to roots across differentlexical categories, the resulting form is an adjective. Property-denotingreduplication marks a state or property.A.2.1.4 Coeur d’Alene Diminutive C1 ReduplicationThe initial consonant of a root is copied in diminutive C1 reduplication, as shownin (453); [@] may be epenthesized when either the first or second consonant is asonorant, as shown in (453f–h).3 Diminutive reduplication is also accompanied bythe glottalisation of sonorants in the word.(453) a. c„cetxw (cf. cetxw ‘house’)DIM„house‘house, cottage’ (Doak, 1997, p.27, Coeur d’Alene)b. ’qw„ ’qwuc-t (cf. s ’qwuct ‘fat’)DIM„fat-CHAR‘little fat child’ (Doak, 1997, p.27, Coeur d’Alene)c. kw„kwu’l-ı´gwt-us (root: kwul-)DIM„red-far-fire‘small red fire in the distance’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)d. h@n-xw„xwa´t-p-a’lqs (cf. hnxwa´tpalqs ‘the end of the road’)LOC-DIM„end-NVOL-end‘He finished telling a little story.’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)e. ’q@„ ’qad-m-u´’l (root: ’qed-)DIM„balk-MID-HAB‘little stubborn one’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)f. s- ’m@„ ’mePı´ ’m (cf. smı´ ’yem ‘woman’)NMLZ-DIM„woman‘little woman’ (Reichard, 1938, p.647, Coeur d’Alene)3/d/ behaves phonologically as a sonorant in Salish.448g. Pe„Pexwu´s- ’n-c (cf. Pexwu´sn ‘I look for it.’)DIM„look.for-CTR-TR+3ERG‘They (sg.) looked for the little thing.’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)The examples in (453) show that diminutive C1 reduplication marks a small entitywith a noun (e.g., 453f), a small participant with a verb (453g), and that a smallentity that possesses that quality or state denoted by an adjective (e.g., 453b). I havenot found clear examples of diminutive reduplication marking a small amount ordegree with an adjective or verb.A.2.1.5 Coeur d’Alene Change-of-State C2 ReduplicationChange-of-state C2 reduplication doubles the second consonant of the root; anepenthetic schwa is inserted between the identical consonants, as shown in (454).(454) a. pe´ ’n„@ ’n (cf. Pecpe´ ’n ‘It is bent.’)bend„COS‘It has come to be bent.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.579, Coeur d’Alene)b. Pem„@m (cf. Pem ‘one sits’)sit„COS‘It lighted.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.579, Coeur d’Alene)c. ta´x. w„@x. w (cf. ta´x. w ‘quiet’)stop„COS‘die’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)d. Pen-piy„@y-ı´lgwes (root: piy- ‘joy’)CUST+LOC-joy„COS-heart‘become happy’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)e. ’ce´’l„@’l (root: ’ce ’l- ‘arrive’)arrive„COS‘arrive’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)f. yaQ„aQ (cf. yaQ ‘all’)assemble„COS‘They assembled.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.836, Coeur d’Alene)449g. Pe:-’te´ ’kw„@ ’kw (cf. ’te´ ’kwncut ‘He lay down.’)CUST-fall„COS‘They would fall.’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)C2 reduplication marks a change of state; it is found with verbs.4A.2.1.6 Coeur d’Alene V1 ReduplicationV1 reduplication doubles the root vowel; the two identical vowels are separated bya glottal stop, as shown in (455). This is a surface form of the inchoative marker-P-. As stress falls on the first of the two matching vowels, I gloss the second oneas the reduplicative infix.(455) a. h@n-’ta´ăPaąsˇ-a´lp (cf. ’tasˇ ‘be inherently sweet’)LOC-sweetăINCHą-feeling‘I felt sweetness’ (Reichard, 1938, p.612, Coeur d’Alene)b. h@n-taăPaąx. -ı´lgwes (cf. tax. ‘be bitter’)LOC-bitterăINCHą-heart‘It became bitter in heart.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.637, Coeur d’Alene)c. lu´ăPuąp (cf. Pe:lup ‘It has been dried.’)be.dryăINCHą‘it became dry’ (Reichard, 1938, p.637, Coeur d’Alene)d. na´ăPaąs (cf. nas ‘wet’)be.wetăINCHą‘It became wet.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.637, Coeur d’Alene)4Reichard (1938, p.607) states that C2 reduplication marks “possibility” when combined withthe stative suffix -ut; examples are provided in (i). However, given that the “possibility” reading isreported in association with an additional suffix, it is unlikely that the modal interpretation is comesfrom reduplication itself.(i) a. ’qe ’y„@ ’y-u´t-@m (cf. s ’qe´ ’y@m ‘writing’)write-COS-STAT-INDEF.OBJ‘It is possible to write.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.607, Coeur d’Alene)b. ni ’cˇ„@ ’cˇ-u´t-@m (cf. ’ci:nı´ ’cˇ@m ‘S/he cut some.’)cut-COS-STAT-INDEF.OBJ‘It is cut-able” (Reichard, 1938, p.607, Coeur d’Alene)450Reichard (1938) states that V1 reduplication marks a progression or that somethingis “gradually becoming X”. V1 reduplication marks a verb; it is attested withadjectival roots.A.2.1.7 Other Reduplication in Coeur d’AleneDoak (1997, pp.28–29) describes an additional type of C1 reduplication in Coeurd’Alene, which copies the initial consonant and vowel of the root (456); shelabels this C1 reduplication process as “intensive”.5 I gloss this as a reduplicativeprefix to highlight its similarity to repetitive reduplication in Moses Columbiaand Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel, initial C1 reduplication in Lillooet, and“affective” reduplication in Thompson River Salish.(456) a. sˇa´„sˇagw-t (root: sˇagw-)INTS„sharp-STAT‘It is sharp.’ (Doak, 1997, p.28, Coeur d’Alene)b. sˇe„sˇe’t-u´t (cf. sˇe´ ’tut ‘rock’)INTS„rock-place‘cliff’ (Doak, 1997, p.28, Coeur d’Alene)c. n- ’cı´„ ’ci ’p-s-m (cf. n ’ci ’psm ‘They (sg.) napped.’)LOC-INTS„close-eye-LOC‘They (sg.) closed their eyes.’ (Doak, 1997, p.29, Coeur d’Alene)There is no clear pattern with respect to the distribution of intensive reduplication,it is found with adjectives (456a), nouns (456b), and verbs (456c). This type ofreduplication may be lexicalised.5Doak (1997, p.28) notes that this type of C1 reduplication is rarer than the diminutive.451A.2.2 Moses Columbia ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Moses Columbia is summarised in Table A.2.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓PDEN ✓DIM ✓REP ✓COS ✓Other Onomatopoeia/RepetitionTable A.2: Reduplication in Moses ColumbiaA.2.2.1 Moses Columbia Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Kinkade (1982), Czaykowska-Higgins (1993a), Czaykowska-Higgins (1993b), Willett and Czaykowska-Higgins (1995), Czaykowska-Higginsand Willett (1997), Van Eijk (1998a), Willett (2003), and Lyon and Czaykowska-Higgins (2020). Unreduplicated forms come from the original sources. I useWillett (2003) to guide decisions about transcription.Sources for Moses Columbia typically omit schwa; I only regularly add [@] toreduplicative morphemes.A.2.2.2 Moses Columbia Plural/Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationC1C2 reduplication copies the initial two consonants of the root with concurrentepenthesis of [@]. As stress falls on the second syllable, I treat this as a reduplicativeprefix, such that stress falls on the original root vowel. Examples are given in (457).(457) a. ’c@l„ ’c@´lx. -nt-n (cf. ’c(@)lx. usnc ‘It scratched my face.’)PL„scratch-TR-1SG.ERG‘I scratched it (with several/all fingers).’ (Willett, 2003, p.275, MosesColumbia)452b. ’t@ ’m„’t@´ ’m-nt-n (cf. ’t@ ’mncu´t ‘They (sg.) cut themselves.’)PL„cut-TR-1SG.ERG‘I cut it up.’ (Willett, 2003, p.275, Moses Columbia)c. n@ ’w„na´ ’wlx (cf. na´ ’wlx ‘run’)PL„run‘run around’ (Willett, 2003, p.275, Moses Columbia)d. s-l@x.„lı´x. sxn (cf. slı´x. sxn ‘one toe’)NMLZ-PL„toe‘all toes, more than one toe’(Willett, 2003, p.271, Moses Columbia)C1C2 reduplication is used to mark pluractionality on verbs with distribution acrossparticipants (457a) and events (457b–c), as well as plurality on nouns (457d).A.2.2.3 Moses Columbia Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationThe first two consonants are copied and stress falls on the first syllable in property-denoting C1C2 reduplication (if not on a stress-attracting suffix), as shown in (458);the root vowel is also copied. I treat the reduplicative as an infix in these wordsdue to the position of stress. These forms typically have a -t suffix labeled hereas a CHAR (characteristic) but also labeled as “immediate” in L. C. Thompson andThompson (1992) and “state” in Kinkade (1996). The -t suffix is absent with alexical suffix, as shown in (458d–e).(458) a. ’ca´’l„ ’ca’l-t (cf. ’ca ’l ’l ‘get shaded’)shade„PDEN-CHAR‘shady’ (Willett, 2003, p.243, Moses Columbia)b. qwa´y„qway-t (cf. qwa´y ‘plenty’)rich„PDEN-CHAR‘rich’ (Willett, 2003, p.243, Moses Columbia)c. xwa´ ’ň„xwa ’ň-t (cf. xwaP ’ň ‘get well’)alive„PDEN-CHAR‘lively’ (Willett, 2003, p.243, Moses Columbia)453d. x. wu´s„x. wus-cn (cf. xwus ‘hurry’)hurry„PDEN-mouth‘talk fast’ (Czaykowska-Higgins, 1993b, p.70, Moses Columbia)e. miy„miy-a´ ’ws (root: miy-)?„PDEN-middle‘middle, half-way’ (Czaykowska-Higgins, 1993b, p.61, MosesColumbia)This type of reduplication is found with adjectives.A.2.2.4 Moses Columbia Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1 reduplication doubles the initial consonant of the root, as shown in(459).(459) a. t„t ’wit (cf. t ’wit ‘boy’)DIM„boy‘little boy’ (Willett, 2003, p.278, Moses Columbia)b. ’ň„ ’ňxwup (cf. ’ňxwup ‘win’)DIM„win‘win a small bit’ (Willett, 2003, p.279, Moses Columbia)c. s-c-p„puPs (cf. scpuPs ‘heart’)NMLZ-STAT-DIM„heart‘small heart’ (Willett, 2003, p.45, Moses Columbia)d. s- ’q„ ’qa´Pxn (cf. s ’qaPxn ‘shoe’)NMLZ-DIM„shoe‘little shoe’ (Willett, 2003, p.278, Moses Columbia)e. c- ’p„ ’p@ ’qw-stu´-nn (cf. swat ’p@ ’qws ‘Who spilled it?’)IM-DIM„spill(st.dry)-TR-1SG.SUBJ‘I’m spilling a little bit.’ (Willett, 2003, p.55, Moses Columbia)f. kn1SG.SUBJkat-s„s@ ’kw-p-cı´n (cf. s@ ’kwp ‘It’s swollen.’)on/over-DIM-swell.up-INCH-mouth‘I have a little bump on my lip.’ (Willett, 2003, p.278, MosesColumbia)454When necessary to avoid a violation of the sonority sequencing principle (inparticular, when a sonorant is reduplicated), [@] is added, as shown in (460).6 Thefact that stress falls on the second vowel in (460) supports treating this type ofreduplication as a prefix.(460) a. s-Pa„Pisw@l-a´lt (cf. Pı´swal ‘loon’)NMLZ-DIM-loon-child‘baby loon chicks’ (Czaykowska-Higgins, 1993b, p.258, MosesColumbia)b. Pa„Pa´l ’kwmn (cf. Pa´l ’kwmn ‘slave’)DIM„slave‘little slave’ (Willett, 2003, p.278, Moses Columbia)C1 reduplication marks small size when attached to a noun, as in (459a,c,d) and(460); it may mark either smallness of an argument or diminished action with verbsas shown in (459f) and (459b,c), respectively.A.2.2.5 Moses Columbia Repetitive C1 ReduplicationRepetitive C1 reduplication is associated with a fixed segment /a/, which surfacesbetween the matching consonants, as shown in (461). The repetitive morpheme isrealised without reduplication with cluster-initial roots (e.g., CCVC), as shown in(462); -a- is infixed between the first two consonants of the root in these forms.I analyse the forms with C1 reduplication as a prefix, such that reduplication ismotivated to provide a word-initial onset.7(461) a. ’wa„ ’wa´’l (root: ’wa ’l- ‘tilt’)REP„tilt‘rock (tilt back and forth)’ (Willett, 2003, p.207, Moses Columbia)6The vowel is realised as [a] in these examples because it is adjacent to [P].7If this were an infix, regular resolution of vowel hiatus may predict deletion of a vowel orepenthesis of a laryngeal consonant rather than reduplication if it yields C1-a-VC (infixation of /a/following first consonant); it is not clear that the grammar of the language would predict the attestedform C1a-C1-VC (reduplication to break up vowel hiatus).455b. ka„kı´c-stu-m-s (cf. kicc ‘someone came’)REP„arrive-TR-1SG.OBJ-3ERG‘They came here (to see me) several times.’ (Willett, 2003, p.209,Moses Columbia)c. c-Pa„Pa´ ’cx. -stu-n (cf. Pa ’cx. ncu´tn ‘mirror’)IM-REP„look.at-TR-1SG.ERG‘I am watching them (sg.).’ (Willett, 2003, p.209, Moses Columbia)(462) ’ňăaąxwup (cf. sxws ’ňxwup ‘winner’)winăREPą‘keep winning’ (Willett, 2003, p.208, Moses Columbia)The repetitive marks the repetition of an event; it is found with verbs.A.2.2.6 Moses Columbia Change-of-State C2 ReduplicationC2 reduplication in Moses Columbia copies the second consonant of the root. [@]is found between the matching consonants in C2 reduplication, as shown in (463).(463) a. c@´k„@k (cf. c@k-n ‘I [throw and] hit it.’)hit„COS‘get hit’ (Czaykowska-Higgins & Willett, 1997, p.395, MosesColumbia)b. ’kı´ ’p„@ ’p (cf. ’ki ’p@n ‘I pinch it.’)pinch„COS‘get pinched’ (Czaykowska-Higgins & Willett, 1997, p.395, MosesColumbia)Kinkade (1982, p.66) notes that C2 reduplication is often realized without [@], asin (464); the [@] is recorded more often in careful or slow speech.(464) a. ’c ’qwă ’qwąu´n-’l@xw (cf. ’c ’qwun-m ‘say, pronounce, name’)nameăCOSą-land‘land gets named’ (Willett & Czaykowska-Higgins, 1995, p.7, MosesColumbia)456b. sac- ’ka´s„s-@xw (cf. ’ka´ssn ‘I argue with them (sg.).’)IPFV-fight„COS-NONPFV‘quarreling, fighting’ (Kinkade, 1982, p.67, Moses Columbia)c. sˇa´=kwpQ=2PL.INTRk-p@qw„qw-a´naPDRV-spill„COS-ear‘Did it spill on you folks?’ (cf. niPp@´qwn ‘I spilled it.’) (Lyon &Czaykowska-Higgins, 2020, p.205, Moses Columbia)C2 reduplication is found with verbs. The most common translation associated withC2 reduplication is “got X-ed”, which is associated with something happening toan object outside of an agent’s control, or with translations that entail a change ofstate (Kinkade, 1982, p.66). C2 reduplication can also be used where an actiontook considerable effort, as shown in (465).(465) a. ’kìk@ ’m ’mnu´s (cf. ’kìk@m ‘win’)// ’kìk@ ’m„ ’m-nu´n-nt-s//win„COS-LC-TR-3ERG‘They (sg.) managed to win it.’ (Willett, 2003, p.47, Moses Columbia)b. t-x@’t’tnu´s (root: x ’t- ‘take care of’)//t-x@’t„’t-nu´n-nt-s//LOC-take.care.of„COS-LC-TR-3ERG‘They (sg.) finally began to take care of it.’ (Willett, 2003, p.47, MosesColumbia)A.2.2.7 Repetition in Moses ColumbiaAn onomatopoeic repetition of a root is shown in (466). The fact that primarystress falls on each repetition and that they may surface with no vowels suggeststhat these forms represent a different phenomenon than reduplication; I classifythese forms as having repetition rather than an independently meaningful processof reduplication.(466) a. k@´xw k@´xw k@´xw‘knock, knock, knock’ (Van Eijk, 1998a, p.465, Moses Columbia)457b. ìxw ìxw ìxw ìxw‘fluttering or shaking noise, as when a bird shakes its feathers’ (VanEijk, 1998a, p.465, Moses Columbia)458A.2.3 Okanagan ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Okanagan is summarised in Table A.3.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓PDEN ✓DIM ✓COS ✓INCH ✓Other C22 Triplication; Onomatopoeia/RepetitionTable A.3: Reduplication in OkanaganA.2.3.1 Okanagan Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Watkins (1970), A. Mattina (1973), A. Mattina (1987),N. Mattina (1996), A. Mattina and Peterson (1997), and Thomason (1999).Unreduplicated forms come from the original sources, as well as A. Mattina(1987).I have retranscribed a few obstruents. While A. Mattina (1973, p.24) statesthat “no reduplicated root initial consonant remains [an ejective], except / ’ň/”, Ihave confirmed with John Lyon (p.c.) that reduplicated ejectives remain ejectives.There are a number of roots given in A. Mattina (1987) that alternate betweenhaving a moraic vowel and no vowel (or [@]). Additionally, a root vowel and anunderlying C2 consonant may undergo metathesis: for example, the root’ňl- ‘still’surfaces as CVC in ’ňă@ląa´l ‘they (sg.) are dead’ but CCV in ’ňla´-p ‘stop’. Asschwas are never stressed, unexplained alternations between [@] and moraic vowelsacross forms with the same root follow from the general phonology of the language(see, e.g., A. Mattina, 1973, p.25).A.2.3.2 Okanagan C1C2 Plural/Pluractional ReduplicationPlural/pluractional C1C2 reduplication doubles the first two consonants of the rootand [@] is inserted, as shown in (467). I treat this type of reduplication as a prefixbecause stress typically falls on the second syllable.459(467) a. k@l„kı´lx (cf. kı´lx ‘hand’)PL„hand‘They are hands.’ (A. Mattina, 1973, p.61, Okanagan)b. x.@m„x.@mQa´ìt (cf. x. @mQa´ìt ‘fly’)PL„fly‘They are flies.’ (A. Mattina, 1973, p.62, Okanagan)c. ’k@s„ ’ks-alqw (root: ’ks- ‘bad’)PL„bad-cylindrical.object‘bad twigs, sticks’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.49, Okanagan)C1C2 reduplication with a noun marks plurality, as shown in (467) above; C1C2reduplication with a verb marks pluractionality, as shown in (468). It can markplural participants (468a), distribution in space (468b), and distribution in time(468c).(468) a. ’k@w„ ’ka´w-@lx (cf. ’ka´w@lx ‘They are gone.’)PL„gone-3PL‘They are all gone.’ (A. Mattina, 1973, p.61, Okanagan)b. ’t@xw„’t@xw-lı´lx (cf. ’t@xwlwı´s ‘airplane’)PL„fly-DEV‘fly around’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.219, Okanagan)c. ’t@qw„’t@qw-@nt-ı´s (cf. ’tqwam ‘slap’)PL„slap-TR-3ERG‘He kept slapping it.’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.219, Okanagan)A.2.3.3 Okanagan C1C2 Property-Denoting ReduplicationProperty-denoting C1C2 reduplication copies the first two consonants of the root,as shown in (469); epenthetic [@] is optionally omitted where not required to obeythe sonority sequencing principle, as shown in (469a). This type of reduplicationis typically found in combination with the suffix -t, which N. Mattina (1996) as a“stative” suffix.88This is the same suffix found on adjectives in other Salish languages and so I gloss it as a CHARfor consistency in languages other than Lillooet, where I follow H. Davis (2011) and gloss it asIMMED to distinguish it from the characteristic suffix -m.460(469) a. k@n1SG.SUBJtì„taì-t (cf. taì ‘straight, certain’)PDEN„straight-CHAR‘I am honest.’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.200, Okanagan)b. ’kw@c„ ’kwa´c-t (root: ’kwc- ‘strong, stiff’)PL„strong-CHAR‘strong’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.60, Okanagan)c. cı´x.„c@x. -t (root: cx. ‘hot’)PDEN„hot-CHAR‘very hot’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.12, Okanagan)d. p@x.„pa´x. -t (cf. px. am ‘advise’)PDEN„advise-CHAR‘smart’ (N. Mattina, 1996, p.110, Okanagan)Property-denoting C1C2 reduplication occurs with adjectives.A.2.3.4 Okanagan Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1 reduplication doubles the first consonant of the root, as shown in(470). The reduplicated forms may have an epenthetic [@], as shown in (470), orno additional vowel, as shown in (471). When there is no additional vowel, thereduplicated consonant is infixed following the root vowel. The choice to treatdiminutive reduplication as both a prefix and an infix on the surface is motivatedby the position of the C1 consonants relative to the stressed vowel. Glottalisationof a sonorant consonant accompanies diminutive reduplication.(470) a. ’p@„ ’pu´kwlaP (cf. ’pu´kwlaP ‘ball’)DIM„ball‘(little) ball’ (A. Mattina & Peterson, 1997, p.318, Okanagan)b. s-t@„ta´ì@ ’m (cf. sta´ì@m ‘boat’)NMLZ-DIM„boat‘(little) boat’ (A. Mattina & Peterson, 1997, p.318, Okanagan)c. t@„tPı´wltk (cf. tPiwltk ‘on shore’)DIM„on.shore‘a little ways from the water’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.206, Okanagan)461(471) a. kı´ăką’lx (cf. kı´lx ‘hand’)handăDIMą‘little hand’ (A. Mattina & Peterson, 1997, p.321, Okanagan)b. qwa´ăqwąc-q@ ’n (cf. qwacq@n ‘hat’)warmăDIMą-head‘little hat’ (A. Mattina & Peterson, 1997, p.321, Okanagan)c. s-n-Pı´ăPąì ’n-t@ ’n (cf. snPı´ì@ntn"‘restaurant’)NMLZ-LOC-eatăDIMą-instrument‘little restaurant’ (A. Mattina & Peterson, 1997, p.321, Okanagan)An infixed [aP] is also found in some forms with diminutive C1 reduplication. Theinfix is positioned following the consonant that directly follows the stressed vowel,as shown in (472).9(472) a. c@„cı´tăaPąxw (cf. citxw ‘house’)DIM„houseăDIMą‘(out)house’ (A. Mattina & Peterson, 1997, p.320, Okanagan)b. ’tı´ă’tąăaPą ’kwt (cf. ’ti ’kwt ‘lake’)lakeăDIMąăDIMą‘little lake’ (A. Mattina & Peterson, 1997, p.322, Okanagan)Diminutive C1 reduplication in Okanagan marks smallness with nouns, as shownin (470b–d), (471), and (472). It marks a small degree or amount of an adjective,as shown in (473a). Diminutive verbs may refer to small participants or events, asshown in (473b–c) and (473d), respectively.(473) a. ì@„ìQa´’t (cf. cìQa ’t ‘be/get wet’)DIM„wet‘a little wet’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.88, Okanagan)b. n- ’c@„ ’ca´xw (cf. n ’ca´xw ‘something poured’)LOC-DIM„pour‘something small poured’ (A. Mattina & Peterson, 1997, p.318,Okanagan)9I analyse this as a floating [c.g.] feature realised as [P] with an epenthetic [a]; I assume the vowelis not [@] because that would result in a [@P] sequence within a single syllable.462c. xwiăxwą ’c-xt (cf. xwi ’c-nt ‘give something to somebody’)giveăDIMą-BEN‘give a little something to somebody’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.242,Okanagan)d. ’t@„’t ’kw-@ncu´t (cf. ’t ’kwam ‘put down’)DIM„put.down-REFL‘He lay down a bit.’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.10, Okanagan)A.2.3.5 Okanagan Change-of-State C2 ReduplicationC2 change-of-state reduplication copies the second consonant of the root, as shownin (474). I analyse this reduplicative morpheme as an infix that follows the firstconsonant of the root with an intervening [@] where sonorants are present, as in(474b): this decision is informed by the position of stress and comparison of theseCCVC forms in Okanagan with the CVCC forms that arise from C2 reduplicationin other Interior Salish languages, such as Moses Columbia.(474) a. căkwąukw (cf. ckwam ‘haul’)haulăCOSą‘arrive’ (A. Mattina, 1973, p.4, Okanagan)b. ’ňă@ląa´l (cf. ’ňlap ‘stop’)stillăCOSą‘They (sg.) are dead.’ (A. Mattina, 1973, p.64, Okanagan)c. că ’qąa´ ’q (cf. c ’qam ‘hit something by throwing’)hit.by.throwingăCOSą‘They (sg.) hit the target.’ (A. Mattina, 1973, p.64, Okanagan)d. xă ’ňąa´ ’ň (cf. x ’ňap ‘complete’)growăCOSą‘They (sg.) grew.’ (A. Mattina, 1973, p.64, Okanagan)Change-of-state C2 reduplication applies to verb roots; it is not clear if this typeof reduplication applies to adjectives as well. A. Mattina (1973, p.65) calls this a“resultive” suffix.463A.2.3.6 Okanagan V1 ReduplicationInchoative V1 reduplication copies the root vowel, as shown in (475). V1reduplication is one surface realisation of the inchoative infix -P-.10 The copiedvowel comes before the inchoative infix; this decision is motivated by the positionof stress on the second of the matching vowels.(475) a. qwăaPąa´c (cf. qwaPcı´naP ‘warm weather’)warmăINCHą‘It is getting warm.’ (Watkins, 1970, p.100, Okanagan)b. k@n ìăaPąa´’t (cf. cìQa ’t ‘be/get wet’)1SG.SUBJ wetăINCHą‘I got wet.’ (Watkins, 1970, p.107, Okanagan)c. ’qwăuPąu´c (cf. ’qwuct ‘fat’)fatăINCHą‘They (sg.) are getting fat’ (Watkins, 1970, p.107, Okanagan)V1 reduplication is attested with adjective roots; it yields an inchoative verb.A.2.3.7 Other Reduplication in OkanaganA. Mattina (1993) describes a rare C22 triplication pattern in Okanagan, shown in(476). The final consonant of the root is tripled.11(476) a. qiPăxw@xwąa´xw (cf. q ’yaxw ‘something stinks’)stinkăTRIPą‘stink’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.153, Okanagan)b. wa ’yyessicbeforeixiPDEMs-t@’răqqąa´q-s@lx (cf. t ’rq-ncut ‘be kicking s.t.’)CONT-kickăTRIPą-3PL.POSS‘Then they started jumping up and down.’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.206,Okanagan)10The description of this realisation, and the decision to treat it as phonological instead of phonetic,is variable across descriptions: it is described in Watkins (1970), but not elsewhere. See Mellesmoen(2024a) for discussion of the innovation and different statuses of V1 reduplication patterns acrossSalish.11This has cognates in Lillooet and Shuswap: see discussion of triplication.464c. ’tă@qwqwąı´qw (cf. ’tiqwt ‘burst, explode’)burstăTRIPą‘He made a banging noise.’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.219, Okanagan)There is also pattern where a root is repeated to form an onomatopoeia, as shownin (477). I classify this process as a type of repetition, rather than reduplication.(477) ’p@s ’p@s ’p@s ’p@s‘[Coyote’s call to his helpers]’ (Thomason, 1999, p.255, Okanagan)465A.2.4 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel is summarised in TableA.4.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓DIM ✓REP ✓COS ✓INCH ✓PL ✓Other Onomatopoeia/RepetitionTable A.4: Reduplication in Montana Salish-Spokane-KalispelA.2.4.1 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Vogt (1940), B. Carlson (1972a), Speck (1977), B. Carlson(1978), B. Carlson and Thompson (1981), B. Carlson and Flett (1989), B. Carlson(1990), Black (1996), Thomason (1997), Bates and Carlson (1998), Thomason(1999), and Pete (2010). Unreduplicated forms come from either the sourcematerials or B. Carlson and Flett (1989). Each example is marked for dialect.Many potential instances of [@] are omitted in the source material for MontanaSalish-Spokane-Kalispel. I include [@] where it can be confirmed from at least onesource or where it is present by hypothesis (e.g., reduplication adds a syllable thatrequires a vocalic nucleus); schwas in other affixes or non-reduplicated forms maybe missing if they were excluded in the original material.12Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel has root metathesis where a vowel andC2 consonant may be switched (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.26–27); this accounts foralternations in vowel position between some unreduplicated and reduplicatedforms.12B. Carlson (1972a, p.13) states that schwa-sonorant sequences and syllabic sonorants are in freevariation.466A.2.4.2 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Plural/Pluractional C1C2ReduplicationPlural/pluractional C1C2 reduplication doubles the first two consonants of the root;there is an epenthetic [@] between the copied consonants, as shown in as shown in(478), unless both consonants are obstruents, as shown in (479). I mark this typeof reduplication as a prefix because stress falls on the vowel in the second syllable(when it does not fall on a suffix), rather than the first.(478) a. s-t@ ’m„te´ ’m (cf. ste ’m ‘thing’)NMLZ-PL„what‘(They’re) things.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.111, Spokane)b. s-x.@l„x. a´l-t (cf. hi x. al ‘It’s light.’)NMLZ-PL„light-CHAR‘(They’re) days.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.111, Spokane)c. ’p@’l„ ’p@’l ’c-mı´-m (cf. ’p@l ’cˇu´s@m ‘turn back’)PL„turn-DER.TRANS-TRANS.CONT‘They (sg.) are turning it [the meat] over and over.’ (Thomason, 1996,p.313, Montana Salish)(479) a. x. s„x. e´s-t (cf. x. e´st ‘good’)PL„good-CHAR‘(They’re) good things.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.111, Spokane)b. txw„tı´xwccˇ (cf. tı´xwccˇ ‘tongue’)PL„tongue‘(They’re) tongues.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.111, Spokane)c. tq„tq@-n-te´-n (cf. tq@ncı´n ‘I hit you.’)PL„hit-CTR-TR-1SG.SUBJ‘I hit them.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.112, Spokane)d. kwt„kwtu´n-sˇ@n (cf. kwtu´nt ‘It’s big.’)PL„big-foot‘(They’re) big feet.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.112, Spokane)In places where C1C2 reduplication would result in a /@y/ or /@w/ sequence, thesesequences are realised as [i:] or [u:], respectively; examples are given in (480).467(480) a. ’qi:„ ’qe´y (cf. ’qe´y ‘They (sg.) lived.’)PL„live‘They were camped.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.114, Spokane)b. su:„se´wìkw (cf. sewìkw ‘water’)PL„water‘(They’re) rivers.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.111, Spokane)C1C2 reduplication marks plural entities with nouns, as shown in (478a–b),(479b), and (480b); it marks pluractionality with verbs, which may involve pluralarguments, as shown in (479c) and (480a), or plural events, as shown in (478c).C1C2 reduplication also marks plural arguments with adjectival roots, as shown in(479a,d).A.2.4.3 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1 reduplication doubles the initial consonant of a root, as shown in(481). When a sonorant participates in diminutive reduplication, the matchingconsonants are both glottalised, as shown in (481a–b). I mark the diminutivemorpheme as an infix based on the fact that stress falls on the first vowel whenit does not fall later in the word (e.g., 481c).(481) a. ’nı´ă ’n@ą ’cˇ-@m@n (cf. nı´ ’cˇ@m@n ‘knife’)cutăDIMą-instrument‘(It’s a) little knife.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.115, Spokane)b. ’lu´ă’l@ą ’kw (cf. lu ’kw ‘stick of wood’)stick.of.woodăDIMą‘It’s a little stick of wood’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.115, Spokane)c. s’t@ă’t@ą ’Qwa´neP (cf. s ’t@ ’Qwa´neP ‘flint’)NMLZ-flintăDIMą‘(It’s a) little flint.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.115, Spokane)d. ’mu´ă ’m@ąs (cf. mus ‘four’)fourăDIMą‘four little (things)’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.116, Spokane)468e. cı´ăc@ąl (cf. cil ‘five’)fiveăDIMą‘five little (things)’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.116, Spokane)C1 reduplication with obstruent-only roots or roots that start with an obstruentcluster yield a complex onset, as shown in (482a) and (482b), respectively. Imark these as prefixes for simplicity (i.e., C„CCV...), but an infix analysismay be preferable for consistency with the examples in (481) above (i.e., (i.e.,CăCąCV...).(482) a. x.„x. ’ň@cı´n (cf. x. ’ň@cı´n ‘horse’)DIM„horse‘It’s a dog.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.115, Spokane)b. p„pta´x. - ’m (cf. sptax. w ‘They (sg.) spit.)DIM„spit‘spit (diminutive)’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.119, Spokane)This type of reduplication marks a small entity with a noun, as shown in (481a–c)and (482) above. It marks small referents with a number (i.e., “X small ones”), asshown in (481d–e). With verbs, it can mark a small participant in an event, as in(483a–b), or a small event, as in (483c). Diminutive reduplication can also refer toa small amount of a state or that a state holds for a small referent, as in (483d) and(483e), respectively.(483) a. ’kwuă ’kw@ą’l (cf. ’kwu´ ’l@ntxw ‘You did it.’)make/doăDIMą‘Something small is created/made.’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.118,Spokane)b. sˇ„sˇi’l (cf. s@lı´nt ‘chop it!’)chopăDIMą‘A small thing is chopped.’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.118, Spokane)c. cˇin1SG.SUBJPes- ’kwuă ’kw@ą’l-i (cf. ’kwu´ ’l@ntxw ‘You did it.’)STAT-make/doăDIMą-CONT‘I work a little.’ (Speck, 1977, p.59, Kalispel)469d. ’c@„ ’cu’r (cf. qeP ’cur ‘(it’s) our salt’)DIM„sour/salty‘a little thing is sour/salty’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.118, Spokane)e. p„pi ’n (cf. Pespi ’n ‘it’s bent’)bentăDIMą‘a little bent’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.118, Spokane)A.2.4.4 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Repetitive C1 ReduplicationRepetitive C1 reduplication affixes a fixed segment /e/; the first consonant of theroot is doubled to provide an onset if the root has a simple onset (Bates & Carlson,1998; Yu, 2005), as shown in (484). I mark the repetitive morpheme as a prefix inthese examples, for consistency between these forms and the cognate morphemein Moses Columbia (discussed in Section A.2.2.5).(484) a. ’cˇe„ ’cˇi ’p-sˇ (cf. ’cˇi ’p ’p ‘It accidentally got pinched.’)REP„pinch-PL‘scissors, shears’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.104, Spokane)b. kwe„kw ı´’l-eP (cf. kwilxw ‘red cloth’)REP„red-thing‘pet name for any red domesticated animal’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998,p.104, Spokane)c. ’kwe ’kwu´’liPs (cf. ’kwu´ ’l@ntxw ‘You did it.’)// ’kwe„ ’kwu´’l-n-t-es//REP„make.do-CTR-TR-3ERG‘They (sg.) kept making things to see if they worked (like a puzzle).’(B. Carlson, 1978, p.89, Spokane)If the root starts with a consonant cluster, /e/ surfaces as an infix to break up acomplex onset, as shown in (485); C1 reduplication does not occur.(485) a. s- ’măeą’l ’kw-e´ ’yeP (cf. ml ’kwe´lxw ‘a fur rug’)NMLZ-solidăREPą-seem‘shadow’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.105, Spokane)470b. ìăeą ’kw-p-min (cf. ì ’kwpim ‘They (sg.) speared it.’)pierce/spearăREPą-INCH-instrument‘pitchfork’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.105, Spokane)The /e/ in the repetitive morpheme may be realised as [a] when added to a rootwith uvular or pharyngeal consonants, as shown in (486). Bates and Carlson (1998,p.104) describe [a] as a lowered variant of /e/.13(486) a. n-’la„’lo´ ’Qw-eP (cf. hescˇloQ ‘It’s hooked up.’)LOC-REP„fit.together-thing‘wore a loose dress without a belt’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.104,Spokane)b. ’na„ ’na´ ’q-sˇ ’n (cf. hi na ’q ‘It stinks.’)REP„smell-feet‘smelly feet’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.105, Spokane)c. ’la’la´ ’q@ ’n (cf. la ’q-n ‘I buried it.’)//’la„’la´ ’q-n-t-e ’n//REP„bury-CTR-TR-1SG.ERG‘I just covered things as I went along.’ (B. Carlson, 1978, p.89,Spokane)d. s-n-păaąta´x. w- ’m ’n (cf. spta´x. w ‘They (sg.) spit.’)NMLZ-LOC-spităREPą-instrument‘spittoon’ (Bates & Carlson, 1998, p.105, Spokane)Sonorants in C1 position are glottalised in repetitive forms, as seen in (485a) and(486a–c) above.Repetitive C1 reduplication is found with verbs and adjectives, as well as nounsderived from verbs. It can refer to an iterative or repeated event, as in (484c) and486c) above; the function reduplication is not compositional in all nouns (see, e.g.,485a).13This is best described as retraction harmony, rather than feature sharing between adjacentsegments. It does not require segments to be adjacent (see Bessell, 1993b and Schillo, 2024 fordiscussions of retraction in Interior Salish).471A.2.4.5 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Change-of-State C2ReduplicationChange-of-state C2 reduplication copies the second consonant of the root. Theconsonant associated with the reduplicative morpheme is positioned before the rootvowel, as shown in (487), unless the root starts with a sonorant-vowel-obstruentsequence; the examples in (488) show that change-of-state reduplication followsthe root vowel in these forms.14,15(487) a. mă@’ląı´’l (cf. m ’lip ‘It overflowed.’)flowăCOSą‘It bled’ (B. Carlson & Thompson, 1981, p.113, Spokane)b. ìă ’pąı´ ’p (cf. ìi ’p ‘marked’)markăCOSą‘It got marked unexpectedly.’ (B. Carlson & Thompson, 1981, p.112,Spokane)c. xwă ’kwąu´ ’kw (cf. xwu ’kw ‘He is clean.’)cleanăCOSą‘He got clean.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.117, Spokane)d. căqąa´q (cf. hesca´q ‘It’s placed.’)placeăCOSą‘It stopped.’ (B. Carlson & Thompson, 1981, p.112, Spokane)e. qă ’cąı´ ’c (cf. qi ’c ‘braided, woven’)braid/weaveăCOSą‘It got tangled up (as a thread might do as you are sewing).’ (B. Carlson& Thompson, 1981, p.112, Spokane)(488) a. nı´ă ’cˇ@ą ’cˇ (cf. nı´ ’cˇ@ntxw ‘You cut him/them.’)cutăCOSą‘It got cut.’ (B. Carlson, 1972a, p.117, Spokane)14[h] patterns as a sonorant in (488c).15I mark the reduplication in (488) in an infixed position with CVC roots (i.e., CV-C2-C2) ratherthan suffixed (i.e., CVC2-C2) following my analysis of C2 reduplication in Lillooet.472b. mı´ă ’ňą ’ň (cf. mi ’ň ‘It is smeared on.’)smearăCOSą‘It got smeared by accident.’ (B. Carlson & Thompson, 1981, p.112,Spokane)c. he´ăkwąkw (cf. heche´kw ‘It’s open a crack.’)peelăCOSą‘It came open a crack without my knowing it.’ (B. Carlson &Thompson, 1981, p.112, Spokane)d. la´ă ’qą ’q (cf. hela´ ’q ‘It’s buried.’)buryăCOSą‘It got buried.’ (B. Carlson & Thompson, 1981, p.113, Spokane)C2 reduplication marks a change of state, which may happen by accident,spontaneously, as a result of natural phenomena, without control, or with greateffect or patience (B. Carlson & Thompson, 1981). This type of reduplication istypically found with verbs: it is most frequently found with stative roots, but isalso found with some eventive ones (Kroeber, 1988).A.2.4.6 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel V1 ReduplicationTwo types of V1 reduplication have been described in Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel. One type marks inchoativity; the other marks plurality.Inchoative V1 reduplication is associated with the inchoative suffix -P-, whichis inserted before the root vowel. [P] is preceded by a copy of the root vowel informs with V1 reduplication, as shown in (489). I mark the first vowel as part ofthe reduplicative morpheme because stress falls on the second vowel. This type ofreduplication is recorded with adjectives; it yields an inchoative verb.(489) a. năaPąa´s (cf. hi nas ‘It is wet.’)wetăINCHą‘They (sg.) get wet.’ (Vogt, 1940, p.64, Kalispel)b. ’qwăuPąu´c (cf. ’qwuct ‘They (sg.) get fat.’)fatăINCHą‘They (sg.) get fat.’ (Vogt, 1940, p.64, Kalispel)473c. qwăuPąu´ì (cf. hi qwuì ‘It is dusty.’)dustyăINCHą‘It gets dusty.’ (Vogt, 1940, p.64, Kalispel)d. ’tăiPąı´m (cf. ’tim ‘damp’)dampăINCHą‘It got damp.’ (Pete, 2010, p.153, Montana Salish)e. cˇì- ’păePąe´ ’cˇ-ssˇn (cf. ’pe ’cˇis ‘They (sg.) put s.t. into the heat.’)surface-heatăINCHą-round.object‘get a hot forehead’ (Pete, 2010, p.302, Montana Salish)f. ’ňăaPąa´ ’q (cf. ’ňa ’q ‘hot’)hotăINCHą‘It got hot.’ (Pete, 2010, p.317, Montana Salish)The other type of V1 reduplication marks plurality of an argument; it is foundwith verbs. A glottal stop and copy of the stressed vowel are positioned followingthe stressed vowel, as shown in (490). I mark the second vowel as part of thereduplicative morpheme because stress falls on the second vowel.(490) a. cˇìı´ăPiąp (cf. cˇìip ‘They (sg.) hunted something.’)hunt.somethingăPLą’They hunted something.’(Thomason, 1997, p.354, Montana Salish)b. n-pı´ăPiąlsˇ (cf. qe npilsˇ ‘We went in.’)LOC-enterăPLą‘They went in (all at once).’ (Thomason, 1997, p.354, Montana Salish)c. cı´ăPiątxw-s (cf. citxw ‘house’)houseăPLą-3POSS‘their house’ (Thomason, 1997, p.354, Montana Salish)d. mı´ăPią ’ň-is (cf. mi ’ňis ‘It’s smeared.’)smearăPLą-3ERG‘They smeared it.’ (Pete, 2010, p.568, Montana Salish)e. ’tm-p-ı´ăPiąlsˇ (cf. ’tim ‘damp’)damp-INCH-DEVăPLą‘They gradually get damp.’ (Pete, 2010, p.153, Montana Salish)474f. ’pe´ăPeą ’cˇ-is (cf. ’pe ’cˇis ‘S/he/it put s.t. into the heat.’)heatăPLą-3ERG‘They put s.t. into the heat.’ (Pete, 2010, p.302, Montana Salish)g. nunxwe´ăPeąnP-em (cf. nunxwe´neP ‘believe’)believeăPLą-PASS‘They believed.’ (Pete, 2010, p.51, Montana Salish)The presence of V1 reduplication varies across dialects. Both types are presentin Kalispel (Vogt, 1940, Camp, 2007), as well as Montana Salish (Pete, 2010).Neither type have been included in descriptions of Spokane.16A.2.4.7 Repetition in Montana Salish-Spokane-KalispelA pattern of repetition is also found in some sound symbolic/onomatopoeic wordsThomason (1999). One pattern involves repeating a root, where stress is markedon each of the reduplicated vowels, as shown in (491). The second involves therepetition of a final consonant, as shown in (492). I treat these as patterns ofrepetition, rather than reduplication.(491) a. ca´ ca´ ca´ ca´‘the hollering noise one someone makes when getting beaten up’(Thomason, 1999, p.255, Montana Salish)b. lı´w lı´w lı´w lı´w‘sound of continuous ringing bells’ (Thomason, 1999, p.255, Spokane)c. ìa´ ’p ìa´ ’p ìa´ ’p ìa´ ’p‘sound of feet slapping on the floor’ (Thomason, 1999, p.255, MontanaSalish)(492) a. cu´ssss‘rustling noise when you walk in dry brush or pushing through brush’(Thomason, 1999, p.253, Montana Salish)16See Mellesmoen (2024a) for the potential stages leading to the development of V1 reduplication.Spokane may be at an earlier stage where the inchoative triggers epenthesis of [@], rather thanreduplication.475b. i ’ca´xxxx‘the sound of frying food’ (Thomason, 1999, p.253, Montana Salish)c. ma’l’l’l’l‘sound of a gurgling stomach or brook’ (B. Carlson & Flett, 1989, p.50,Spokane)476A.2.5 Lillooet ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Lillooet is summarised in Table A.5.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓PDEN ✓DIM ✓PL ✓INIT ✓COS ✓Other C22 TriplicationTable A.5: Reduplication in LillooetA.2.5.1 Lillooet Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Van Eijk (1997), H. Davis and Matthewson (2003),H. Davis (2004), Matthewson (2005), Matthewson, Rullman, and Davis (2005),H. Davis (2011), Van Eijk (2013), H. Davis and Matthewson (2022), H. Davisand Mellesmoen (2023), and from fieldwork conducted by Henry Davis.Unreduplicated forms come from the original sources, Van Eijk (2013), orH. Davis et al. (in prep).I have updated the glosses associated with C1 reduplication from work prior tothe first description of pluractional C1 reduplication in H. Davis and Mellesmoen(2023). There are numerous other examples of Lillooet reduplication in thisdissertation (see the case studies in Section 4.2 and Section 5.4 for more in-depthdescription, further examples, and phonological analysis).Decisions about which segments are associated with a reduplicative morpheme,such as whether a reduplicative morpheme surfaces as a prefix or infix, are guidedby the phonological analysis of Lillooet reduplication provided in Section 4.2.A.2.5.2 Lillooet Plural/Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationPlural/pluractional C1C2 reduplication copies the first two consonants of the rootwith the addition of an epenthetic [@]; the reduplicative morpheme is realised as477C@C, as shown in (493).(493) a. s-G@p„Ga´p (cf. sGap ‘tree’)NMLZ-PL„tree‘trees’(Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)b. s-n@ ’kw„nu´ ’kwaP (cf. snu ’kwaP ‘friend’)NMLZ-PL„friend‘friends’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)c. s-qw@´m„qw@m (cf. sqw@m ‘mountain’)NMLZ-PL„mountain‘mountain range’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)C1C2 reduplication in Lillooet can be used to describe plural entities with nouns,as in (493) above, or pluractionality with verbs, as in (494). Pluractionalityincludes events distributed across participants (494a–b,e), space (494a–c,e), andtime (494a–d).(494) a. ìasCOMP+IPFV+3CONJplanalreadywaPIPFVGiăPąpgrowăINCHąPi=pı´ns=aDET.PL=beans=EXISwaPIPFVc@kw„c@kw-@n-@´mPL„pull-DIR-1PL.ERGì@l=ti=tmı´xw=a...from=DET=land=EXIS‘When the beans were grown we pulled them from the ground...’ (cf.c@kw@n ‘to pull s.t.’) (Matthewson, 2005, p.100, Lillooet)b. Context: For the used cars, you have to lock the doors one by one.l@k„la´.k-c-a ’n=ìkanPL„lock-mouth-DIR=1SG.SUBJta´k@mallPi=s@´ps=aPL.DET=door=EXISPi=pla´n=aPL.DET=already=EXISwaPIPFVqw@zusedka.hcar‘I locked all the doors of the used cars.’ (cf. nl.a´. kca ’n ‘lock something’)(CA, Lillooet)478c. nı´ì= ’kaCOP=EVIDkw=s-HenryDET=NMLZ-HenrywaPIPFVp@Qw„p@Qw-c-a´ ’mPL„knock-mouth-MID‘That’ll be Henry knocking.’ (cf. p@Qwca´ ’m ‘knock’) (Matthewson etal., 2005, p.3, Lillooet)d. Context: One light is broken: it keeps going off and on again.paptalwayska-Qw@´l„Qw@l-aCIRC-PL„burn-CIRCtiPthat.VISkwu=q@. l=wi’lxDET=bad=becomes ’ca ’klight‘That broken light kept going on and off.’ (cf. Qw@l ‘get burned/lit’)(CA, Lillooet)e. Context: There’s a power cut, and all the lights go off. Then the poweris restored, and they all come on at once:ìaptget.extinguishedta´k@mallPi=s ’ca´ ’kw=aPL.DET=light=EXISl=ta=ta´.wn=a,at=DET=town=EXISniìCOPs=l@´p=s= ’ňuPNMLZ=suddenly=3POSS=EXCLka-Qw@´l„Qw@l-aCIRC-PL„burn-CIRCmu´taPagain‘The lights went off in the town, and then all at once they came onagain.’ (cf. Qw@l ‘get burned/lit’) (CA, Lillooet)A.2.5.3 Lillooet Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationProperty-denoting C1C2 reduplication is shown in (495); the form is identical toforms that receive a plural or pluractional interpretation in the previous section(Section A.2.5.2), except where the suffix -t is also present (see Section 4.2.3.2 forexamples and discussion of this combination).(495) a. c@qw„cı´qw (root: cı´qw- ‘red’)PDEN„red‘red’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.82, Lillooet)b. Q@l„Q@l=ìka´xwPDEN„strong=2SG.SUBJì@l=sP@´ncfrom=1SG.INDEP‘You’re stronger than me.’ (cf. Q@lı´lx ‘exert oneself’) (H. Davis, 2011,p.41, Lillooet)479c. planalreadywaPIPFVn-t@qw„tı´qwLOC-PDEN„dirtyti=qwu´P=aDET=water=EXISì=a´n=a=tuPCOMP=IPFV+1SG.SJV=EXIS=REMn- ’qay-lx-a´ ’zLOC-jump-AUT-for.fun‘The water where I used to swim is already dirty.’ (cf. ntiPqw ‘watergets dirty’) (H. Davis, 2004, p.97, Lillooet)Property-denoting reduplication is only found with adjectives.A.2.5.4 Lillooet Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1 reduplication copies the consonant before the stressed vowel; thediminutive morpheme surfaces as an infix following the stressed vowel, as shownin (496). The stressed moraic vowel is replaced with [@], unless a glottal consonantis copied, as shown in (496b), in which case the stressed vowel remains unchanged.The last sonorant of a foot is glottalised, as shown in (496c–f).17(496) a. kap@´ăpąuh (cf. kapu´h ‘coat’)coatăDIMą‘small coat’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.257, Lillooet)b. Pı´ăPąmac (cf. Pı´mac ‘grandchild’)grandchildăDIMą‘little grandchild’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.60, Lillooet)c. t@´ătąp@. ’l. (cf. tı´.p@. l. ‘table’)tableăDIMą‘little table, desk’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p. 13)d. xw@´ăxwą ’kt@ ’n (cf. xw ı´ ’kt@n ‘knife’)knifeăDIMą‘small knife’(Van Eijk, 1997, p.254, Lillooet)e. x. z@´ăzą@ ’m (cf. x. zum ‘big’)bigăDIMą‘a little bit bigger’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)17See Section 4.2.4.3 for an analysis of the process of sonorant glottalisation that accompanies C1diminutive and pluractional reduplication in Lillooet..480f. z@´ă ’ząx@t (cf. zaxt ‘long’)longăDIMą‘a bit longer’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.13, Lillooet)g. s-p@q- ’m@´ă ’mąx (cf. sp@q ’mı´x ‘swan’)NMLZ-white-excessăDIMą‘little swan’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.15, Lillooet)h. s- ’k@. l.-@´.ă’l.ą ’caP (cf. ’k@. l. ı´ ’caP ‘item of buckskin clothing’)NMLZ-buckskin-outer.coverăDIMą‘small (item of) buckskin clothing’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023,p.15, Lillooet)C1 reduplication refers to the small size of a noun, as shown in (496a–d,g–h). Withan adjective, it can mark a small amount of a quality, as shown in (497), or a smalldegree of difference in a comparison, as shown in (496e–f) above. Diminutivereduplication with a verb can mark diminished action, short duration, or partialcompletion, as shown in (498a–d); it can also mark a small participant, as shownin (498e–f).(497) a. kw@´ăkw@ą ’m-p-@qsdullăDIMą-INCH-pointta=w@’t ’ka´l-m@n=aDET=pry-instrument=EXIS‘The pry bar has gotten a bit blunt.’ (cf. kw@mp ‘get blunt or dull’)(H. Davis et al., in prep, Lillooet)b. ì@. ’mx. w-@´ăx. wąsdirty-faceăDIMątiPthat.VISkwu=s- ’kwu´ă ’kwąmiPtDET=NMLZ-childăDIMą‘That child’s face is a little dirty.’ (cf. ì@. ’mx. u´s ‘have a dirty face’)(H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.27, Lillooet)(498) a. t@p„t@ătąp-ax. a ’n=ìka´nPL„punchăDIMą-arm-1SG.SUBJkw=s-HenryDET=NMLZ-Henry‘I punched Henry in the arm lightly a bunch of times.’ (cf. tu´pu ’n‘punch something’) (CA, Lillooet)b. p@ăpąQw-@ ’m=ìka´nknockăDIMą-MID=1SG.SUBJl=ta=s@ps=aon=DET=door=EXIS‘I knocked a little bit on the door.’ (cf. p@Qwca´ ’m ‘knock’) (H. Davis &Mellesmoen, 2023, p.17, Lillooet)481c. m@´ă ’mącaPq=ìkansităDIMą=1SG.SUBJP@ìand.thenxwu´ ’z=ìkanPROS=1SG.SUBJPayìthenPalkstwork‘I sat down for a little while before going back to work.’ (cf. mı´ca(P)q‘sit down or up’) (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.19, Lillooet)d. xw@ăxwą ’k-@ ’m=ìka´ncutăDIMą-MID=1SG.SUBJta=s ’cu´qwa ’z=a,DET=fish=EXIS’ňuPbutkw@m-pdull-INCHta=n-xw ı´ ’k-t@n=a,DET=1SG.POSS-cut-instrument=EXISniìCOPs=xwPa.y=sNMLZ=NEG=3POSSkw=n-s-ka-cukw-s-aDET=1SG.POSS=NMLZ=CIRC-finish-CAUS-CIRC‘I cut the fish a little bit, but my knife got dull, so I couldn’t finish it.’(cf. xw ı´ ’k@m ‘butcher fish’) (CA, Lillooet)e. waPIPFVxw@´ăxwą ’k-@ ’mcut.fishăDIMą-MIDta=s- ’kwu´ă ’kwąmiPt=aDET=NMLZ-childăDIMą=EXIS‘The child was cutting fish.’ (cf. xw ı´ ’k@m ‘butcher fish’) (CA, Lillooet)f. m@´ă ’mącaPqsităDIMąta=s- ’kwu´ă ’kwąmiPt=aDET=NMLZ-childăDIMą=EXISnı´ì= ’ňuPCOP=EXCLs=za ’pun[-n]-a´nNMLZ=belt[-DIR]-1SG.ERGl=ta= ’qı´l ’q-s=a.in=DET=seat-3POSS=EXIS‘The child sat down and I buckled them in their seat.’ (cf. mı´ca(P)q ‘sitdown or up’) (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.19, Lillooet)A.2.5.5 Lillooet Pluractional C1 ReduplicationPluractional C1 reduplication copies the consonant before the stressed vowel; itoccurs in the same position as diminutive C1 reduplication, as discussed in theprevious section. The difference between the two stress-aligned C1 reduplicationprocesses is that the vowel is not replaced by [@] in the pluractional forms, as shownin (499).(499) a. ’kws-a´ăsą’li ’caP (root: ’kwas-)singe-outer.coverăPLą‘burn hair or feathers off an animal or a bird’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen,2023, p.21, Lillooet)482b. xw@lp-ı´ăpą’l@x (cf. xw@lpı´lx ‘turn around’)turnăPLą-AUT‘turn around and around’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.21,Lillooet)c. zwa´t-@n=ìkanknow-DIR=1SG.SUBJs@´naPCNTRkw=s=xwu ’zDET=NMLZ=PROSPkwisrain...m@s=ka´n= ’ňbut=1SG.SUBJ=EXCLcixwget.therema´ă ’mąt@qwalkăPLą‘I knew it was going to rain ... but I went for a walk anyways.’(cf. matq ‘to walk, go on foot’) (H. Davis & Matthewson, 2022,p.1343, Lillooet)Pluractional C1 is only found with verbs and shows a tendency toward event-internal readings, such as those in (500a–b). Event-internal readings involve“a multiplicity of actions which form part of the same event” (H. Davis &Mellesmoen, 2023, p.24). However, there are also examples of event-externalreadings, such as one with multiple participants in (500c).(500) a. ’ňa´.ă ’ňą’l.-@ ’n (cf. ’ňa´. l.a. n ‘bite something’)biteăPLą-DIR‘gnaw something’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.20, Lillooet)b. ’ca´ă ’cąq-@ ’n (cf. ’ca´qa ’n ‘pull something out’)pull.outăPLą-DIR‘pluck something (a bird)’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.24,Lillooet)c. su´ăsą ’qw-@ ’n (cf. su´ ’qw@n ‘skin an animal’)skinăPLą-DIR‘skin pl. animals’ (H. Davis & Mellesmoen, 2023, p.20, Lillooet)A.2.5.6 Lillooet Plural (Initial) C1 ReduplicationInitial C1 reduplication copies the first consonant of the root and adds either a [@](501). It has a limited distribution (H. Davis, p.c.).483(501) a. k@„k’la´xw (cf. k ’laxw ‘muskrat’)C1 .INIT„muskrat‘muskrat(s)’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)b. n-x.@„x. zu´m-anaP (cf. x. zum ‘big’)LOC-C1 .INIT„big-ear‘big ears’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57, Lillooet)c. s-qw@„qw ’lı´p (cf. sqw ’lip ‘black tree moss’)NMLZ-C1 .INIT„black.tree.moss‘lots of black tree moss’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57, Lillooet)d. qw@„qw ı´ta ’z (cf. qwlı´taz ‘jackpine’)C1 .INIT„jackpine‘jackpines’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.58)e. c@„cı´txw (cf. citxw ‘house’)C1 .INIT„house‘houses (= village, settlement)’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.58, Lillooet)Initial C1 reduplication is found with nominal and adjectival roots; it marks pluralentities.A second type of initial C1 reduplication marks continuative aspect with threeverbs (H. Davis, p.c.). The first consonant and vowel are copied, as shown in (502).(502) a. xw ı´„xwit@ ’n (cf. xwit@ ’n ‘to whistle’)C1 .INIT„whistle‘to keep whistling’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)b. s-ta´„taì-l@x (sta´ìl@x ‘be standing’)STAT-C1 .INIT„upright-AUT‘to keep standing up’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)A.2.5.7 Lillooet Change-of-State C2 ReduplicationChange-of-state C2 reduplication copies the consonant after the stressed vowel; [@]is epenthesized between the matching consonants, as shown in (503).1818I segment these as CVăC@ąC rather than CVC„@C following the analysis in Chapter 4 (Section4.2.4.1).484(503) a. ìı´ăl@ąl (root: ìı´l- ‘sprinkle’)sprinkleăCOSą‘to sprinkle, be sprinkling’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)b. pu´ăì@ąì=tuPboilăCOSą=REMta=qwu´P=a (root: puì- ‘to boil’)DET=water=EXIS‘The water was boiling (but hadn’t finished boiling yet).’ (H. Davis &Matthewson, 2003, p.54, Lillooet)c. ’plı´ăx. w@ąx. w (root: ’plix. w-)flow.overăCOSą‘flowing over’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.56, Lillooet)d. cı´ăxw@ąxw=kanget.thereăCOSą=1SG.SUBJs@´naP,CNTR’ňuPbutPa´y= ’ňuPNEG=EXCLkwasDET+NMLZ+IPFV+3POSSwaPIPFVk=LauraDET=Laura‘I got there, but Laura wasn’t there.’ (cf. cixw ‘to arrive (over there)’)(H. Davis & Matthewson, 2022, p.1351, Lillooet)e. nas=kan=ka´=tuPgo-1SG.SUBJ=IRR=REMza´w-@mdipnet-INTR’ňuPbutqa´ăxw@ąxwbreakăCOSąta=ka´.h-s=aDET=car-3POSS=EXISta=s-muìa´c=aDET=NMLZ-female=EXISn-s-kwuzaP1SG.POSS-NMLZ-offspring‘I would have gone fishing, but my daughter’s car broke down.’ (cf.sqa´xw ‘broken’) (Matthewson et al., 2005, p.7, Lillooet)f. nkaPwhereì=kwa´ăn@ąn-s=axwCOMP=get.caughtăCOSą-CAUS=2SG.ERGta=xzu´m=aDET=big=EXISx. wuP’ňsturgeon‘Where did you catch the big sturgeon?’ (cf. kwan ‘to take, catch,grab’) (H. Davis, 2004, p.90, Lillooet)If [@] is not obligatory for phonotactic reasons, it may be omitted, as shown in(504); however, note that an additional [@] appears after the reduplicant in theseforms.485(504) a. Pa´ă ’wą ’w-@t (cf. Pa ’wt ‘to be late’)behindăCOSą-CHAR‘too late, to miss the train or bus’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.59, Lillooet)b. ’k@´ăpąp@x. (cf. ’k@px. xa´l ‘to knock’)knockăCOSą‘to knock constantly’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.59, Lillooet)C2 reduplication marks a change-of-state in Lillooet; it is found with verbs.A.2.5.8 Other Reduplication in LillooetTriplication, which appears to have two instances of C2 reduplication, is shown in(505). This pattern is discussed in Section 4.2.5.(505) a. ’plăixwixwąı´xw (cf. ka ’plı´xwa ‘to boil over suddenly’)overflowăTRIPą‘to keep overflowing’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.32, Lillooet)b. qă@ ’kw@ ’kwą@´ ’kw-c (cf. q@ ’kwca´ ’n@m ‘mouth is shivering’)get.slammedăTRIPą-mouth‘rattle one’s teeth’ (Van Eijk, 2013, p.263, Lillooet)486A.2.6 Shuswap ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Shuswap is summarised in Table A.6.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓PDEN ✓DIM ✓1SG ✓COS ✓Other C22 TriplicationTable A.6: Reduplication in ShuswapA.2.6.1 Shuswap Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from J. Gibson (1973), Kuipers (1974a), Kuipers (1989), Lai(1998), and my fieldwork. Unreduplicated forms come from the original sources,Kuipers (1974a), Kuipers (1989), or my fieldwork. I have added [@] in many placeswhere they are omitted in source material.Note that only one obstruent and one sonorant may be glottalised in a singleword in Shuswap (see, e.g., L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1985), which meansthat deglottalisation must accompany fission (i.e., ...C’V´... ą ...CV´C’...). Whilethis affects reduplicated consonants, it is a general phonological process in thelanguage and is not explicitly discussed in the following sections.19A.2.6.2 Shuswap Plural/Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationPlural/pluractional C1C2 reduplication involves a prefixed copy of the initial twoconsonants of the root with an epenthetic [@], as shown in (506). I mark thereduplicative morpheme as a prefix because stress falls on the second syllable.(506) a. p@s„pe´s@ìkwe (cf. pe´s@ìkwe ‘lake’)PL„lake‘lakes’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.138, Shuswap)19Ejective lateral affricates are reduplicated as /t/.487b. xwPit G@=s-p@q„pe´q (root: peq-)many DET=NMLZ-PL„berry‘There are many berries.’ / ‘The berries are many.’ (Lai, 1998, p.9,Shuswap)c. s-p@l„pu´’l-t@n (cf. pu ’lt@n ‘bed, lair’)NMLZ-PL„lie-instrument‘lairs’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)d. s-t@m„te´ ’m@t-t@n (cf. st@met ‘friend’)NMLZ-PL„friend-PL‘in-laws’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.152, Shuswap)e. k@c„kı´cx (cf. kicx ‘arrive’)PL„arrive‘arrive (pl.)’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)f. (c-)P@ì„Pu´ìxw (cf. (c)Puìxw ‘enter’)(STAT-)PL„enter‘enter (pl.)’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.277, Shuswap)g. w@t„we´t ’kx (cf. wet ’kx ‘vomit’)PL„vomit‘vomit (pl.)’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.262, Shuswap)h. n@k„nı´ ’k-@m (cf. ni ’k@m ‘to cut’)PL„cut-MID‘cut, saw (pl.)’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.191, Shuswap)C1C2 reduplication marks plural entities with nouns, as shown in (506a–d)above, in addition to marking pluractionality on verbs, as shown in (506e–h). Withverbs, C1C2 reduplication frequently marks plural participants, as shown in (507a–c). There are also examples that show a spatial or temporal distribution, such asthose in (507d) and (507e), respectively.(507) a. c-y@m„ye´m (cf. cyem ‘to sit, be camped’)STAT-PL„sit/camp‘several groups are at home/camped’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)488b. (w)PexIPFVG@=y@w„ye´w-m-@s (cf. yew@m ‘fish with scoop net’)DET=PL„fish-MID-3SBJV‘They’re fishing.’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.80, Shuswap)c. x. w@x. we´ytallG@=ce´ ’kwst@nDET=lightceP„ce´ăPą ’kw-t-@s (cf. cPe ’kw ‘got bright)PL„brightăINCHą-TR-3ERG‘All of the lights were lit up (at the same time).’ (GD, Shuswap)d. G@=pusDET=catkw@p„kwup-@n-sPL„push-CTR-3ERGG@=n@ ’ku´PDET=onet@=s-x. ’cye´ì@ ’mxwDET=NMLZ-boxx. w@x. we´ytall’ň(@)he´P@nto.where‘The cat kept pushing one box all over the place.’ (cf. kwup@m ‘topush’) (GD, Shuswap)e. G@=s@m@yu´ ’y@DET=small.fisht@qw„ ’ňqwe´sxn-@ ’mPL„swim-MIDnePDEMtqeltktop/abovexwu´Pc@magainPeìCONJxwu´Pc@magain‘The little fish swam to the top (again and again).’ (cf. ’ň@qw-e´sxn- ’m‘to tread water/swim’) (GD, Shuswap)A.2.6.3 Shuswap Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationProperty-denoting C1C2 reduplication has the same form as plural/pluractionalC1C2 reduplication. The first two consonants of the root are copied and positionedas a prefix with epenthetic [@], as shown in (508). Property-denoting reduplicationis often found in combination with the characteristic suffix -t.(508) a. q@p„qe´p-t (cf. qe´p@m ‘to soften hides’)PDEN„soft-CHAR‘soft (as flannel)’ (Kuipers, 1989, p.204, Shuswap)b. t@kw„tu´kw-t (cf. P@stukw ‘fall silent’)PDEN„silent-CHAR‘silent’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)489c. G@l„Ga´l-t (root: Ga´l- ‘strong’)PDEN„strong-CHAR(Kuipers, 1974a, p.55, Shuswap)d. t@x. w„tu´x. w-t (root: tux. w- ‘straight, right’)PDEN„straight-CHAR‘straight’ (GD, Shuswap)Property-denoting C1C2 reduplication is found with adjectives.A.2.6.4 Shuswap Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1 reduplication copies the consonant before the stressed vowel in theword. The reduplicated consonant is positioned directly after the stressed vowel,as shown in (509).(509) a. cqeă ’qąìp (cf. c ’qeìp ‘tree’)treeăDIMą‘small tree’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)b. ìkeăkąp (cf. ìkep ‘pot’)potăDIMą‘little pot’ (J. Gibson, 1973, p.47, Shuswap)c. tiqu´ ’qst@n (cf. ti ’qu´st@n ‘butter’)//t-yq-u´ă ’qąs-t@n//LOC-mash-faceăDIMą-instrument‘a little butter’ (GD, Shuswap)d. EveEvet@x. w-@n-t-e´ătąsstraight-CTR-TR-3ERGăDIMąG@=s- ’ňxı´m@nDET=NMLZ-spoon‘Eve straightened the spoon a little.’ (cf. t@x. wtu´x. wt ‘straight’) (GD,Shuswap)e. ’pPeăPąxw (cf. ’pPexw ‘more’)moreăDIMą‘a little more’ (Kuipers, 1989, p.153, Shuswap)490f. ì@ ’qt-Pu´ăPą@ywide-realăDIMąG@=l@te´pDET=table(cf. ì@ ’qtPu´y ‘It’s too wide.’)‘The table is a little too wide.’ (GD, Shuswap)Diminutive reduplication occurs with nouns, verbs, and adjectives. It marks a smallentity or amount with nouns, as shown in (509a–c) above. With adjectives, suchas those in (509d–f), diminutive reduplication marks either a small degree (i.e.,“a little bit X”) or a small difference between two degrees (i.e., “a little bit moreX”). With verbs, diminutive reduplication refers to partial completion, as shown in(510a); it cannot be used to describe a short duration or small participant, as shownin (510b) and (510c) respectively.(510) a. G@=s-Qw@s„Qwe´s-tDET=NMLZ-PDEN„sunny-CHARmăPąix. w-@nwe´ă ’wą@n-smeltăINCHą-NTRăDIMą-3ERGG@=s-wuxwtDET=NMLZ=snow‘The sunshine was able to melt the snow a little bit.’ (cf. mı´x. w@n ‘They(sg.) melt it.’) (GD, Shuswap)b. #G@=s-kwe´ ’kwP@sDET=NMLZ-sunqwe´ăqwąc-@n-swarmăDIMą-CTR-3ERGG@=ìu´qwl@xwDET=ground/soilIntended: ‘The sun warmed the ground for a little while.’ (cf. qwe´c@m‘to warm up’) (GD, Shuswap)c. *G@=nu´ănąx. w@nx. wDET=womanăDIMąp@n-mı´ămą@n-sfind-RLTăDIMą-3ERGG@=x-ìu´qw-m@ ’nDET=LOC-scoop-instrumentIntended: ‘The little girl found the cup.’ (cf. p@nmı´nx ‘You will findit.’) (GD, Shuswap)A.2.6.5 Shuswap First Person C1 ReduplicationFirst person C1 reduplication, which has the same form as the diminutive describedin the previous section, marks first person subjects or objects. Like the diminutive,it is sensitive to stress. Examples are provided in (511).491(511) a. G=n-ciăcątxw (cf. citxw ‘house’)DET=1SG.POSS-houseă1SGą‘my house’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)b. kı´ăkącx-k@n (cf. tkicx ‘arrived there’)arriveă1SGą-1SG.SUBJ‘I arrive.’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)c. x-k@ì-cı´ăcą@nLOC-open-mouthă1SGąm@ìalreadyG@=x- ’k@mc@ne´ìxwDET=LOC-door‘I already opened the door.’ (cf. xk@ìcı´ ’ns ‘to open’) (GD, Shuswap)d. m-wı´ăwąk-t-s@m-sCOMPL-seeă1SGą-TR-1SG.OBJ-3SUBJr@=MaryDET=Mary‘Mary saw me.’ (cf. swe´t ’y kwikts ‘Whom did they (sg.) see?’)(Gardiner, 1996, p.175, Shuswap)First person C1 reduplication is also used in the nominal domain to mark firstperson singular possessives, as in (511a) above. With verbs, it marks a first personsubject or object, as shown in (511b–c) and (511d), respectively.There is variation between dialects and speakers with respect to the use offirst person C1 reduplication (Kuipers, 1974a); Lyon and Ignace (2021) alsoobserve that C1 reduplication is not found in quoted speech in the Kuipers (1974a)narratives.A.2.6.6 Shuswap Change-of-State C2 ReduplicationChange-of-state C2 reduplication doubles the consonant following the root voweland places it before the root vowel. A [@] is also epenthesized, as shown in (512).I mark the reduplicant as an infix based on the fact that based on the position ofstress.20(512) a. pă@kwąu´kw (cf. pkwum ‘to scatter’)spillăCOSą‘be spilled’ (J. Gibson, 1973, p.49, Shuswap)20Interior Salish languages differ in whether C2 reduplication comes before or after the stressedor root vowel: Okanagan and Shuswap both have a Că@C2ąV´C2 pattern, while the other InteriorSalish languages have a CV´ăC2@ąC2 one.492b. ’pă@ìąa´ì (cf. c ’paì ‘flat’)flatăCOSą‘flattened out’ (Kuipers, 1989, p.153, Shuswap)c. ’ňă@xwąu´xw (cf. ’ňuxw ‘numb’)numbăCOSą‘numb’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)d. ’ňă@sąa´s (cf. ’ňas ‘make a splashing sound’)splashăCOSą‘soggy’ (Kuipers, 1989, p.163, Shuswap)Change-of-state C2 reduplication applies to adjective and verb roots; it does notoccur with nouns. Kuipers (1989, p.22) states that forms with C2 reduplicationinvolve either an “ongoing process of change” or “a quality (and not to a processleading to it)”.A.2.6.7 Other Reduplication in ShuswapKuipers (1989) describes a C22 triplication pattern in Shuswap, which is shownin (513). The final consonant of the root is tripled and two instances of [@] areepenthesized. This appears to have an iterative meaning, much like the cognatetriplication pattern found in Lillooet.(513) a. pă@t@tąe´t (cf. snpto´lePxw ‘dumplings’)bubble/boilăTRIPąbubble, boil (Kuipers, 1989, p.22, Shuswap)b. tă@kw@kwąı´kw (cf. tPikw ‘fire’)fireăTRIPą‘throw off sparks’ (Kuipers, 1989, p.22, Shuswap)493A.2.7 Thompson River Salish ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Thompson River Salish is summarised in Table A.7.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓PDEN ✓DIM ✓AFF ✓COS ✓Table A.7: Reduplication in Thompson River SalishA.2.7.1 Thompson River Salish Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from B. Carlson and Thompson (1981), L. C. Thompson andThompson (1992), Jimmie (1994), and L. C. Thompson and Thompson (1996).I draw on L. C. Thompson and Thompson (1996) for most unreduplicated forms.Sources for Thompson River Salish typically omit schwa; I only regularly add [@]to reduplicative morphemes.See Chapter 6 (Section 6.6.2.3.3) for further discussion of reduplication inThompson River Salish.A.2.7.2 Thompson River Salish Plural/Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationPlural/pluractional C1C2 reduplication copies the initial two consonants of the root;[@] is epenthesized between the two reduplicated consonants, as shown in (514).(514) a. ke´ykix (cf. keyx ‘hand’)//ke´yăk@yąx//handăPLą‘hands, arms’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.84, ThompsonRiver Salish)b. s- ’kwo´z„ ’kw@z (cf. s ’kwoz ‘aunt’)NMLZ-aunt„PL494‘aunts’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.84, Thompson RiverSalish)c. ’ň@ ’n„ ’ňe´ ’ni (cf. ’ňe´ ’ni ‘ear’)PL„ear‘ears’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.82, Thompson RiverSalish)d. s- ’ň@m„ ’ň@mk-e´ ’yt (cf. s ’ň@mke´yt ‘niece’)NMLZ-PL„niece‘nieces’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.82, Thompson RiverSalish)C1C2 reduplication marks plural entities with nouns, as shown in (514) above; withverbs or adjectives, it can refer to plural participants, as shown in (515a–c). C1C2reduplication on verbs can also mark events distributed in time or space, as shownin (515d–e).(515) a. ì@x.„ìa´x. i (cf. sìa´x. i ‘be cold’)PL„feel.cold‘They are cold.’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.82, ThompsonRiver Salish)b. ’ye ’ye´ (cf. ’ye´ ‘good’)//y@h„y@´h//PL„good‘plural persons are good’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.450,Thompson River Salish)c. w@k„wı´k-t-xw (cf. Peswı´k ‘seen, observed’)PL„see-CTR-2SG.ERG‘You see them.’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.82, ThompsonRiver Salish)d. s@G„s@G-t-e´s (cf. sG@p ‘breeze, draft’)PL„aspirate-CTR-3ERG‘blows repeatedly on’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.82,Thompson River Salish)495e. ’paQ ’pa´Qt (cf. ’paQt ‘burned, singed’)// ’p@Q„ ’p@´Q-t//PL„burn.flesh-CHAR‘burned in several places’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.82,Thompson River Salish)A.2.7.3 Thompson River Salish Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationIn words with property-denoting C1C2 reduplication, stress falls on the initialsyllable, as shown in (516). An epenthetic [@] appears in the second syllable.Property-denoting C1C2 reduplication often co-occurs with a -t suffix, which iscognate to the adjectival or stative -t suffixes in other Salish languages, thoughL. C. Thompson and Thompson (1992) label it as “intermediate”.(516) a. ’ňa´ ’q„ ’ň@ ’q-t (cf. ’ňaqt ‘pricked, stuck’)perforate„PDEN-CHAR‘full of thorns, thorny’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.89,Thompson River Salish)b. mı´PmiPt (cf. miPt ‘They (sg.) are infected.’)//m@´ ’y„m@ ’y-t//distribute„PDEN-CHAR‘It’s very contagious.’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.89,Thompson River Salish)c. n-we´n„w@n (cf. nwenı´m ‘arise early’)LOC-early„PDEN‘It’s early’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.87, ThompsonRiver Salish)d. wı´P„wiP-t (cf. wı´Pes ‘disable someone’)disable„PDEN-CHAR‘hard, difficult’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.379,Thompson River Salish)Property-denoting C1C2 reduplication occurs as an infix following the firstsyllable. I mark property-denoting C1C2 reduplication as an infix based the fact496that the first syllable is stressed; this is unlike the plural/pluractional forms in theprevious section where stress typically falls on the second syllable, suggesting thatplural/pluractional reduplication is best marked as a prefix.21Forms with property-denoting C1C2 reduplication appear to be adjectives,though they typically are formed from verb roots.A.2.7.4 Thompson River Salish Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1 reduplication in Thompson River Salish copies the consonantbefore the stressed vowel; the copied consonant is placed after the stressed vowel.Examples are given in (517). Sonorants may also be glottalised, as shown in(517b,d); see Luntzlara (in prep) for discussion of glottalisation.(517) a. ’c ’ye„ ’y (cf. ’c ’ye ‘basket’)basket„DIM‘little basket’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.75, Thompson River Salish)b. qemu´ă ’mąt (cf. qemu´t ‘hat’)hatăDIMą‘small hat’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.73, Thompson River Salish)c. ti(y-e)-t-e´ătąs (cf. ti(ye)te´s ‘praise s.o.’)praise-(DRV)-CTR-3ERGăDIMą‘flatter s.o.’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.335, ThompsonRiver Salish)d. s-nu´ă ’nąyeP (cf. snu´yeP ‘money’)NMLZ-moneyăDIMą‘a small amount of money’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.73, Thompson RiverSalish)If the consonant following the stressed vowel is /P/ or /h/, a vowel is also copied,as shown in (518).21While stress generally does not fall on the initial syllable in C1C2 reduplicated words, thereare some plural/pluractional forms (e.g., 514a-b) that resemble property-denoting C1C2 reduplicatedforms because they have stress on the first syllable (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.84).497(518) a. kwes.u´ăs.uąP (cf. kwas. o(h) ‘pig’)22pigăDIMą‘little pig’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.76, Thompson River Salish)b. ka´ăkaąh (cf. ka(h) ‘car’)carăDIMą‘little car’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.76, Thompson River Salish)c. xe´ăxeąP (cf. xeP ‘high’)highăDIMą‘a little high’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.75, Thompson River Salish)C1 reduplication in Thompson River Salish marks a small or young noun, asshown in (517a–b) and 518a–b) above; it can also refer to a small amount with anoun, as shown in (517d). With adjectives, diminutive reduplication can refer to areduced or small amount or a difference between two measures (i.e., a diminutivecomparative adjective), as shown in (519) (and 518c above). It can also mark asmall argument of a verb, as shown in (520) or a diminutive event, as shown in(521). With stative marking, it can mark a partial state or that the state holds of asmall argument or area, as shown in (522).(519) a. căPąe´ăPąk (cf. cPek ‘get cool’)coolăINCHąăDIMą‘get a little cooler’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.76, Thompson River Salish)b. Pes-l@´.ă’ląs. „ Pes-l@´.ă’ląs (cf. Pesl@´s „ Pesl@´. s. ‘low’)STAT-lowăDIMą‘a little lower’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.139, ThompsonRiver Salish)c. x. wy-ekst-e´ătą ’m (cf. x. yekst ‘do s.t. fast’)fast-hand-MIDăDIMą‘do s.t. a little faster. (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p.105,Thompson River Salish)22This is a retracting root with variable effect (i.e., [u] „ [o] - see (L. C. Thompson & Thompson,1996, p.119).498(520) a. ìaPx. -a´ăx.ą ’ns (cf. ìaPx. a´ns ‘(a person) eats’)eat-teethăDIMą‘a little person eats’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.76, Thompson River Salish)b. su´ăsą ’qw-m (cf. so´qw-m ‘he butchers (deer)’)butcherăDIMą-MID‘(little child helps) butcher (deer)’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson,1992, p.92, Thompson River Salish)(521) a. teătąkì (cf. stekì ‘rain’)rainăDIMą‘sprinkle, rain lightly’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.344,Thompson River Salish)(522) a. Pes-wl@´ă’ląqw (cf. P@swlo´qw ‘cleared (of brush)’)STAT-clear.landăDIMą‘somewhat cleared (of brush)’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996,p.701, Thompson River Salish)b. Pes-ìuăìą ’qw (cf. Pesìo´ ’qwe ‘(undergrowth) is clear now’)STAT-clearăDIMą‘a small clear, open spot [in brush]’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson,1996, p.701, Thompson River Salish)A.2.7.5 Thompson River Salish Affective C1 Reduplication“Affective” C1 reduplication copies the first consonant of the root, with a [@]between the matching consonants. Examples are given in (523).(523) a. t@„t@´.z-eP (root: tz-)AFF„arrowhead-FMV‘arrow head’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.139, Thompson River Salish)b. c@„cp-ı´k ’n (cf. ncp@´p ‘come to fit in’)AFF„fit.in-back‘sun goes down over mountain (sunset)’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.84,Thompson River Salish)499c. x@„x ’we´ì (cf. x ’weì ‘road’)AFF„road‘trail’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.84, Thompson River Salish)d. n-c@„ce´ ’ws (root: ce ’ws)LOC-AFF„fatigued‘exhausted, tired out’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.84, Thompson River Salish)While the label “affective” comes from L. C. Thompson and Thompson (1992),the meaning associated with this type of reduplication is unclear. They suggest thatthe affective C1 reduplication may have developed from diminutive reduplication;however, unlike diminutive C1 reduplication, affective C1 reduplication is notsensitive to stress.23 Affective C1 reduplication does not appear to be restricted toa specific lexical category.A.2.7.6 Thompson River Salish Change-of-State C2 ReduplicationThe consonant following the stressed vowel is doubled in change-of-state C2reduplication and [@] intervenes. Examples are given in (524).24(524) a. x. wu´s„@s (cf. x. ust ‘frothy, soapy’)foam„COS‘It foams on its own.’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.79, Thompson River Salish)b. ’ce´ì„@ì (cf. n ’c@ì ‘cold water’)cold„COS‘cooled off’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.79, Thompson River Salish)c. tu´p„@p-s-ne (cf. Pestu´p ‘broken into pieces’)smash„COS-CAUS-1SG.ERG‘I smash it up accidentally.’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.79, Thompson RiverSalish)23Affective C1 reduplication resembles initial C1 reduplication in Lillooet, which marks plurality(see Section A.2.5.6).24The vowel in (524h–i) in the source is [u], but this is /@/ with subsequent rounding (due to itsposition between two rounded consonants.500d. ’cP-ı´kă@ką ’n (cf. Pes(n) ’cPı´k ’n ‘wrapped (up)’)lay-backăCOSą‘be or get wrapped (with difficulty or accidentally, or by outsideagency’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.47, Thompson RiverSalish)e. ne´ ’k„@ ’k (cf. ne´ ’kes ‘change/transform s.t.’)change„COS‘It changes.’ (B. Carlson & Thompson, 1981, p.113, Thompson RiverSalish)f. suxw„@xw (cf. suxwtxw ‘You recognize them (sg.).’)recognize„COS‘They (sg.) were accidentally recognized.’ (B. Carlson & Thompson,1981, p.112, Thompson River Salish)g. pikw„@kwslice„COS(cf. Pespikw ‘sectioned, sliced’)‘It comes to pieces.’ (B. Carlson & Thompson, 1981, p.112, ThompsonRiver Salish)C2 reduplication in Thompson River Salish is attested with verbs; Kroeber (1988)states that C2 reduplication may combine with stative and eventive roots. Change-of-state reduplication marks something that is “out of control” (L. C. Thompson &Thompson, 1992), or under “limited control” (Jimmie, 1994).501A.3 Central Salish ReduplicationA.3.1 Comox-Sliammon ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Comox-Sliammon is summarised in Table A.8.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓PDEN ✓DIM ✓PL ✓PROG ✓COS ✓PL ✓Table A.8: Reduplication in Comox-SliammonA.3.1.1 Comox-Sliammon Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Blake (2000), Watanabe (2003), J. Davis (2020), and myfieldwork. Unreduplicated forms come from the original sources or my fieldwork.I do not mark stress in Comox-Sliammon because it is predictable (i.e., fixed-initialstress). There are numerous other examples of reduplication in Comox-Sliammonin the case studies in Section 4.1 and Section 5.5.Decisions about which segments are associated with a reduplicative morpheme,such as whether a reduplicative morpheme surfaces as a prefix or infix, are guidedby the phonological analysis of Comox-Sliammon reduplication provided inSection 4.1.A.3.1.2 Comox-Sliammon Plural/Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationPlural/pluractional C1C2 reduplication copies the initial two consonants of the rootwith an intervening (epenthetic) [@], as shown in (525).502(525) a. kw@s„kwus@n (cf. kwus@n ‘star’)PL„star‘stars’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.372, Comox-Sliammon)b. cˇ@y„cˇu ’y (cf. cˇu ’y ‘child’)PL„child‘children’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.327, Comox-Sliammon)c. ’t@n„’tin (cf. ’tin ‘barbecued fish’)PL„barbecued.fish‘lots of barbecued fish’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.372, Comox-Sliammon)d. h@s„has-am (cf. hasam ‘sneeze’)PL„sneeze-MID‘sneeze all the time’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.373, Comox-Sliammon)e. P@ì„Puìqwu (cf. Puìqwu ‘dig clams’)PL„dig.clams‘always be digging clams’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.373, Comox-Sliammon)f. t@q„t@q (cf. t@qtcˇxw ‘close it’)PL„close‘all of them closed’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.373, Comox-Sliammon)g. hu=cˇatgo=2PL.SUBJP@m„Pim-asˇ-uì (cf. Pı´m@sˇ ‘walk’)PL„walk-INTR-PST‘We went walking (around).’ (JF, Comox-Sliammon)h. ’tT@kw„’tT@kw-t-anPL„wipe-CTR-1SG.ERGtiPi (cf. ’tT@kwtcˇan ‘I wiped it.’)DEM‘I’m wiping it all over.’ (PD, Comox-Sliammon)C1C2 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon marks plural entities with nouns,as shown in (525a–c) above. With verbs, such as those in (525d–h), C1C2reduplication marks a spatiotemporal distribution with (Huijsmans & Mellesmoen,2021). Pluractional C1C2 reduplication requires distribution in both timeand space: it is not sufficient to distribute events over multiple times or orspaces/participants, as shown in in (526) and (527), respectively.2525The [a] in (527) may involve a process of ablaut (see Section 5.5.6.1 and Huijsmans &Mellesmoen, 2021, p.351).503(526) a. t@q„t@q-t-anPL„close-CTR-1SG.ERGm@m ’kiyust@n (cf. t@qtcˇxw ‘close it’)window‘I closed the windows (around the house).’ (PD, Comox-Sliammon)b. # t@q„t@q-t=cˇPL„close-CTR=1SG.SUBJt@=m@m ’kiyust@nDET=windowIntended: ‘I repeatedly closed the (one) window.’ (EP, Comox-Sliammon)(527) a. Context: A girl is jumping from rock to rock to cross a river.’kwa’tT„ ’kwi’tT-im (cf. ’kwi ’tTim ‘jump’)PL„jump-MID‘She is jumping across.’ (EP/FL, Comox-Sliammon)b. Context: A bunch of students jumping for a graduation photo.Everyone jumps at the same time, just once.# ’kwa’tT„ ’kwi’tT-imPL„jump-MIDIntended: ‘They jumped (at the same time).’ (Huijsmans &Mellesmoen, 2021, p.351, Comox-Sliammon)C1C2 reduplication can also mark plurality with adjectives, as shown in (528).26(528) a. Pu ’kwall’ň@q„ ’ňaqtPL„longy@w„yawup (cf. ’ňaqtPL„fabric‘long’)‘The (two) pieces of fabric are both long.’ (JF, Comox-Sliammon)b. hihiw tih„tih t@=t@m„tumisˇ (cf. tih ‘big’)really PL„big DET=PL„man‘Those men are really big.’ (BW, Comox-Sliammon)A.3.1.3 Comox-Sliammon Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationProperty-denoting C1C2 reduplication copies the first two consonants of the rootare copied. The forms given in (529a–c) forms would distinguishable from theplural/pluractional forms when the root has a sonorant in C2 position, because only26Example (528b) has [i] in the reduplicant: this is due to restrictions related to coda /h/ and schwabefore a coda glottal consonant.504the first rather than the second sonorant is glottalized (cf. 525b in the previoussection).(529) a. t@ ’w„tiwsˇ (tiwsˇam ‘learn’)PDEN„smart‘fast learner, smart’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.398, Comox-Sliammon)b. sˇ@ ’m„sˇam (cf. sˇa ’mat ‘dry it’)PDEN„dry‘dry’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.398, Comox-Sliammon)c. qw@ ’y„qway (cf. qway ‘talk’)PDEN„talk‘talkative’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.398, Comox-Sliammon)d. ì@x.„ì@x. -t@n (cf. ì@x. ‘bad’)PDEN„bad-instrument‘mischievous, misbehaved’ (WJF/MV, Comox-Sliammon)e. ì@x.„ì@x. -jˇIm (cf. ì@x. ‘bad’)PDEN„bad-susceptible‘clumsy’ (WJF/MV, Comox-Sliammon)f. g@’tT„g@’tT (root: g@ ’tT- ‘tease’)PDEN„tease‘someone always teasing’ (FL/KG, Comox-Sliammon)Property-denoting reduplication is recorded with verb roots, such as qway- ‘talk’,and adjective roots, such as ìx. - ‘bad’. Huijsmans (2023b, p.184) states that “wordswith [property-denoting] reduplication are [...] difficult to categorize” with respectto lexical category. Though they typically are translated as adjectives, she showsthat that g@ ’tTg@ ’tT ‘someone always teasing’ “patterns as a verb, since it is able toprecede and follow a noun it modifies” (Huijsmans, 2023b, p.184). Further workis needed to determine the distribution of property-denoting reduplication.A.3.1.4 Comox-Sliammon Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1 reduplication copies the first consonant of the root, as shown in(530a–d). A fixed segment /i/ is found between the two matching consonants505with roots that surface with schwa as the first vowel when they occur withoutreduplication, as shown in (530e–f). The fixed segment /i/ is also used withmonosyllabic roots with a moraic vowel, as shown in (531).(530) a. suăsąpayu (cf. supayu ‘axe’)axeăDIMą‘small ax’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.385, Comox-Sliammon)b. PaăPąyaP (cf. PayaP ‘house’)houseăDIMą‘small house’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.385, Comox-Sliammon)c. x. an-aTgive-CTR+1SG.OBJgaIMPsˇuăsˇąkwa (cf. sˇukwa ‘sugar’)sugarăDIMą‘Give me a little sugar.’ (FL, Comox-Sliammon)d. Piìtan-uì=cˇeat-PST=1SG.SUBJlaăląsup (cf. lasup ‘soup’)soupăDIMą‘I ate a little bit of soup.’ (RT/FL, Comox-Sliammon)e. mi„mT[i]kw (cf. m@Tkw ‘blackcap berry’)DIM„blackcap‘small blackcap berry’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.386, Comox-Sliammon)f. ’qi„ ’qsna ’y (cf. ’q@sna ’y ‘shirt’)DIM„shirt‘small shirt, dress’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.386, Comox-Sliammon)(531) a. Pi„Paxw (cf. Paxw ‘snow’)DIM„snow‘It is snowing a little bit.’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.386, Comox-Sliammon)b. pi„pukw (cf. pukw ‘book’)DIM„book‘small book’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.386, Comox-Sliammon)Diminutive C1 reduplication is found with nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Withnouns, C1 diminutive reduplication marks a small size with count nouns, as shownin (530a–b,e–f) and (531b) above; with a mass noun, it marks small amount, asshown in (530c–d). With adjectives, diminutive reduplication can mark a small506amount of a property or that there is a small difference between two degrees (i.e.,a diminutive comparison), or that the property exceeds a threshold by a smallamount. Examples of the three diminutive readings available for adjectives aregiven in (532).27(532) a. hihiwreallyqi„qaP’t@mDIM„heavyt@=kwan„kwin-at-an (cf. qaP ’t@m ‘heavy’)DET=PL„carry-TR-1SG.ERG‘The ones (bags) that I’m carrying are a little heavy.’ (BW, Comox-Sliammon)b. qi„qaP’t@mDIM„heavytiPiDEMTugotitaDEM‘This one (bag) is heavier than that one.’ (BW, Comox-Sliammon)c. qi„qaP’t@mDIM„heavytiPi.DEMhi-sxw-s@mit’s-CAUS-FUTDanielDanielq@h-tlift-CTR‘This one is a little too heavy (for me). Let Daniel lift it.’ (BW, Comox-Sliammon)With verbs, diminutive reduplication indicates that an event is diminished orreduced in a particular way, as shown in (531a) and (533a), or that it involves asmall degree of change or progress toward completion, as shown in (533b–c).(533) a. x. aăx.ąs-@mrustleăDIMą-MID(root: x. as-)‘It is rustling a little bit.’ (FL, Comox-Sliammon)b. tiătąh-at=cˇxw (cf. tih ‘big’)bigăDIMą-CTR=2SG.SBJ‘Make it a little bigger.’ (FL, Comox-Sliammon)c. TaăTąp-at-asbatheăDIMą-CTR-3ERGmima ’w-s (cf. Tapisˇ ‘bathe’)cat-3POSS‘She bathed the cat a little bit (only part of it).’ (FL, Comox-Sliammon)27The fact that the Ci- reduplicant is used for qaP ’t@m ‘heavy’ suggests that [a] may not be theunderlying vowel; this may be a root without a vowel, with [a] surfacing instead of [@] before a codaglottal stop.507A.3.1.5 Comox-Sliammon Plural C1 ReduplicationPlural C1 reduplication is almost identical to diminutive C1 reduplication in shape.The first consonant of the root is copied, as shown in (534). The vowel betweenthe matching consonants is [a], rather than the diminutive [i], if the root is weak orthe word is monosyllabic, as shown in (535).(534) a. PaăPąmut (cf. Pamut ‘be home’)be.homeăPLą‘They are all home.’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.376, Comox-Sliammon)b. huăhąjˇ-igis (cf. hujˇigis ‘They (sg.) are dressed up.’)finishăC1PLą-body‘They were all dressed up’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.376, Comox-Sliammon)x. iăx.ąm-us (cf. x. imus ‘scratched face’)scratchăPLą-face‘be scratched on the face (with more than one scratch)’ (Watanabe,2003, p. 376, Comox-Sliammon)(535) a. xwa„xws-awus (root: xws- ‘black’)PL„black-eye‘black eyes’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.378, Comox-Sliammon)b. ’cˇa„ ’cˇpx. (cf. ’cˇ@px. ‘dirty’)PL„dirty‘They are all dirty.’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.377, Comox-Sliammon)Plural C1 reduplication only applies to states (Watanabe, 2003); it combines withadjectives and stative-marked verbs. The examples in (536) show that the state mayhold of plural participants or be spatially distributed (e.g., apply to different partsor spots on a single object).28 A singular argument is sufficient for the felicitoususe of this type of reduplication if the state is distributed in space.2928Plural C1 reduplication differs from pluractional C1C2 reduplication because C1 reduplicationdoes not require a temporal distribution (see Huijsmans & Mellesmoen, 2021).29This type of reduplication is not used for contiguous states that hold of the full object. Furtherelicitation is needed to determine whether overlap in space, and to what extent, is permitted with C1reduplication.508(536) a. ňa„ňpăiąxw (root: ňpxw- ‘break’)PL„breakăSTVą‘They (multiple) are broken.’ (EP/FL)‘It (one) is broken up.’ (BW, Comox-Sliammon)b. pa„px. -it (root: px. - ‘rip’)PL„rip-STV‘multiple are ripped’ (JF)‘multiple rips (on same jacket)’ (JF, Comox-Sliammon)A.3.1.6 Comox-Sliammon Progressive C1 ReduplicationProgressive aspect in Comox-Sliammon is marked by C1 reduplication. If the roothas a moraic vowel, then it is copied along with the first consonant, as shown in(537).(537) a. Pa„Pa ’q-at (cf. Pa ’qat ‘chase it/them (sg.).’)PROG„chase-CTR‘be chasing it/them (sg.)’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.392, Comox-Sliammon)b. Ta„Tap-isˇ (cf. Tapisˇ ‘bathe’)PROG„bathe-TR‘be bathing’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.392, Comox-Sliammon)c. ’ti„’tikw-um (cf. ’tikwum ‘disembark’)PROG„disembark-MID‘be disembarking’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.392, Comox-Sliammon)d. qwu„qwum-ut (cf. qwumut ‘put in mouth’)PROG„root-CTR‘be putting it in mouth’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.392, Comox-Sliammon)If the corresponding perfective form would have [@] as its first vowel (i.e., it has nounderlying vowel), then only a consonant is copied, as shown in (538).(538) a. p@ăpąn-aPam (cf. p@nasˇ ‘bury/plant it’)plantăPROGą-A.INTR‘be burying/planting’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.393, Comox-Sliammon)509b. t@ătąm-asˇ (cf. t@masˇ ‘wish for it’)wishăPROGą-TR‘be wishing for it’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.393, Comox-Sliammon)c. ’p@ă ’pąňsˇ (cf. ’p@ňsˇ ‘surface’)surfaceăPROGą‘surfacing’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.393, Comox-Sliammon)An additional [@] is epenthesized when the root has a C@CC shape and the secondconsonant is a sonorant, as shown in (539).(539) a. n@ăną@lxw-at (cf. n@lxwat ‘stir it’)stirăPROGą-CTR‘be stirring it’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.393, Comox-Sliammon)b. p@ăpą@lg-at (cf. p@lgat ‘roll it up’)rollăPROGą-CTR‘be rolling it up’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.393, Comox-Sliammon)Progressive C1 reduplication is only found with verbs; it marks action that areongoing (J. Davis, 2019; Watanabe, 2003).30 Further examples of progressiveforms are provided in (540).(540) a. Ti„Tiq-@xw-anPROG„dig-NTR-1SG.ERGt@=qawTDET=potato‘I am digging all of the potatoes (still digging, but some are alreadydug up).’ (cf. Tiq@xwan ‘I dug it up.’) (Watanabe, 2003, p.209, Comox-Sliammon)b. hu„hujˇ-@xw-an (cf. hujˇ@xwan ‘I finished it.’)PROG„finish-NTR-1SG.ERG‘I am finishing it off (e.g., my work).’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.209, Comox-Sliammon)c. q@ăqąh-@xw-as (cf. q@hiytuì ‘It has been lifted up.’)liftăPROGą-NTR-3ERG‘They (sg.) are lifting it up slowly.’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.210, Comox-Sliammon)30Watanabe (2003) uses the label “imperfective” for progressive reduplication.510A.3.1.7 Comox-Sliammon Change-of-State C2 ReduplicationThe second consonant of the root and the preceding vowel is copied in change-of-state C2 reduplication, as shown in (541).31(541) a. ’ňăax.ąax. (cf. ’ňax. ay ‘old person’)oldăCOSą‘get old’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.397, Comox-Sliammon)b. pă@są@s (cf. p@s ‘numb’)numbăCOSą‘get numb’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.397, Comox-Sliammon)c. tăihąih (cf. tih ‘big’)bigăCOSą‘get big’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.397, Comox-Sliammon)d. ’pău ’qwąu ’qw (cf. ’pu ’qw ‘moldy’)moldăCOSą‘get moldy’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.397, Comox-Sliammon)e. ’ňăi ’qąi ’qiw (cf. ’ňi ’qiw ‘dark’)darkăCOSą‘get dark’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.397, Comox-Sliammon)f. pă@ìą@ìt (cf. p@ìtsxw ‘Make it thick!’)thickăCOSą‘getting thick’(Watanabe, 2003, p.397, Comox-Sliammon)C2 reduplication is used to derive a change of state from adjectives (Huijsmans,2023b; Kroeber, 1988); it has been called an “inceptive” by Kroeber (1988) and an“inchoative” by Watanabe (2003).A.3.1.8 Comox-Sliammon V1 ReduplicationPlural/pluractional V1 reduplication only occurs in combination with other types ofreduplication. V1 reduplication copies a root vowel; [P] provides an onset to breakup hiatus, as shown in (542). If the unreduplicated counterpart of a word with V131I segment these as CVăC@ąC rather than CVC„@C following the analysis in Chapter 4 (Section4.1.5.1).511reduplication has [@] as its first vowel, then the vowel will be replaced with (andcopied as) [a] (or [i] when combined with diminutive reduplication).(542) a. jˇăaPąajˇaP (cf. jˇaPjˇa ‘relative’)relativeăPLą‘relatives’ (Blake, 2000, p.279, Comox-Sliammon)b. jˇăaPąa ’ň (cf. jˇ@ ’ň ‘run’)runăPLą‘several running together’ (J. Davis, 2020, p.145, Comox-Sliammon)While V1 reduplication typically occurs in combination with another type ofreduplication, it has a unique semantic contribution (plurality/pluractionality) andcan be combined with different reduplicative morphemes, as discussed in Section4.1.5.2. It marks plural entities with nouns, as shown in (543a–c), and pluralevents with verbs, as shown in (543d–f). Plural events marked by V1 reduplicationare distributed in time (Mellesmoen, 2018a; Mellesmoen et al., 2020), whichallows them to be used to mean “over and over”, “one by one”, and “on and off”.(543) a. cˇăiPąiăcˇąkin[i]s-uì (cf. cˇikins ‘chicken’)chickenăPLąăDIMą-young‘small chickens’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.401, Comox-Sliammon)b. măiPąi„mPin (cf. miPin ‘carrot’)DIMăPLą„carrot‘small carrots’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.401, Comox-Sliammon)c. năaPąaănąxwiì (cf. n@xwiì ‘canoe’)canoeăPLąăC1ą‘many boats together’ (J. Davis, 2020, p.145, Comox-Sliammon)d. qăiPąi„qpaPam (cf. q@pP@m ‘touch (s.t.)’)PROGăPLą„touch-A.INTR‘touch repeatedly’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.403, Comox-Sliammon)e. yăiPąiym-aPam (cf. y@mt ‘kick it’)kickăPLąăDIMą-A.INTR‘playing soccer’ (J. Davis, 2020, p.145, Comox-Sliammon)512f. qwăuPąu„qwu-t (cf. qwuP ‘get water’)PROGăPLą„get.water-CTR‘drinking it’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.403, Comox-Sliammon)513A.3.2 Halkomelem ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Halkomelem is summarised in Table A.9.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓PDEN ✓IPFV ✓DIM ✓Other Unclear C1 ReduplicationTable A.9: Reduplication in HalkomelemA.3.2.1 Halkomelem Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Galloway (1977), Leslie (1979), Jones (1976), Hukariand Peter (1995), Suttles (2004), J. Thompson (2012), and Mellesmoen andUrbanczyk (2021a). Unreduplicated forms come from a range of sources,including the original sources for the example, Galloway (2009), and Suttles(2004). I use [e] where Galloway (1977) uses [E] for Upriver Halkomelem.Each example is marked for dialect. Cross-dialect differences in glottalisationwith reduplication reflect general phonological differences that are unrelated toreduplication; Upriver Halkomelem differs from the other two dialects because ithas lost coda glottal stops and has no glottalised sonorants (Elmendorf & Suttles,1960; J. Thompson, 2005b).More in-depth discussion of Halkomelem with additional data can be found inChapter 5 (Section 5.3) and Chapter 6 (Section 6.7.1.2).A.3.2.2 Halkomelem Plural/Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationThe first two consonants of the root are copied in C1C2 plural/pluractionalreduplication in Halkomelem, as shown in (544). The copied consonants have [@]between them and stress falls on the second syllable of the word. I mark this thistype of reduplication as a prefix due to the position of stress.514(544) a. P@m„Pı´m@T (cf. Pı´m@T ‘grandchild’)PL„grandchild‘grandchildren’ (Leslie, 1979, p.49, Island Halkomelem)b. P@m„Pı´:m@T (cf. Pı´:m@T ‘grandchild’)PL„grandchild‘grandchildren’ (Galloway, 1977, p.108, Upriver Halkomelem)c. s-ì@n„ìe´niP (cf. sìe´niP ‘woman’)NMLZ-PL„woman‘women’ (Leslie, 1979, p.49, Island Halkomelem)d. s-ì@n„ìe´n@ ’y (cf. sìe´n@ ’y ‘female, woman’)NMLZ-PL„woman‘females, women’ (Suttles, 2004, p.209, Downriver Halkomelem)e. c@l„ce´l@sˇ (cf. ce´l@sˇ ‘hand’)PL„hand‘hands’ (Leslie, 1979, p.9, Island Halkomelem)f. s@’l„sı´’l@ (cf. sı´ ’l@ ‘grandparent’)PL„grandparent‘grandparents’ (Leslie, 1979, p.10, Island Halkomelem)g. s@l„sı´:l@ (cf. sı´:l@ ‘grandparent’)PL„grandparent‘grandparents’ (Galloway, 1977, p.108, Upriver Halkomelem)h. m@n„me´nt (cf. ment ‘rock’)PL„rock‘rocks’ (Leslie, 1979, p.9, Island Halkomelem)i. s-t@l„ta´:l@s (cf. sta´:l@s ‘wife’)NMLZ-PL„wife‘wives’ (Galloway, 1977, p.108, Upriver Halkomelem)j. s-t@l„ta´’l@ ’w (cf. sta´ ’l@ ’w ‘river’)NMLZ-PL„river‘rivers’ (Suttles, 2004, p.209, Downriver Halkomelem)515k. T@m„Ta´m@n (cf. Ta´m@n ‘eyebrow’)PL„eyebrow‘eyebrows’ (Suttles, 2004, p.189, Downriver Halkomelem)C1C2 reduplication marks plurality when applied to nouns, as shown in (544)above. C1C2 reduplication on verbs marks plurality of a subject (545), object(546), or that the event happens multiple times (547). Suttles (2004, pp.178–181)observes that an iterative use of C1C2 reduplication has a different stress patternin Downriver Halkomelem: stress falls on the first syllable when reduplicationmarks multiple events, as in (547c–d), but the second syllable with plural entitiesor arguments. When C1C2 reduplication receives an iterative interpretation inDownriver Halkomelem, it has the same form as property-denoting reduplication,which discussed in the following section.(545) a. ’t@l„’tı´l-@m (cf. ’tı´l@m ‘sing’)PL„sing-MID‘They sing.’ (Leslie, 1979, p.49, Island Halkomelem)b. n@q„n@´q-@m (cf. n@´q@m ‘dive’)PL„dive-MID‘several dive’ (Suttles, 2004, p.170, Downriver Halkomelem)c. ì@m„ìı´:m (cf. ìi:m ‘pick’)PL„pick‘lots of people picking (fruit, leaves’ (Galloway, 1977, p.309, UpriverHalkomelem)(546) a. ’q@p„ ’q@´p-@t (cf. ’qp@t ‘gather it’)PL„gather-CTR‘gather them’ (Leslie, 1979, p.49, Island Halkomelem)b. T@ ’kw„T@´ ’kw-t (cf. T ’kw@t ‘pull it taut’)PL„pull.taut-CTR‘pull several taut’ (Suttles, 2004, p.170, Downriver Halkomelem)516c. l@m„l@´m-@t (cf. l@´m@t ‘fold it’)PL„fold-CTR‘fold things (like the laundry)’ (Galloway, 1977, p.310, UpriverHalkomelem)d. m@ ’q„m@´ ’q-@t (cf. m@´ ’q@t ‘swallow it’)PL„swallow-CTR‘swallow lots’ (Jones, 1976, p.23, Island Halkomelem)(547) a. y@n„y@´n-Ta´m@=c@nPL„laugh-CTR+2SG.OBJ=1SG.SUBJ’peP (cf. y@´n@m ‘laugh’)certain‘I am laughing at you.’ (Leslie, 1979, p.121, Island Halkomelem)b. ’ň@´l„ ’ň@l@ ’qw (cf. ’ň@´l@ ’qw ‘to explode’)PL„explode‘making continuous explosions or shooting or popping sounds’(Galloway, 1977, p.311, Upriver Halkomelem)c. kw@´c„kw@c-@m (cf. kwe´c@m ‘scream’)PL„scream-MID ‘scream from time to time’ (Suttles, 2004, p.181,Downriver Halkomelem)d. ’t@´kw„’t@kw-@l (cf. ’t@´kw@l ‘cross over’)PL„cross-move.toward‘cross back and forth’ (Suttles, 2004, p.180, Downriver Halkomelem)A.3.2.3 Halkomelem Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationThe first and second consonant of the root are copied in property-denoting C1C2reduplication, but stress falls on the initial syllable, rather than the second (as foundwith plural/pluractional C1C2 reduplication); examples are given in (548). Vowelsin both syllables are [@]; if there is a moraic vowel in the root, as in (548a–c), it isreplaced with [@] (see Suttles 2004, pg.179).(548) a. q@´ ’n„q@ ’n (cf. sqe ’n ‘stolen’)steal„PDEN‘thief’ (Hukari & Peter, 1995, p.105, Island Halkomelem)517b. qw@´l„qw@l (cf. qwal ‘say, speak’)talk„PDEN‘talkative’ (Jones, 1976, p.23, Island Halkomelem)c. q@´ ’n„q@ ’n (cf. qe ’n ‘steal’)steal„PDEN‘thief, likely to steal’ (Suttles, 2004, p.179, Downriver Halkomelem)d. ’t@´m„’t@m (cf. ’ta´m@T@t ‘be wary, be suspicious’)wary„PDEN‘cautious, wary’ (Suttles, 2004, p.179, Downriver Halkomelem)e. ’t@´kw„’t@kw (cf. ’t@kw ‘stuck, get stuck’)stuck„PDEN‘muddy’ (Hukari & Peter, 1995, p.158, Island Halkomelem)f. s@´ ’q„s@ ’q (cf. s@ ’q ‘get split, get torn, get cracked’)split„PDEN‘easy to split, easy to tear’ (Suttles, 2004, p.179, DownriverHalkomelem)g. m@´’t„m@’t (cf. m@ ’t@´t ‘bend it’)bend„PDEN‘limber’ (Suttles, 2004, p.179, Downriver Halkomelem)Suttles (2004, p.179) labels property-denoting reduplication as “dispositional” andstates “it indicates that there is an inclination or propensity toward the action ofquality expressed by the root”. Property-denoting reduplication applies to verbalroots; it derives a state or property.A.3.2.4 Halkomelem Imperfective C1 ReduplicationImperfective C1 reduplication copies the initial consonant of the root, with[@] following the second of the matching consonants. Non-initial sonorantsegments in the word undergo glottalisation in Downriver Halkomelem and IslandHalkomelem; this excludes sonorants in “prefixes, stem-initial positions, before astressed vowel, and certain other positions”, according to Hukari (1978, p.206).3232I have added glottalisation to the example in (549g) to be consistent with the form given inHukari (1978).518See Section 5.3.1.1 for further discussion of this imperfective reduplication andrelated allomorphy in Halkomelem.33(549) a. ìa´„ì@ ’kw (cf. ìa ’kw ‘fly’)IPFV„fly‘be flying’ (Suttles, 2004, p.139, Downriver Halkomelem)b. tı´„t@ ’qw (cf. tı´ ’qw@t ‘bump it’)IPFV„bump‘be bumping’ (Suttles, 2004, p.139, Downriver Halkomelem)c. ye´„ ’y@ ’q (cf. y@ ’q ‘topple’)IPFV„topple‘be toppling’ (Suttles, 2004, p.140, Downriver Halkomelem)d. yı´„ ’y@q (cf. yiq ‘snow’)IPFV„snow‘be snowing’ (Suttles, 2004, p.140, Downriver Halkomelem)e. ìe´„ì@ ’w (cf. ìew ‘flee’)IPFV„flee‘be fleeing’ (Suttles, 2004, p.140, Downriver Halkomelem)f. s- ’pe´„ ’p@’tT (cf. ’pe´ ’tT@t ‘sew it’)STAT-IPFV„sew‘sewed’ (Suttles, 2004, p.182, Downriver Halkomelem)g. ’ňe´„ ’ň@ì@ ’m (cf. ’ňe´ì@m ‘salt, salty’)IPFV„salt‘salty, taste salty’ (Suttles, 2004, p.139, Downriver Halkomelem)h. t@liPfrom’kw@=n@-s-miDET=my-NMLZ-comekw@´n-n@xwbe.taken-TRkw@=n@-sˇ ’qı´l@sDET=my-sense’ňaBE3Pn@-s-w@- ’kwe´„ ’kw@c-@tmy-NMLZ-EST-IPFV„see-TRt@=x.@Tı´:l@DET=four.personmı´„ ’m@ì@IPFV„dance.possessed‘From when I first came to my senses, I used to see four dancers.’(cf. ’kw@´cn@xw ‘see it’/ mı´ìeP ‘dance possessed’) (Suttles, 2004, p.138,33In Section 5.3.1.1, I analyse this reduplication as a copy of the first CV sequence of the root withsubsequent reduction of an unstressed vowel to [@]. I mark imperfective C1 as a prefix here followingthis analysis.519Downriver Halkomelem)i. P@ ’y-st@xw=c@ngood-CAUS+3OBJ=1SG.SUBJkw@=n@=sCOMP=1SG.POSS=NOMPiAUX’ti„’t@l-@ ’mIPFV„sing-MID’I like singing.’ (cf. ’tı´l@m ‘sing’) (J. Thompson, 2012, p.155, IslandHalkomelem)j. ’tı´„’t@l-@m (cf. ’tı´:l@m ‘sing’)IPFV„sing-MID‘singing’ (Galloway, 1977, p.102, Upriver Halkomelem)k. ta´„t@ ’qw-@m (cf. ta´: ’qw@m ‘to cough’)IPFV„cough-MID‘coughing’ (Galloway, 1977, p.53, Upriver Halkomelem)If the unreduplicated form begins with a sonorant followed by [@], the initialsonorant of the imperfective word undergoes debuccalisation to [h] followingreduplication, as shown in (550). Note that there is no [@] following the secondconsonant in these forms.(550) a. h@´ă ’nąq@ ’m (cf. n@´q@m ‘dive’)diveăIPFVą‘diving’ (Leslie, 1979, p.46, Island Halkomelem)b. h@ă ’nąqw (cf. n@qw ‘fall asleep’)fall.asleepăIPFVą‘falling asleep’ (Leslie, 1979, p.46, Island Halkomelem)c. h@´ămą ’q@t (cf. m@´ ’q@t ‘to swallow’)swallowăIPFVą-CTR‘swallowing’ (Galloway, 1977, p.60, Upriver Halkomelem)C1 reduplication in Halkomelem marks imperfective aspect (Hukari, 1984).34C1 reduplication is one of a number of non-concatenative processes that mark34It is an imperfective, despite being labeled “progressive” in Suttles (2004), “continuative” inGalloway (1977), and “actual” in Leslie (1979) and Jones (1976).520imperfective aspect; the others are discussed in Chapter 5 (Section 5.3.1.1.1). Thistype of reduplication occurs with verbs.A.3.2.5 Halkomelem Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1 reduplication copies the initial consonant of the root. When the roothas a moraic vowel as its first (or only) vowel, the form of the diminutive is -C-;the copied consonant is placed after the first vowel, as shown in (551).(551) a. pu´ăpąt (cf. put ‘boat’)boatăDIMą‘little boat’ (Suttles, 2004, p.212, Downriver Halkomelem)b. ’kwa´ă ’kwąxwaP (cf. ’kwa´xwaP ‘box’)boxăDIMą‘little box’ (Suttles, 2004, p.213, Downriver Halkomelem)c. puăpąs (cf. pus ‘cat’)catăDIMą‘little cat, kitten’ (Suttles, 2004, p.212, Downriver Halkomelem)d. x. a´ăx.ące (cf. x. a´:ce ‘lake’)lakeăDIMą‘pond, small lake’ (Galloway, 1977, p.59, Upriver Halkomelem)e. s-ìe´ăìąniP (cf. sìe´niP ‘woman’)NMLZ-womanăDIMą‘little girl’ (Leslie, 1979, p.52, Island Halkomelem)When the first vowel in the unreduplicated word is [@] or the word starts with acomplex onset, reduplication takes the form Ci- instead of -C-; examples are givenin (552).(552) a. ’pı´„ ’p@w@ ’y (cf. ’p@´w@ ’y ‘flounder’)DIM„flounder‘little flounder’ (Suttles, 2004, p.213, Downriver Halkomelem)b. Tı´:„Tq@t (cf. T@qe´t ‘tree’)DIM„tree‘little tree’ (Galloway, 1977, p.59, Upriver Halkomelem)521c. s-kw ı´„kw@l (cf. skw@l ‘waterfall’)NMLZ-DIM„waterfall‘small waterfall’ (Galloway, 1977, p.111, Upriver Halkomelem)d. ’ňı´„ ’ňc@s (cf. ’ň@ce´s ‘island’)DIM„island‘little island’ (Galloway, 1977, p.59, Upriver Halkomelem)e. ’ňı´„ ’ňcs (cf. ’ňces ‘island’)DIM„island‘islet’ (Suttles, 2004, p.532, Downriver Halkomelem)f. ’cı´P„ ’cs@y (cf. ’cse ’y ‘Douglas fir’)DIM„douglas.fir‘little Douglas fir’ (Suttles, 2004, p.214, Downriver Halkomelem)Glottalisation often co-occurs with diminutive reduplication in the Island andDownriver dialects of Halkomelem. It may be realized as a glottal stop (553a), oras glottalisation of a sonorant (553b–d).(553) a. s-kw ı´P„kwTeP (cf. kwTeP ‘island’)NMLZ-DIM„island‘little island’ (Leslie, 1979, p.53, Island Halkomelem)b. mı´„ ’mqs@n (cf. m@´qs@n ‘nose’)DIM„nose‘little nose’ (Suttles, 2004, p.213, Downriver Halkomelem)c. s-mı´„ ’my@T (cf. sm@´y@T ‘deer’)NMLZ-DIM„deer‘fawn, little deer’ (Suttles, 2004, p.213, Downriver Halkomelem)d. s-nı´„ ’nxw@ì (cf. sn@´xw@ì ‘canoe’)NMLZ-DIM„canoe‘little canoe’ (Leslie, 1979, p.53, Island Halkomelem)The diminutive in Halkomelem is used with nouns to reflect smallness of a referent,as in (551–553) above, or to express endearment, as shown in (554).522(554) a. mı´„m ’neP (cf. m@ ’n@ ‘child’)DIM„child‘dear child’ (Jones, 1976, p.22, Island Halkomelem)b. lı´„l@ ’m (root: le ’m- ‘house’)DIM„house‘small/dear house’ (Jones, 1976, p.22, Island Halkomelem)Diminutive C1 reduplication can also be used with verbs, as shown in (555).Diminutive verbs are always imperfective (Suttles, 2004, p.172). It is not clearwhy there are no perfective diminutive forms.(555) a. ’ňiP„ ’ňăe´ąpx. -t (cf. ’ň@px. t ‘scatter it’)DIM„sprinkleăIPFVą-CTR‘sprinkling it (dim.)’ (Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen &Urbanczyk, 2021a, p.172, Island Halkomelem)b. hiP„h@´ă’lą ’c-t (cf. l@ ’c ‘full’)DIM„fillăIPFVą-CTR‘filling it (dim.)’ (Hukari & Peter, 1995, in Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk,2021a, p.172, Island Halkomelem)c. ti„te´s-t (cf. ts@t ‘approach it’)DIM„approach+IPFV-CTR‘be approaching it (dim.)’ (Suttles, 2004, p.173, DownriverHalkomelem)Diminutive verbs in Halkomelem are typically associated with a small participant,as shown in (556a–c); they may also be associated with a diminished event, asshown in (556d–e).(556) a. Pi„Pex. ı´T (cf. Pe´x. @T ‘lie down’)DIM„lie.down‘little baby lying down’ (Galloway, 1977, p.313, Upriver Halkomelem)b. ’t@„’tı´ăPąă’t@ąl-@ ’m (cf. ’tı´l@m ‘sing’)DIM„singăDIMąăPROGą-MID‘A little one is singing.’ (Suttles, 2004, p.172, Downriver Halkomelem)523c. kwi„kw@„kwc-e´:m (cf. kwe´c@m ‘scream’)DIM„IPFV„scream-MID‘scream a little, squeal’ (Galloway, 1977, p.313, Upriver Halkomelem)d. ìi„ìı´:m (cf. ìi:m ‘picking’)DIM„pick+IPFV‘picking a little (bit)’ (Galloway, 1977, p.313, Upriver Halkomelem)Suttles (2004, p.222) finds a small number of diminutive adjectives, which are usedto refer to a small entity that possesses the quality denoted by the root, as shown in(557).(557) a. x. e´ăPx.@ą ’ws (cf. x. e ’ws ‘new’)newăDIMą‘new little (one)’ (Suttles, 2004, p.222, Downriver Halkomelem)b. xi„x@la´ ’kw (cf. x@la´ ’kw ‘round’)roundăDIMą‘round little (one)’ (Suttles, 2004, p.222, Downriver Halkomelem)A.3.2.6 Other Reduplication in HalkomelemAn additional C1 reduplication process marks plurality. It is marginal and limited toparticular lexical items (see, e.g., Leslie, 1979, p.50); its status across the dialectsis unclear. The examples in (558) show that stressed [@] is replaced with a fullvowel with this type of reduplication.(558) a. q@ăqı´ąl@m (cf. q@´l@m ‘eye’)PL„eye‘eyes’ (Suttles, 2004, p.208, Downriver Halkomelem)b. s-x.@ăx. ı´ą ’n@ (cf. sx. @´ ’n@ ‘leg’)NMLZ-PL„leg‘legs’ (Leslie, 1979, p.50, Island Halkomelem)524A.3.3 Lushootseed ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Lushootseed is summarised in Table A.10.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓DIM ✓PL ✓COS ✓PL ✓Table A.10: Reduplication in LushootseedA.3.3.1 Lushootseed Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Tweddell (1950), Hess (1967), Kirkham (1991), Bates et al.(1994), and Beck and Hess (2014). I draw on Bates et al. (1994) for unreduplicatedforms.Stress is missing from some examples in original sources; I have chosen toleave these as given in the source material. Vowels from Tweddell (1950) havebeen standardised to be consistency with the other examples. Note that /b/ and /d/pattern as sonorants in Lushootseed. The sound written [dz] is a voiced alveolaraffricate.A.3.3.2 Lushootseed Plural/Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationThe first CVC sequence of a root is copied in plural/pluractional reduplication.There is a faithful copy of the vowel in the unreduplicated form, regardless ofwhether it is [@] or a moraic vowel, as shown in (559) and (560), respectively.(559) a. jˇ@´s„jˇ@s@d (cf. jˇ@´s@d ‘foot’)PL„foot‘feet’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.117, Lushootseed)b. s-cˇ@´t„cˇ@txw@d (cf. scˇ@´txw@d ‘bear’)NMLZ-PL„bear‘black bears all about’ (Hess, 1967, p.65, Lushootseed)525c. dz@´x.„dz@x. (cf. Pudz@´x. t@d ‘move it’)PL„move‘move household’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.90, Lushootseed)d. cˇ@gw„cˇ@gwa´s (cf. cˇ@gwa´s ‘wife’)PL„wife‘seeking a woman to marry’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.63, Lushootseed)e. huySCONJdxw-l@gw„l@gw@bDIST-PL„youth(cf. l@´gw@b ‘youth’)‘They were youths.’ (Beck & Hess, 2014, p.35, Lushootseed)f. gw@lCONJPas-b@s-s-qw@b„qw@bayPSTAT-PROP-NMLZ-PL„dog@lgw@PPLP@PREPt@NSPECb@-saliPADD-two‘And they have two dogs.’ (cf. sqw@ba´yP ‘dog’) (Beck & Hess, 2014,p.35, Lushootseed)g. P@s-’t@´ ’q„’t@ ’q (cf. ’t@´ ’q@d ‘patch it’)STAT-PL„patch‘patched with mass of patches’ (Tweddell, 1950, p.15, Lushootseed)h. gw@d„gw@d-ı´l (cf. gw@dı´l ‘sit down’)PL„sit.down-INCH‘They are all sitting about.’ (Hess, 1967, p.65, Lushootseed)(560) a. pa´s„past@d (cf. pa´st@d ‘white people’)PL„white.people‘many white folks’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.160, Lushootseed)b. sa´ ’qw„sa ’qw (cf. Pusa´ ’qw ‘It flew.’)PL„fly‘fly here and there’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.200, Lushootseed)c. sı´d„sid ’q-cut (cf. sı´d ’q@d ‘turn it’)PL„turn-REFL‘spin self around’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.203, Lushootseed)d. Pı´b„Pib@sˇ (cf. Pı´b@sˇ ‘walk or journey over land’)PL„walk‘walk all about’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.15, Lushootseed)526e. Pu-tu´ ’qw„tu ’qw-ub (cf. tu´ ’qwub ‘cough’)PFV-PL„cough-MID‘They (sg.) coughed and coughed.’ (Tweddell, 1950, p.16,Lushootseed)f. sa´xw„saxw-@b (cf. sa´xw@b ‘jump, leap, run’)PL„run-MID‘running all over’ (Hess, 1967, p.65, Lushootseed)g. cu´t„cut (cf. cut ‘say, talk’)PL„say‘Several are talking.’‘One person talking or saying something repeatedly.’ (Bates et al.,1994, as cited in Kye, 2023, p.279, Lushootseed)C1C2 reduplication marks plural entities when applied to nouns; it marks pluralevents with verbs. Events with C1C2 reduplication may be temporally distributed(e.g., 560e) or spatially distributed (e.g., 560f). Kye (2023, p.278–279) states thatpluractionality may “denote actions that are carried out repeatedly (or many times)or the action is done (or distributed) across many individuals”.A.3.3.3 Lushootseed Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1 reduplication in Lushootseed copies the initial consonant of a root;the following vowel may also be copied in roots with a full vowel, as shown in(561). There is also a set of lexical items which do not copy a vowel and surface asan infix, such as those given in (562). The choice between CV- or -C- is lexicallyspecified (see Mellesmoen & Urbanczyk, 2024). Glottalisation, which is typicallyrealised as a glottal stop, may accompany C1 diminutive reduplication, as shownin (562).(561) a. Pu´„Pu ’qw-ud (cf. Pu´ ’qwud ‘pull it out’)DIM„pull.out-CTR‘pull it part way out’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.22, Lushootseed)527b. hı´„hiw-il (cf. hı´wil ‘go ahead’)DIM„go.ahead-INCH‘go on ahead a bit’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.111, Lushootseed)c. ’qi„ ’qixw (cf. dxw ’qixw ‘located upstream’)DIM„upstream‘a little upstream’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.187, Lushootseed)d. xw ı´„xwi’t-il (cf. xw ı´ ’til ‘fall’)DIM„fall-INCH‘small item(s) fall(s) from a height’ (Hess, 1967, p.62, Lushootseed)(562) a. ìu´ăPìąp (cf. ìup ‘early’)morningăDIMą‘a little early’ (Hess, 1967, p.63, Lushootseed)b. sa´ăPsąxw@b (cf. sa´xw@b ‘jump, leap, run’)runăDIMą-MID‘run a few steps’ (Hess, 1967, p.62, Lushootseed)c. sa´ăPsą ’qw (cf. Pusa´ ’qw ‘It flew.’)flyăDIMą‘fly just a bit’ (Hess, 1967, p.62, Lushootseed)Epenthetic [i] is inserted between the matching consonants when theunreduplicated word has [@] (563), a long vowel (564), or begins with aconsonant cluster (565).(563) a. jˇı´„jˇ@s@d (cf. jˇ@s@d ‘foot’)DIM„foot‘little foot’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.117, Lushootseed)b. tı´„t@dz-il (cf. t@dz ı´l ‘go to bed’)DIM„go.to.bed-INCH‘lie down for a little while’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.220, Lushootseed)c. bı´„b@cˇ (cf. b@cˇa´d ‘set smth down’)DIM„fall‘drop in from time to time’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.35, Lushootseed)528d. s-kw ı´„kw@bsˇ@d (cf. skw@´bsˇ@d ‘animal hide’)NMLZ-DIM„animal.hide‘small hide’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.123, Lushootseed)e. tı´„t@la`w-il (cf. t@la´wil ‘run’)DIM-run-INCH‘jog’ (Hess, 1967, p.62, Lushootseed)f. ’pı´„ ’p ’qw (cf. Pu ’p@ ’qw ‘drifted’)DIM„drift‘small objects drift’‘object drifts slowly’ (Hess, 1967, p.63, Lushootseed)g. ìı´P„ìqw (cf. ì@qw ‘wet’)DIM-wet‘damp’ (Hess, 1967, p.8, Lushootseed)(564) a. s-dı´„du:kw (cf. sdu:kw ‘knife’)NMLZ-DIM„knife‘small knife’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.85, Lushootseed)b. bı´P„bu:s (cf. bu:s ‘four’)DIM„four‘four little items’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.42, Lushootseed)c. lı´P„lu:d (cf. lu:d ‘hear’)DIM„hear+CTR‘hear something a little’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.139, Lushootseed)(565) ’cˇi„ ’cˇ ’ňa´P (cf. ’cˇ ’ňaP ‘rock’)DIM„rock‘little rock’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.74, Lushootseed)C1 reduplication in Lushootseed is attested with a range of different lexical itemsacross lexical categories (e.g., nouns, verbs, and adjectives). With nouns, it marksa small entity, as shown in (563a,d). With verbs, it can mark the smallness ofan argument, as shown in (561d) and (563f), or a diminutive event; diminutiveevents include those that have short duration (e.g., 563b), involve a limited degree529of change (e.g., 561a), or are reduced in intensity (e.g., 563e–f). With adjectives,it marks a small amount of a state, as shown in (563g).A.3.3.4 Lushootseed Plural C1 ReduplicationPlural C1 reduplication copies the first consonant of a root, as in diminutivereduplication, but the vowel [a] occurs between the two matching consonants, asshown in (566).(566) a. s-da„du:kw (cf. sdu:kw ‘knife’)NMLZ-PL„knife‘knives’ (Kirkham, 1991, p.1, Lushootseed)b. sa„saxw-@b (cf. sa´xw@b ‘jump, leap, run’)PL„run-MID‘many run away’ (Kirkham, 1991, p.1, Lushootseed)c. sa„sa ’qw (cf. Pusa´ ’qw ‘It flew.’)PL„fly‘flocks fly away’ (Kirkham, 1991, p.1, Lushootseed)C1 plural reduplication occurs with nouns and verbs. Kirkham (1991) and Kim(1992) claim that this type of C1 reduplication marks a collective sense of plurality;Hess (1967, p.64) describes it as a plural morpheme that is used in contexts where“more than one perform an act simultaneously”.A.3.3.5 Lushootseed C2 ReduplicationC2 reduplication in Lushootseed copies of the second consonant of the root and thepreceding vowel, as shown in (567); stress falls on the first of the matching vowels.(567) a. sa´ ’qw„a ’qw (cf. Pusa´ ’qw ‘It flew.’)fly„C2‘wheeling in sky’ (Hess, 1967, p.66, Lushootseed)b. yu´b„ub-il (cf. yu´bil ‘starve’)starve„C2-INCH‘run down, sickish’ (Hess, 1967, p.66, Lushootseed)530c. da´ ’y„a ’y (cf. da ’y ‘only’)only„C2‘alone’ (Hess, 1967, p.66, Lushootseed)d. Pa´ì„aì (cf. Paì ‘fast’)fast„C2‘hurry up’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.7, Lushootseed)e. dza´ ’q„a ’q (cf. dza´ ’qad ‘fell a tree’)fall„C2‘totter, stagger’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.88, Lushootseed)f. sa´xw„axw-@b (cf. sa´xw@b ‘jump, leap, run’)run„C2-MID‘scurrying about trying to get things done’ (Hess, 1967, p.66,Lushootseed)g. gw@d„@d-ı´l (cf. gw@dı´l ‘sit down’)sit.down„C2-INCH‘sit for awhile’ (Hess, 1967, p.66, Lushootseed)h. ’p@´ ’qw„@ ’qw (cf. Pu ’p@ ’qw ‘drifted’)drift„C2‘drift up and down’ (Hess, 1967, p.66, Lushootseed)The function of C2 reduplication is unclear in many examples. The availabledescriptions and translations suggest a range of possible interpretations. This typeof reduplication has previously been labeled as “restrictive” by Hess (1967). Hess(1967, p.66) further states that C2 reduplication with verbs indicates that the “actstops short of completion”, or that it is somewhat aimless or otherwise all over theplace. When C2 reduplication occurs with nouns or independent pronouns, it canmark the “exclusiveness” or “aloneness” of the referent, as shown in (568).(568) a. s-ìa´dăadą@ ’y (cf. sìa´d@ ’y ‘woman’)NMLZ-womanăC2ą‘woman (living) alone’ (Hess, 1967, p.66, Lushootseed)531b. dı´băibą@ì (cf. dı´b@ì ‘we, us’)1PL.INDEPăC2ą‘we alone (we, us)’ (Hess, 1967, p.66, Lushootseed)c. gw@lă@ląa´pu (cf. gw@la´pu ‘you pl.’)2PL.INDEPăC2ą‘just you folks’ (Hess, 1967, p.66, Lushootseed)d. c@dă@dąı´ì (cf. c@dı´ì ‘they (sg.)’)3.INDEPăC2ą‘just the one who’ (Hess, 1967, p.66, Lushootseed)A.3.3.6 Lushootseed V1 ReduplicationV1 reduplication doubles the root vowel, as shown in (569). I treat this as a type ofreduplication, rather than lengthening, following Hess (1967, p.64); however, it isrealised as a long vowel on the surface, given that sequences transcribed as VV inLushootseed are realised as [V:]. If the unreduplicated word would have a [@], an[a] is inserted and doubled, as shown in (569d–e).(569) a. cˇa´ăaągw@s (cf. cˇ@gwa´s ‘wife’)wifeăPLą‘wives’ (Hess, 1967, p.65, Lushootseed)b. siăiąPab (cf. siPa´b ‘noble person’)noble.personăPLą‘noble people’ (Kirkham, 1991, p.242, Lushootseed)c. ’cˇaăaą ’cˇas (cf. ’cˇa ’cˇas ‘child’)childăPLą‘still a child’ (Kim, 1992, p.72, Lushootseed)d. kwaăaąl@q (cf. kw@´l@q ‘other things’)?ăPLą‘other people’ (Kirkham, 1991, p.242, Lushootseed)e. cˇa´ăaądiì (cf. c@dı´ì ‘the one who’)3.INDEPăPLą‘the ones who’ (Hess, 1967, p.65, Lushootseed)532V1 reduplication marks plural entities; however, there are some forms where thecontribution is unclear, such as (569c) above.533A.3.4 Nooksack ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Nooksack is summarised in Table A.11.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓PDEN ✓DIM ✓Other Unclear C1 ReduplicationTable A.11: Reduplication in NooksackA.3.4.1 Nooksack Sources and TranscriptionExamples and unreduplicated forms come from Galloway (1984b). Galloway(1984b, 1993b) treats glottalised sonorants as sequences of sonorant and glottalstop; I retranscribe these as glottalised sonorants. I also replace ”æ” with /a/ whereit is a moraic vowel and /@/ otherwise; this decision follows the one made forthe morphology and syntax chapters by Galloway, Adams, Burton, Davis, andTrotter (in prep). However, it should be noted that this low vowel has a morefront realisation than elsewhere in the family, though it has not become /e/ as inHalkomelem and Northern Straits (Galloway, 1988, p.298).A.3.4.2 Nooksack Plural/Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationPlural/pluractional C1C2 reduplication copies the first two consonants of the rootand [@] is epenthesized, as shown in (570).(570) a. s-ì@n„ìa´n@ ’y (cf. ìæ´n@ ’y ‘woman’)NMLZ-PL„woman‘women’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.85, Nooksack)b. ’p@ ’cˇ„ ’pı´ ’cˇt (cf. ’pi ’cˇt ‘charcoal’)PL„charcoal‘lots of charcoal’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.85, Nooksack)534c. P@m„Pı´mac (cf. Pı´mac ‘grandchild’)PL„grandchild‘grandchildren’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.85, Nooksack)d. ’t@l„’ta´l@ ’w (cf. ’ta´l@ ’w ‘arm’)PL„arm‘both arms’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.85, Nooksack)e. k@m„ka´micˇ (cf. ka´micˇ ‘cabbage’)35PL„cabbage‘cabbages’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.85, Nooksack)C1C2 reduplication marks plural entities with nouns, as shown in the examplesabove; with verbs, C1C2 reduplication can mark plural participants or repeatedevents, as shown in (571) and (572), respectively.36 The example in (572b)suggests that that both plural argument and event interpretations are available fora word with C1C2 reduplication.(571) a. n@y„na´y-@ ’m (cf. na´y@ ’m ‘One person laughing.’)PL„laugh-MID‘people laughing’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.85, Nooksack)b. P@m„Pı´m-@sˇ (cf. Pı´m@sˇ ‘to walk’)PL„walk-INTR‘They (group of people) [are] walking.’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.85,Nooksack)(572) a. PayIPFVt@p„tu´p-un-@m (cf. P@´ ’wacˇaxw tu´puntsaxw ‘Don’t hit me.’)PL„hit-CTR-PASS‘being hit (rep.)’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.85, Nooksack)35The [i] transcribed by Galloway (1984b) may actually be co-articulation between /@/ and thefollowing palatal.36The unreduplicated form given in (572a) comes from Galloway et al. (in prep).535b. p@n„pu´n-@xw (cf. pun@xw ‘see someone’)PL„see-NTR‘see them, see lots of times’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.85, Nooksack)A.3.4.3 Nooksack Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationProperty-denoting C1C2 reduplication copies the first two segments of the root withan epenthetic [@], as shown in (573).(573) a. kw@ ’ň„kw ı´ ’ň (cf. skw ı´ ’ňil ‘kind of/partly red/pink’)PDEN„red‘red’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.84, Nooksack)b. qw@c„qw ı´c (cf. qwic ‘drift downstream’)PDEN„drift.downstream‘drowned’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.84, Nooksack)c. ’q@x„ ’qı´x (cf. ’qı´xil ‘kinda black’)PDEN„black‘black’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.84, Nooksack)Property-denoting C1C2 reduplication applies to adjectival and verbal roots. Wordswith this type of reduplication refer to either properties or states.A.3.4.4 Nooksack Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1 reduplication copies the initial consonant of the root; the rootvowel is copied as well if it is moraic, as shown in (574). For roots that surfacewith a consonant cluster or with [@] as the first vowel, [i] separates the matchingconsonants, as shown in (575).(574) a. yu´ăyuąm@cˇ (cf. yu´m@cˇ ‘spring salmon’)spring.salmonăDIMą‘small spring salmon’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.83, Nooksack)b. ’qa´ă ’qaąm@ ’y (cf. ’qa´m@ ’y ‘adolescent girl’)womanăDIMą‘young girl (2 to 7 years)’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.83, Nooksack)536c. na´ănaąt@xw (cf. snat ‘night’)morningăDIMą‘early in the morning’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.83, Nooksack)d. ta´ătaąn (cf. tan ‘mother’)motherăDIMą‘mom, mother (affectionate)’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.83, Nooksack)(575) a. cı´„c@q@t (cf. c(@)qat ‘tree’)DIM„tree‘a little tree’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.86, Nooksack)b. s-qw ı´„qw@ma ’y (cf. qw@ma´ ’y ‘dog’)NMLZ-DIM„dog‘little dog’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.86, Nooksack)c. ’ci„ ’cqwa´ ’y (cf. s ’c@´qw@ ’y ‘salmon’)DIM„salmon‘trout’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.86, Nooksack)Diminutive nouns are associated with smallness, youth, and affection. Most ofthe forms provided by Galloway (1984b) are built on nominal roots, with a fewexceptions involving verbs, such as those given in (576). From the limited data, itappears that a “small event” reading is possible for diminutive verbs. It is not clearif a small participant reading is possible.(576) a. Pa´ăPaąx. ic (cf. Pa´x. ic ‘lie down’)lie.downăDIMą‘lie down awhile (a little)’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.83, Nooksack)b. ’tı´ă’tiącˇ-im (cf. ’ticˇim ‘swim’)swimăDIMą-MID‘to swim around or (possibly) to swim a little’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.86,Nooksack)A.3.4.5 Other Reduplication in NooksackThere are a number of examples that appear to have C1 reduplication with verbalroots which are not clearly diminutive, such as those shown in (577). Galloway537(1984b) labels these as “resultative/dispositional” or “durative”.(577) a. sˇi„sˇ ’kwu´ ’m (cf. Island Halkomelem sˇ@sˇ ’kw@´m ‘swim’)37C1„swim-A.INTR‘swim for pleasure’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.85, Nooksack)b. pu´ăpuąn-@xw (cf. pun@xw ‘see someone’)seeăC1ą-NTR‘see something/someone many times’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.83,Nooksack)The source of these forms, is unclear. It is possible that they were either originallydiminutive, reflect an aspectual C1 reduplication process that was lost, areborrowed from nearby languages, or are pluractional.There are also a handful of forms with C1 reduplication that include [a], asshown in (578). It is likely that these have [@], rather than [a].(578) a. ma„mu´ ’kw (cf. mu ’k/m@ ’kw ‘all’)C1„all‘all (of subgroup)’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.85, Nooksack)b. na„n@ ’cˇu´P (cf. n@ ’cuP ‘one’)DIM„one‘one young one’ (Galloway, 1984b, p.85, Nooksack)37The unreduplicated form comes from (Kuipers, 2002, p.119). A cognate is found in DownriverHalkomelem: xix ’kwa´ ’m ‘be in swimming’ from xa´ ’kwa´ ’m ‘bathe’ with a combination of C1imperfective reduplication and the durative marker -i- (Suttles, 2004, p.176).538A.3.5 Northern Straits and Klallam ReduplicationGiven similarities in the reduplicative systems of the two Straits languages(Northern Straits and Klallam), I group them together in this dissertation. Thechoice to group them together is motivated by the fact that there is no cleandistinction between the reduplication systems of Northern Straits and Klallam.Attested reduplication in Northern Straits and Klallam is summarised in TableA.12.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓PDEN ✓DIM ✓IPFV ✓Other Unclear C1 ReduplicationTable A.12: Reduplication in Northern Straits and KlallamA.3.5.1 Northern Straits and Klallam Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Efrat (1969), Raffo (1972), Demers (1974), Demers andJelinek (1984), Montler (1986), Galloway (1990), Turner (2010), Montler (2012),Montler (2015), and Montler (2018); unreduplicated forms come from one of thesesources. Glottalised sonorant segments are written as [CP] or [PC] in Raffo (1970)(Songish), Demers (1974) (Lummi), and at certain points in Galloway (1990)(Samish); I have retranscribed these as [C’].Additional discussion of Northern Straits and Klallam can be found in a sectionon moraic codas in Chapter 6 (6.6.2.2.2).A.3.5.2 Northern Straits and Klallam Plural/Pluractional C1C2ReduplicationC1C2 reduplication marks plurality and pluractionality in Northern Straits andKlallam, but is somewhat limited in distribution: it is found with roots with asonorant in C2 position, as shown in (579). A non-reduplicative allomorph of539the plural is used elsewhere (Montler, 2012, p.176).38 In roots with a sonorantas the second consonant, the first and second consonants are copied and [@] isepenthesized.(579) a. s-ì@n„ìe´niP (cf. sìe´niP ‘woman’)NMLZ-PL-woman‘women’ (Raffo, 1972, p.22, Songish - Northern Straits)b. s@l„se´l@s (cf. se´l@s ‘hand’)PL-hand‘hands’ (Raffo, 1972, p.77, Songish - Northern Straits)c. P@l„Pe´l@xw (cf. Pe´l@xw ‘old person’)PL„old.person‘old people’ (Raffo, 1972, p.136, Songish - Northern Straits)d. N@n„N@´n@P (cf. N@´n@P ‘son or daughter’)PL„son/daughter‘sons and daughters’ (Galloway, 1990, p.45, Samish - Northern Straits)e. s-cˇ@ ’n„cˇe´:n@xw (cf. scˇe´:n@xw ‘fish’)NMLZ-PL„fish‘lots of fish’ (Galloway, 1990, p.45, Samish - Northern Straits)f. ’t@’l„’te´l@ ’w (cf. ’te´l@ ’w ‘arm’)PL„arm‘arms’ (Galloway, 1990, p.45, Samish - Northern Straits)g. ì@m„ì@´m@xw-t-@N (cf. ì@´m@xwt@N ‘be rained on’)PL„rain-CTR-PASS‘get much rain’ (Montler, 2018, p.1264, Saanich - Northern Straits)h. s-ì@n„ìe´ni (cf. sìeni ‘woman’)NMLZ-PL„woman‘women’ (Demers & Jelinek, 1984, p.44, Lummi - Northern Straits)i. l@m„l@m@tu´ (cf. l@m@tu´ ‘sheep’)PL-sheep38Montler (2015, p.179) estimates that C1C2 reduplication applies to 10% of lexical items inKlallam, reflecting the limited distribution of the reduplicative allomorph.540‘bunch of sheep’ (Montler, 2015, p.179, Klallam)j. s-ì@n„ìa´niP (cf. sìa´niP ‘woman’)NMLZ-PL„woman‘women’ (Montler, 2015, p.179, Klallam)k. n@xw-s-kw@n„kwa´n@N@t=caP=stLOC-NMLZ-PL„run=FUT=1PL.SUBJ(cf. kwa´n@N@tcn ‘I run.’)‘We’ll race.’ (Montler, 2015, p.92, Klallam)The C1C2 reduplication process shown in (579) above marks plurality with nounsand plural arguments with verbs. This reading is restricted to words with sonorantsin the C2 position. Saanich and Samish diverge from Klallam and Songish becausethey allow plural C1C2 reduplication when a root has an obstruent in C2 position,as shown in (580) and (581). This pattern (i.e., copying an obstruent in C2 position)marks pluractionality; it therefore only applies to verbs. When an obstruent in C2position is copied, the events are distributed in time (i.e., repeated).39(580) a. n@q„n@´q-@N (cf. n@q@N ‘dive’)PL„dive-MID‘dive repeatedly’ (Montler, 2018, p.1301, Saanich - Northern Straits)b. cˇ@qw„cˇ@´qw-t (cf. cˇ@qw@t ‘burn it’)PL„burn-CTR‘turn on repeatedly’ (Montler, 2018, p.1490, Saanich - NorthernStraits)(581) a. n@q„n@´q-@N (cf. n@´q@N ‘dive’)PL„dive-MID‘keeps diving repeatedly’ (Galloway, 1990, p.45, Samish - NorthernStraits)39See Chapter 6 (Section 6.6.2.2.2) for further discussion of phonological restrictions related towhich roots may undergo C1C2 reduplication.541b. ’tT@ ’q„’tT@´ ’q-@ ’N/ ’c@ ’q„ ’c@´ ’q-@ ’N (cf. ’tT ’q@N/ ’c ’q@N ‘drip’)PL„drip-MID‘It’s dripping lots.’ (Galloway, 1990, p.45, Samish - Northern Straits)A.3.5.3 Northern Straits and Klallam Property-Denoting C1C2ReduplicationProperty-denoting C1C2 reduplication copies the consonants in C1 and C2 positionof the root, as in the plural forms discussed in the previous section. However, unlikewith the plural forms, [@] is in the second syllable with the property-denoting forms.This type of reduplication is not limited to roots with a sonorant in C2 position.Examples are given in (582).(582) a. m@´’t„m@’t (cf. m@ ’t@´t@N ‘be bent’)bend„PDEN‘It’s flexible’ (Montler, 1986, p.97, Saanich - Northern Straits)b. ’qwa´ ’m„ ’qw@m (cf. ’qwa´ ’m ‘strong’)strong„PDEN‘very strong’ (Raffo, 1972, p.14, Songish - Northern Straits)c. se´xw„s@xw=sxw (root: sexw-)lazy„PDEN=2SG.SUBJ‘You’re really lazy.’ (Efrat, 1969, p.80, Sooke - Northern Straits)In Klallam, [@] may be deleted if both consonants are obstruents, as shown in (583).(583) a. ’c@´ ’qw„ ’c ’qw (cf. ’c@ ’qw ‘dirt’)dirt„PDEN‘dirty’ (Montler, 2015, p.286, Klallam)b. ’ň@´ ’qw„ ’ň ’qw (cf. ’ň@´ ’qw ‘get stuck’)get.stuck„PDEN‘sticky’ (Montler, 2015, p.286, Klallam)A difference between the Songish and other dialects of Northern Straits, as wellas Klallam, concerns the treatment of glottalised sonorants in property-denotingC1C2 reduplication: glottalised sonorants are copied faithfully in Klallam, Samish,542and Saanich, but the copy surfaces as a plain sonorant in Songish. Compare theSongish word for thief in (584a) with the Klallam word in (584b).(584) a. qe´ ’n„q@n (cf. qe ’n ‘to steal’)steal„PDEN‘thief, stealing continuously’ (Raffo, 1972, p.156, Songish)b. qa´ ’n„q@ ’n (cf. qa´ ’n ‘rob’)rob„PDEN‘thief’ (Montler, 2015, p.286, Klallam)c. qe´ ’n„q@ ’n (cf. qe ’n ‘to steal’)steal„PDEN‘thief’ (Galloway, 1990, p.7, Samish - Northern Straits)d. qe´ ’n„q@ ’n (cf. qe ’n ‘steal’)steal„PDEN‘thief, robber’ (Montler, 2018, p.1324, Saanich - Northern Straits)e. qw@´’l„qw@’l (root: qw@l-)talk„PDEN‘talkative’ (Demers, 1974, p.19, Lummi - Northern Straits)Property-denoting reduplication means something is “typical of” or “characteristicof” something, according to Montler (2015, p.287); it applies to eventive verbs anddenotes a state or a property. It is not clear whether a word with property-denotingreduplication patterns as a verb, noun, or adjective.A.3.5.4 Northern Straits and Klallam Diminutive C1 ReduplicationThe initial consonant of a root is copied in C1 diminutive reduplication in NorthernStraits and Klallam, as shown in (585); a glottal stop is also infixed following thestressed vowel in some forms, such as those in (585d–e). The vowel between thematching consonants is [@].(585) a. ’ň@„ ’ňe´y@q@s (cf. ’ňe´y@q@s ‘box’)DIM„box‘small box’ (Raffo, 1972, p.84, Songish - Northern Straits)543b. s-p@„p@cˇa´P (cf. sp@cˇa´P ‘berry basket’)NMLZ-DIM„berry.basket‘small berry basket’ (Raffo, 1972, p.84, Songish - Northern Straits)c. s-t@„ta´k@n (cf. sta´k@n ‘sock’)NMLZ-DIM„sock‘little sock’ (Montler, 1986, p.42, Saanich - Northern Straits)d. x.@„x. a´ăPącˇeP (cf. x. a´cˇeP ‘lake’)DIM„lakeăDIMą‘small lake’ (Galloway, 1990, p.46, Samish - Northern Straits)e. p@„păa´ąăPąxw-@n (cf. pa´xw@n ‘sail’)DIM„blowăRESąăDIMą-instrument‘small sail’ (Montler, 1986, p.98, Saanich - Northern Straits)f. ì@„ì@´ ’mxw (cf. ì@´ ’mxw ‘raining’)DIM„rain‘light rain’ (Montler, 2018, p.1264, Saanich - Northern Straits)g. s-qw@„qw@m@´y (cf. sqw@m@´y ‘dog’)NMLZ-DIM„dog‘little dog’ (Demers & Jelinek, 1984, p.44, Lummi - Northern Straits)In some Songish diminutive forms, there is no [@] recorded in the diminutive formsbetween the identical consonants, as shown in (586).(586) a. ’ň„ ’ňcˇe´s (cf. ’ňcˇe´s ‘island’)DIM„island‘little island’ (Raffo, 1972, p.11, Songish - Northern Straits)b. ’cˇ„ ’cˇe´PwiP (cf. ’cˇe´PwiP ‘dish’)DIM„dish‘little dish’ (Raffo, 1972, p.162, Songish - Northern Straits)Diminutive marking is found with nouns, verbs, and adjectives. With a noun, asin the examples above, diminutive C1 reduplication marks something small in size.With a verb, diminutive reduplication may mark a small argument (587a–b), areduced amount of an action (587c), or a small amount of change or progress(587d).544(587) a. ’p@„ ’pă@ląa´ ’ň-@NDIM„smokeăPLą-MIDtT@DETs ’ň@lı´ ’ňìq@ì (cf. ’pa´l@ ’ň@ ’N ‘be smoking’)child‘The kids are smoking.’ (Montler, 2018, p.14, Saanich - NorthernStraits)b. kw@„kw@n-ı´-t (cf. kw@ ’ne´s ‘hold me’)DIM„take-DUR-TR‘to hold something (a small subject or object)’ (Montler, 2018, p.77,Saanich - Northern Straits)c. ’t@„’te´P-s@t (cf. ’tePstxw ‘to give someone a taste’)DIM„try-REFL‘to be trying (some)’ (Montler, 2018, p.117, Saanich - Northern Straits)d. cˇ@„cˇx. w-a´t-@NDIM„melt-TR-PASStT@DETP@ysklı´m (scˇa´cˇ@x. w to be melted)ice.cream‘The ice cream is melted a little.’ (Montler, 2018, p.34, Saanich -Northern Straits)When combined with an adjective, diminutive reduplication indicates either a smallargument or a diminished amount of the quality; examples are given in (588).(588) a. kw@„kw@’tTe´-s@t (cf. kw@ ’tTe´s@t ‘ornery, crabby, hard to get along with’)DIM„pry-RFLX‘to get ornery, crabby, difficult, hard to get along with (a little bit or ofa little one)’ (Montler, 2018, p.78, Saanich - Northern Straits)b. P@„Pı´ ’y@s (cf. Pı´y@s ‘pleasant’)DIM„pleasant‘to be little and cute’ (Montler, 2018, p.139, Saanich - Northern Straits)c. q@„qe´„q@ì (cf. qe´q@ì ‘sore’)DIM„IPFV„sore‘to be sore (of a little one or a little sore)’ (Montler, 2018, p.259,Saanich - Northern Straits)d. s- ’cˇ@„ ’cˇ@´ ’n’tT (cf. s ’cˇ@ ’n ’tT ‘to be tight’)STAT-DIM„tight‘to be tight (of something small)’ (Montler, 2018, p.1202, Saanich -Northern Straits)545e. s-m@„me´ăPą’tT@ ’n (cf. m@ ’tTe´ ’n@ ’N ‘to act proud’)STAT-DIM„proudăDIMą‘to be kind of proud, stuck up’ (Montler, 2018, p.1289, Saanich -Northern Straits)A.3.5.5 Northern Straits and Klallam Imperfective C1 ReduplicationA second type of C1 reduplication pattern marks imperfective aspect in NorthernStraits and Klallam.40 The initial consonant of the root is copied, as shown in(589). I mark these as infixes based on the position of stress.(589) a. qe´ăqą@ ’n (cf. sqe ’n ‘It’s stolen.’)stealăIPFVą‘They (sg.) are stealing (something).’ (Montler, 1986, p.117, Saanich- Northern Straits)b. s-kwu´ăkwą@’l=s@n (cf. skwul ‘school’)STAT-schoolăIPFVą=1SG.SUBJ‘I’m going to school.’ (Montler, 1986, p.42, Saanich - Northern Straits)c. ’tTe´ă’tTą@P (cf. s ’tT@Ps@´n@N ‘steps’)on.topăIPFVą‘They (sg.) are riding a horse (Montler, 1986, p.117, Saanich -Northern Straits)d. kwìREALìa´ăìą@ ’p=s@n (cf. ì@ ’pqTı´ ’n@ ’N ‘slurping’)slurpăIPFVą=1SG.SUBJ‘I’m eating (soup).’ (Montler, 1986, p.117, Saanich - Northern Straits)e. sˇ@ăsˇąt-@ ’N-a´s-@ ’N (cf. sˇt@N/sˇ@´t@ ’N ‘walk’)walkăIPFVą-face-MID‘They (sg.) are walking around.’ (Galloway, 1990, p.40, Samish -Northern Straits)40Other labels have been used to describe imperfective C1 reduplication. For example, Montler(1986) uses the label “actual” for the Saanich dialect of Northern Straits, which is equivalent to whatGalloway (1984b) calls “continuative” in his description of the Samish dialect.546f. ìu´ăìą ’p=cn (cf. ìu ’p cn ‘I eat soup.’)eat.soupăIPFVą=1SG.SUBJ‘I am eating soup.’ (Montler, 2015, p.227, Klallam)g. qa´ăq@ą ’n=cn (cf. qa´ ’n cn ‘I steal.’)stealăIPFVą=1SG.SUBJ‘I am stealing.’ (Montler, 2015, p.227, Klallam)h. s-kwe´ăkwą@’l (cf. kwe´l@t ‘hide it’)STAT-hideăIPFVą‘hide’ (Montler, 2018, p.1224, Saanich - Northern Straits)A second allomorph of aspectual C1 reduplication is given in (590). Stressfalls on the second syllable; reduplication surfaces a C@- prefix. Turner (2006,p.26) finds that this form with roots that surface with the shape CVC@C withoutreduplication.41(590) a. ’t@„’te´ ’y@ ’q (cf. ’te´cˇ@ ’q ‘to be angry’)IPFV„angry‘being angry’ (Raffo, 1972, p.45, Songish - Northern Straits)b. s-T@„Tı´ ’m@P (cf. Tı´m@P ‘freeze’)STAT-IPFV„freeze‘It’s frozen.’ (Montler, 1986, p.131, Saanich - Northern Straits)Reduplication is just one way imperfective aspect is marked in Northern Straits andKlallam: there are a range of non-concatenative allomorphs including affixed (fixedsegmental) content, the C1 reduplication process, and metathesis. A discussion ofthis allomorphy is beyond the scope of the present dissertation (though see Section5.3.1.1.1 for discussion of similar allomorphy in Halkomelem): see Montler (2015)for a more detailed explanation of the allomorphy in Klallam and Svenonius andBye (2012) for an analysis of these patterns in Saanich.Imperfective C1 reduplication is found with verbs.41As I assume [@] is never present in the underlying form, I assume that this pattern applies toCVCC roots with a sonorant as one of the last two consonants, which will motivate [@] epenthesis.547A.3.5.6 Other Reduplication in Northern Straits and KlallamAn additional type of C1 reduplication is documented in Klallam, which Montler(2015, p.287) labels “affective”. He finds that it has a diminutive-like function, butis more focused on a notion of cuteness than a small size. Though the two appearto largely overlap in function, minimal pairs are attested: for example, (591a) is adiminutive form and (591b) is an “affective” form.(591) a. NaP„Na´qs@n (cf. N@´qs@n ‘nose’)DIM„nose‘small nose’ (Montler, 2012, p.286, Klallam)b. Ni„N@´qs@n (cf. N@´qs@n ‘nose’)AFF„nose‘cute little nose’ (Montler, 2012, p.286, Klallam)An additional type of C1 reduplication with /i/ is attested with a few lexical itemsin Songish, Samish, and Lummi; Raffo (1972) states that it marks a “collective”plural. Examples are given in (592).(592) a. cˇ@ăcˇı´ąn@s (cf. cˇ@´n@s ‘tooth’)toothăPLą‘bunch of teeth’ (Raffo, 1972, p.11, Songish - Northern Straits)b. s- ’q@ă ’qı´ąm@’l (cf. s ’q@´m@ ’l ‘canoe paddle’)NMLZ-canoe.paddleăPLą‘lots of canoe paddles (not just 3)’ (Galloway, 1990, p.45, Samish -Northern Straits)c. cˇ@ăcˇı´ąn@s (cf. N@ ’n cˇ@´n@s ‘a lot of teeth’)toothăPLą‘all one’s teeth’ (Galloway, 1990, p.45, Samish - Northern Straits)d. cˇăcˇiąn@s (cf. cˇ@n@s ‘tooth’)toothăPLą‘teeth’ (Demers & Jelinek, 1984, p.77, Lummi - Northern Straits)548A.3.6 Pentlatch ReduplicationLittle is known about reduplication in Pentlatch. From existing documentation(Boas, 1886), it can be concluded that C1 and C1C2 reduplication were present, asshown in Table A.13.C1C2 C1 C2 V1✓✓Table A.13: Reduplication in PentlatchWhile I discuss potential meanings of the reduplication in each section, there isnot enough information to ascertain how many distinct types of reduplication werepresent (e.g., closely related languages Sechelt and Comox-Sliammon have 2 typesof C1C2 reduplication and 3 types of C1 reduplication).A.3.6.1 Pentlatch Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Boas (1886). I include unreduplicated forms from otherlanguages: Sechelt examples come from Beaumont (2011), Northern Straits fromMontler (2018), Squamish from Squamish Nation Education Department (2011),Proto-Coast-Salish from Kuipers (2002), and Comox-Sliammon from fieldwork.A.3.6.2 Pentlatch C1C2 ReduplicationExamples of C1C2 reduplication in Pentlatch are given in (593). The first twoconsonants of the root are copied and there is an epenthetic [@], as shown in (593).42(593) a. q@l„qa´lax. (cf. Sechelt qalax. ay ‘oceanspray bush, ironwood’)C1C2„ironwood‘harpoon points’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)42Ironwood is used in the creation of various tools traditionally, including harpoons; I assume thatthe Pentlatch word in (593a), which Boas (1886) translates as “harpoon points”, is related to the wordfor “ironwood” in Sechelt. It is not clear whether the first consonant in (593b) is a ì or ’ň, I have gonewith ’ň based on Sechelt.549b. ’ň@ ’c„ ’ňa´ ’c (cf. Sechelt ’ňa ’c ’ňa ’c ‘steady (boat, canoe)’)C1C2„steady‘steady (boat)’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)c. q@´n„qan (cf. Saanich - Northern Straits qe´ ’nq@ ’n ‘thief’)C1C2„steal‘steal’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)d. ’c@m„ ’ca´mqwì-am (cf. Sechelt ’ca´m ’camqw@´lam ‘foggy’)C1C2„cloud-MID‘fog’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)e. ì@n„ìa´nay (cf. Sechelt sìa´nay ‘woman’)C1C2„woman‘all women’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)f. tiDETs-m@n„ma´nit (cf. Sechelt sma´nit ‘mountain’)NMLZ-C1C2„mountain‘the mountains’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)g. y@m„y@´mTut (cf. Sechelt y@´ma´liwa´t ‘lose o.’s appetite for s.th.’)C1C2„sick‘be sick all over’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)C1C2 reduplication occurs across different syntactic categories. Pentlatch appearsto have the standard plural or pluractional function found across Salish languagesin both the nominal and verbal domains (e.g., 593f and 593g); it also appears tohave property-denoting C1C2 reduplication (e.g., 593b–c).A.3.6.3 Pentlatch C1 ReduplicationC1 reduplication in Pentlatch might be expected to have similar reduplication toC1 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon and Sechelt, which each have three types ofC1 reduplication (aspectual, diminutive, and plural). In a reconstruction of Proto-Salish aspect, Kinkade (1996) includes a C1 reduplicative process in Pentlatch asa cognate to the imperfective in Sechelt (Beaumont, 1985), and the progressive inComox-Sliammon (Watanabe, 2003).There are examples of C1 reduplication that have the initial consonant and avowel copied that appear to mark imperfective aspect, as shown in (594). There550are also examples with just the consonant copied that appear to mark plurality ordiminutivity, as shown in (595); note that the addition of /a/ in (595a) and /i/ in(595b) is comparable to patterns found in plural and diminutive C1 reduplicationin Comox-Sliammon and Sechelt.(594) a. ìu´„ìu ’kw (cf. Comox-Sliammon ìuìu ’kw ‘flying’)C1-fly‘to fly’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)b. ’tı´„’tiqw-@m (cf. Squamish ’t@´ ’t@ ’y ’qwm ‘throw off sparks’)C1„shine?-MID‘to shine, rays’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)c. ’kwa„ ’kwa´y=cˇi (cf. Sechelt ’kwa´ ’kway ‘[being] very hungry’)C1„hungry=1SG.SUBJ‘I am hungry’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)d. s-qi„qı´ws=cˇi (cf. Comox-Sliammon qa ’yiws ‘tired’)STAT-C1„?=1SG.SUBJ‘I am hurt all over.’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)e. s-’ta„’ta´ya ’q=cˇi (cf. Squamish ta´ya ’q ‘get angry’)STAT-C1„angry=1SG.SUBJ‘I am angry.’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)(595) a. la´„l@m-@m (cf. Proto-Coast Salish *l@m- ‘thump, kick’)C1„thump?-MID‘lightning’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)b. qi„qtı´ (cf. Sechelt qı´qti ‘youngest child’ from q@´ti)C1„young.child‘youngest child’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)c. sˇı´„sˇ@waT (cf. ?)C1„man‘boy’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)d. siăsąkw-ı´m (cf. Sechelt sı´skı´m ‘keep shaking’)shakeăC1ąMID(+STAT?)‘tremble with old age’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)551e. s-ìaăìąnay (cf. Squamish sìana ’y ‘woman’)NMLZ-womanăC1ą‘girl’ (Boas, 1886, Pentlatch)Examples (595c) and (595e) are consistent with C1 diminutive reduplication, asfound in other Salish languages. These are attested with nouns, though it is notpossible to tell if this process was productive or lexicalized.552A.3.7 Sechelt ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Sechelt is summarised in Table A.14.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓PDEN ✓DIM ✓PL ✓IPFV ✓COS ✓Table A.14: Reduplication in SecheltA.3.7.1 Sechelt Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Beaumont (1985) and Beaumont (2011). All unreduplicatedforms provided come from the original source.Words are marked with multiple diacritics over vowels to mark stress (i.e., V´),following Beaumont (1985). Since this notation does not distinguish primary andsecondary stress. I follow Beaumont’s convention as it is unclear where primarystress falls. I use my analysis of Comox-Sliammon reduplication to guide decisionsregarding which segments correspond to the reduplicative morpheme.A.3.7.2 Sechelt Plural/Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationC1C2 reduplication in Sechelt is used to mark plurality on nouns and pluractionalityon verbs. The first two consonants of the root are copied and [@] is epenthesized,as shown in (596).(596) a. c@´l„c@la´ì (cf. c@laì ‘lake’)PL„lake‘lakes’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.248, Sechelt)b. ’c@´m„ ’ca´mqwì (cf. s ’ca´mqw ı´ì ‘cloudy’)NMLZ-PL„cloud‘clouds’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.886, Sechelt)553c. x. w@´ ’p„x. wu´ ’p-nis-t@n (cf. x. wu´ ’pnist@n ‘safety pin’)PL„pin-tooth-instrument‘safety pins’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.940, Sechelt)d. kw@´s„kwu´s@n (cf. kwu´s@n ‘star’)PL„star‘stars’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.430, Sechelt)e. l@´m„la´m-a´li (cf. la´ma´li ‘bottle’)PL„alcoholic.drink-container‘bottles (general)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.666, Sechelt)f. qw@´ì„qwìı´y-sˇ@n (cf. qw@´ìı´ysˇ@n ‘boot’)PL„-wash.ashore-foot‘boots’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.54, Sechelt)C1C2 reduplication marks a basic sense of plurality with nouns, as shown in (596)above; verbs with C1C2 reduplication have translations suggesting pluractionality,including those that indicate repetition (event plurality) and plural participants, asshown in (597).(597) a. l@´ ’p„lu´ ’p-um (cf. lu´ ’put ‘poke s.t./s.o.’)PL„poke-MID‘always poking/prodding’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.331, Sechelt)b. ’cˇ@´p„ ’cˇ@px. -u´s (cf. ’cˇ@´px. u´s ‘have a dirty face’)PL„dirty-face‘have dirty faces’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.574, Sechelt)c. q@´m„q@ms-a´la (cf. q@´msa´la ‘be(ing) buried’)PL„bury-inside‘be(ing) buried (more than one person)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.630,Sechelt)d. y@´x.„yı´x. -im (cf. syı´x. ı´t ‘apart, collapsed, in pieces’)PL„collapse-MID‘collapse/collapsing/fall(ing) apart (everything, the whole thing)’(Beaumont, 2011, p.954, Sechelt)554A.3.7.3 Sechelt Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationProperty-denoting C1C2 reduplication is shown in (598): the first two consonantsof the root are copied and [@] is epenthesized.(598) a. ’q@´l„ ’q@l (cf. ’q@l ‘get wet’)PDEN„wet‘wet’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.518, Sechelt)b. ’ň@´qw„ ’ň@qw (cf. ’ň@qw ‘hard’)PDEN„hard‘very hard (glass, rock, shell, wood, etc.)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.204,Sechelt)c. l@´x.„l@x. -a´ì-kwu (cf. l@x. ‘get clear’)PDEN„clear-CONN-water‘clear water’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.668, Sechelt)d. s-x. @´ì„x. aì (cf. x. a´ìa´m ‘stare (watch)’)NMLZ-STAT„stare‘curious person, s.o. who keeps staring’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.803,Sechelt)Property-denoting C1C2 reduplication appears to combine with eventive and stativeroots. The category of the reduplicated forms is not clear. Translations of theexamples in (598) suggest that this type of reduplication may be either nouns oradjectives.Property-denoting forms look similar to those with C1C2 plural/pluractionalreduplication, and the translations of the two suggest that the distinction betweenplurality and property-denoting is unclear for some forms (or the distinction is notreflected clearly in the English translations). For example, (598c) is translated asa property of a person (‘curious person’) and as a person engaging in a repeatedaction (‘keep(s) staring’). This pairing of translations suggesting both pluractionaland property-denoting readings is found for a range of forms; it is not clear howthe two are distinguished.Where minimal pairs can be found between property-denoting and pluractionalC1C2 reduplication, the pluractional forms are further marked by an ablaut vowel555/a/) instead of a schwa in the reduplicant, as shown in (599–600).(599) a. s-x. @´w„x. a´w (cf. x. a´wam ‘cry’)STAT-PDEN„cry‘someone who is always crying, cry-baby’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.803,Sechelt)b. x.ăa´ąw„x. a´w-am (cf. x. a´wam ‘cry’)PLăPLą„cry-MID‘crying incessantly’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.924, Sechelt)(600) a. s- ’kw@´s„ ’kwa´s (cf. ’kwas ‘(quite) warm’)STAT-PDEN„warm‘someone who is always warm’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.511, Sechelt)b. ’kwăa´ąs„ ’kwa´s-aw (cf. ’kwas ‘(quite) warm’)PLăPLą„hot-PLU‘burn/scald oneself in more than one place’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.616,Sechelt)A.3.7.4 Sechelt Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1 reduplication copies the first consonant of the root. The diminutivesurfaces as an infix when the root has a moraic vowel, as shown in (601).(601) a. s-cˇı´ăcˇąq-ı´t (cf. scˇı´qı´t ‘ragged’)STAT-shredăDIMą-STAT‘a bit ragged’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.744, Sechelt)b. cı´ăcą ’cˇ-@´min (cf. cı´ ’cˇ@´min ‘fork’)forkăDIMą-instrument‘little fork’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.874, Sechelt)c. s-tı´ătąqı´w (cf. stı´qı´w ‘horse’)NMLZ-horseăDIMą‘colt’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.787, Sechelt)d. ’kw ı´ă ’kwą’t-u´s-@m (cf. ’kw ı´ ’tu´s@m ‘look out of the window’)lookăDIMą-face-MID‘look briefly out of the window’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.621, Sechelt)556e. xw ı´ăxwątı´m (cf. xwitim ‘jump’)jumpăDIMą‘hop’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.221, Sechelt)f. s- ’kwu´ă ’kwą ’c-ı´t (cf. s ’kwu´ ’cı´t ‘bent’)STAT-bendăDIMą-STAT‘bent slightly, slightly crooked’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.42, Sechelt)g. x. wu´ăx. wą ’qw-ı´t (cf. x. wu´ ’qw ı´t ‘snore’)snoreăDIMą-STAT‘snore softly’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.945, Sechelt)If the root has a sonorant as one of the first two consonants, an [@] follows thesecond of the matching consonants, as shown in (602).(602) a. cı´ăc@ąl-na´cˇ-t@n (cf. cı´lna´cˇt@n ‘pad’)put.on.flat.surfaceăDIMą-bottom-instrument‘little pad’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.316, Sechelt)b. x. wa´ăx. w@ąl-a´m (cf. x. wa´la´m ‘glow(ing) from heat/light’)glowăDIMą-MID‘dim/weak (light), dim glow from heat/light’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.939,Sechelt)c. ka´ăk@ąn-a´t-cut (cf. ka´na´tcut ‘lower one’s voice’)lower.voiceăDIMą-CTR-REFL‘lower voice a bit, speak a bit more softly’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.272,Sechelt)d. mu´ăm@ąlik (cf. mu´lik ‘lynx’)lynxăDIMą‘lynx kitten’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.273, Sechelt)e. ’kwu´ă ’kw@ąyukw-u´ya (cf. ’kwu´yukw ‘hook’)hookăDIMą-hand‘have a little hook for a hand’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.622, Sechelt)557f. la´ăl@ątı´x. -ı´m (cf. la´tı´x. ı´m ‘rattling’)rattleăDIMą-MID+STAT‘rattling a bit, (making) light rattling sound’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.662,Sechelt)g. s-wa´ăw@ą’t-ı´t (cf. swa´ ’tı´t ‘levered out/up’)STAT-leverăDIMą-STAT‘levered/pried out/up a bit’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.339, Sechelt)The diminutive has a Ci prefix if the root starts with a cluster or has no underlyingvowels (i.e., the surface vowel is [@]); this is shown in (603). However, there areexceptions: some diminutive forms of words with [@] do not surface with /i/, asshown in (604).(603) a. s-cı´„cqay (cf. sc@´qay ‘sockeye’)NMLZ-DIM„sockeye‘young sockeye (salmon)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.795, Sechelt)b. ’cˇı´„ ’cˇì ’qw-@´m (cf. ’cˇ@´l ’kw@´m ‘scoop(ing) (in liquid)’)DIM„scoop-CTR‘scoop up a small amount of something’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.376,Sechelt)c. ’tı´„’tP-a´t (cf. ’t@´P-@´m ‘taste things’)DIM„taste-CTR‘have a little taste of something’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.459, Sechelt)d. tı´„tx. w-a´lus-@m (cf. st@´x. wa´lu´s ‘see(ing) clearly’)DIM„see.clearly-eye-MID‘try(ing) briefly to see clearly’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.840, Sechelt)e. s-wı´„w@ ’q-sˇa´wı´ì (cf. w@´ ’q ‘come open’)STAT-DIM„open-door/road‘partly open(ed) (door, road)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.308, Sechelt)f. ìı´„ì@l ’q-@´m (cf. ì@´ ’qa´t ‘inhale something’)DIM„inhale-MID‘inhale a bit (air, fumes, gas, smoke)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.682, Sechelt)558(604) a. s-m@´ăm@ąl-ı´t (cf. m@l ‘sink’)STAT-rootăDIMą-STAT‘almost sunk’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.775, Sechelt)b. ì@ăìą ’qw (cf. ì@ ’qwt ‘peel something’)peelăDIMą‘peeling easily (bark)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.322, Sechelt)Diminutive C1 reduplication can occur with a range of roots, including nouns,verbs, and adjectives. With a noun, diminutive reduplication marks a small oryoung entity, as shown in (601b–c), (602a,d), and (603a) above. With eventiveverbs, diminutive reduplication marks an event or action with low intensity (601e,g,602b,c,f, and 604b), a small amount (603b,c,f), a short duration (601d and 603d).It can also translate to ‘almost X’, as shown in (604a). With states and adjectives,diminutive reduplication marks a small degree, as shown in (601a,f), (602g), and(603e).A.3.7.5 Sechelt Imperfective C1ReduplicationImperfective C1 reduplication copies the first consonant and vowel of the root,as shown in (605). If the root has no underlying vowel (i.e., the perfective formsurfaces with [@]), there is no vowel copied, as shown in (606). If the root has asonorant as its first segment, the vowel is a [@] instead of a faithful copy, as shownin (607).43(605) a. kw ı´„kwin-a´t (cf. kw ı´nı´m ‘carry/hold things in arms/hands’)IPFV„carry-CTR‘carrying/holding someone/something in arm(s)/hand(s)’ (Beaumont,2011, p.218, Sechelt)b. kwa´„kway-a´t (cf. kwa´ya´tcut ‘make room’)IPFV„move‘moving/taking something out of the way’‘taking something away from somewhere’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.602,Sechelt)43/P/ behaves as a sonorant in Salish.559c. cı´„ci ’cˇ-it (cf. cı´ ’cˇ@´min ‘fork’)IPFV„fork-CTR‘forking something, spearing something’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.875,Sechelt)(606) ’p@´ă ’pąs ’qw-@w-a´t (cf. ’p@s ’qw ‘burst’)burstăIPFVą-enter.state-CTR‘bursting/crushing something’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.67, Sechelt)(607) a. m@´„m@l (cf. m@l ‘sink, drown’)IPFV„sink‘sinking’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.694, Sechelt)b. m@´„m@ ’qw-t (cf. m@ ’qwt ‘swallow s.t.’)IPFV„swallow-CTR‘swallowing something’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.694, Sechelt)c. P@´„Payq-a´t (cf. Pa´yqa´t ‘ghost/spook s.o.’)IPFV„ghost/spook-CTR‘ghosting/spooking someone’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.974, Sechelt)d. m@´„muy-u´t (cf. mu´y@´m ‘aim’)IPFV„root-CTR‘aiming (weapon) at something’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.694, Sechelt)e. P@´„Pı´ìt@n (cf. Pı´ìt@n ‘eat’)IPFV-eat‘eating’ (Beaumont, 1985, p.18, Sechelt)f. P@´„Pı´tut (cf. Pı´tut ‘sleep’)IPFV„sleep‘sleeping’ (Beaumont, 1985, p.18, Sechelt)This type of C1 reduplication marks imperfectivity; it only occurs with verbs.A.3.7.6 Sechelt Plural C1 ReduplicationPlural C1 reduplication is shown in (608). As with diminutive C1 reduplication,plural C1 reduplication involves a copy of the initial consonant of the root and560[@] is inserted following the second of the matching consonants if either the firstor second consonant of the root is a sonorant. [a] is inserted if the root has nounderlying vowel and the first two consonants are obstruents; these are the sameroots that take [i] in the diminutive.44(608) a. s- ’ňı´ă ’ň@ąmăı´ąs (cf. s ’ň@´mı´s ‘built up with houses’)STAT-settleăPLąăSTATą‘built up with houses, settled (more than one area)’ (Beaumont, 2011,p.794, Sechelt)b. s-ya´ăy@ą ’q-ı´t (cf. ya ’q ‘fall from standing position’)STAT-fallăPLą-STAT‘fallen from a standing position (more than one thing)‘felled (more than one thing)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.156, Sechelt)c. ’cˇa´„ ’cˇpx. -iyu´s (cf. ’cˇ@´px. u´s ‘have a dirty face’)PL„dirty-round.object‘dirty (lots of spherical objects)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.366, Sechelt)d. s- ’pa´„ ’psăı´ą ’qw (cf. s ’p@sı´ ’qw ‘crushed’)STAT-PL-burst/crushăSTATą‘dented all over’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.781, Sechelt)Plural C1 reduplication reduplication is attested with stative verbs and adjectives(cf. plural C1 reduplication in Comox-Sliammon discussed in Section 4.1.3.1.3);it marks plural participants or a spatial distribution, as shown in (608a–c) and(608b,d), respectively.A.3.7.7 Sechelt Change-of-State C2 ReduplicationChange-of-state C2 reduplication doubles the second consonant of the root and thepreceding vowel, as shown in (609).45 The position of the copy is clearly infixal inroots that are longer than CVC, such as in (609g).44The vowel qualities associated with diminutive and plural C1 reduplication in Sechelt matchesthe one found in Comox-Sliammon.45While C2 reduplication is not explicitly described by Hill-Tout (1904), Haeberlin (1918), orBeaumont (1985), there are examples in the dictionary (Beaumont, 2011).561(609) a. ’tı´q„iq (cf. ’tı´qı´m ‘black’)black„COS‘getting black (dark, dirty, discoloured)’‘tarnishing (losing brightness)’(Beaumont, 2011, p.855, Sechelt)b. t@´xw„@xw (cf. t@xwt ‘take up slack’)take.slack„COS‘get very tight’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.477, Sechelt)c. ’pu´qw„uqw (cf. ’pu ’qw ‘grey’)grey„COS‘getting grey, getting dilapidated (house, etc.)’‘faded, getting old and grey.’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.150, Sechelt)d. ìı´x.„ix. (cf. ìix. ‘thin (underweight)’)thin„COS‘get thin’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.684, Sechelt)e. ’ň@´ì„@ì (cf. ’ň@ì ‘congeal’)stiff„COS‘congealed’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.862, Sechelt)f. kw@´m„@m (cf. kw@´m@´qı´n ‘(have) red hair’)red„COS‘getting red’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.607, Sechelt)g. ’qı´lăiląt (cf. ’qilt ‘bright’)brightăCOSą‘daybreak, dawn, getting light’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.645, Sechelt)C2 reduplication in Sechelt marks a change of state; it applies to adjective roots. (562A.3.8 Squamish ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Squamish is summarised in Table A.15.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓PDEN ✓PROG ✓DIM (✓)Table A.15: Reduplication in SquamishA.3.8.1 Squamish Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Kuipers (1967), Currie (1997), Bar-el and Watt (1998), Bar-el (1998), Bar-el and Watt (2001), Dyck (2004), Gillon (2006), Bar-el (2006),Bar-el (2008), Jacobs (2011), and Squamish Nation Education Department (2011).Unreduplicated forms come from the original sources or the dictionary (SquamishNation Education Department, 2011).A.3.8.2 Squamish Plural/Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationC1C2 reduplication is used to mark plurality on nouns and pluractionality onverbs in Squamish. The first two consonants of the root are doubled and [@] isepenthesized between the copied consonants, as shown in (610).(610) a. ’kw@xw„ ’kwa´xwaP (cf. ’kwa´xwaP ‘box’)PL„box‘boxes’ (Kuipers, 1967, p.100, Squamish)b. s-n@xw„n@xw ı´ì (cf. sn@xw ı´ì ‘canoe’)NMLZ-PL„canoe‘canoes’ (Kuipers, 1967, p.100, Squamish)c. ’t@q„’ta´qaP (cf. ’ta´qaP ‘bruised)PL„bruised‘be bruised all over’ (Kuipers, 1967, p.101, Squamish)563d. ì@ ’kw„ìı´ ’kw-sˇ@n (cf. ìı´ ’kwsˇ@n ‘stumble’)PL„get.hooked-foot‘stumble along’ (Kuipers, 1967, p.101, Squamish)e. l@m„la´ ’m (cf. la ’m ‘house’)PL„house‘houses’ (Kuipers, 1967, p.100, Squamish)f. q@x.manys-ì@n„ìa´na ’yNMLZ-PL„womannaRL’ci ’ca´ ’pwork(cf. sìana ’y ‘woman’)‘Many woman worked.’ (Gillon, 2006, p.29, Squamish)g. cˇ@n1SG.SUBJ’kwa´cˇ-n@xwlook-NTRta=p@sˇ„pu´sˇDET=PL„cat(cf. pusˇ ‘cat’)‘I saw (the) cats.’ (Gillon, 2006, p.17, Squamish)h. cˇ@n1SG.SUBJ’kwa´cˇ-n@xwlook-CTRPı´Px. wallta=s-qw@m„qw@ma´ ’yDET=PL„dog‘I saw all the dogs.’ (cf. sqw@ma´ ’y ‘dog’) (Gillon, 2006, p.29,Squamish)i. ìi ’qalwayswaPAhiyı´bigta=m@x.„mı´x. aìDET=PL„bear(cf. mı´x. aì ‘bear’)‘These bears are always big (a group of bears in the area).’ (Bar-el,1998, p.76, Squamish)j. naRLkw@l„kw@´lasˇ-t-H-asPL„shoot-TR-3OBJ-3SUBJta=mı´x. aìDET=bear(cf. kw@´lasˇ ‘shoot’)‘He shot a number of bears (at the same time).’‘He shot the bear repeatedly.’ (Jacobs, 2011, p.45, Squamish)k. cˇ@n ’ň@x„ ’ň@xw@nq (cf. ’ňxw@nq ‘win’)1SG.SUBJ PL„win‘I’m winning all the time.’ (Bar-el, 2006, p.300, Squamish)The (first) C1@C2 sequence is usually not stressed, except when reduplication isadded to monosyllabic words with [@], as shown in (611).(611) a. naRLyuìburnta=s-c@´q„c@q (cf. sc@q ‘tree’)DET=NMLZ-PL„tree‘The forest is burning.’ (Jacobs, 2011, p.11, Squamish)564b. ’kw@´ì„ ’kw@ì (cf. ’kw@ìs ‘spill something’)PL„spill‘spill repeatedly’ (Bar-el, 2000, p.90, Squamish)c. s-x. w@´ ’n„x. w@n (cf. sx. @ ’n ‘leg’)NMLZ-PL„leg‘legs’ (Dyck, 2004, p.177, Squamish)Plural C1C2 reduplication occurs with nouns and verbs. It marks plural entitieswhen applied to nouns, as shown in (610a–b,e–i) and (611a,c); it markspluractionality with verbs. C1C2 reduplication can mark multiple participants(610j), temporally-distributed events (610j,k, 611b), or a spatial distribution(610c,d). Bar-el (2008) argues that both habitual and iterative readings arepossible on verbs with C1C2 reduplication.A.3.8.3 Squamish Property-Denoting C1C2 ReduplicationProperty-denoting C1C2 reduplication copies the first two consonants of the root,as shown in (612).(612) a. P@s- ’c@xw„ ’cı´xw (cf. ’cı´xw@n ‘help s.o. (out of trouble)’)STAT-PDEN„help‘willing to help, helpful’ (Kuipers, 1967, p.101, Squamish)b. P@s- ’cˇ@´q„ ’cˇ@q (cf. s ’cˇ@q ‘dirt’)STAT-PDEN„dirt‘dirty’ (Kuipers, 1967, p.113, Squamish)c. ’p@ ’qw„ ’pı´ ’qw (cf. ’pı´ ’qwiP ‘become yellow’)PDEN„yellow‘yellow’ (Kuipers, 1967, p.101, Squamish)d. qala´qacrowwaIPFV’q@x.„ ’qı´x. (cf. ’qı´x. iP ‘become black’)PDEN„black‘Crows are black.’ (Gillon, 2006, p.29, Squamish)Property-denoting reduplication is attested with adjectives and stative-markedverbs.565A.3.8.4 Squamish Progressive C1 ReduplicationC1 reduplication marks progressive aspect (Bar-el, 2006, 2008). The firstconsonant and vowel are copied and stress falls on the first vowel in forms withprogressive C1 reduplication, as shown in (613).(613) a. ’ta´„’taya ’q (cf. ta´ya ’q ‘get angry’)PROG„angry‘be angry’ (Dyck, 2004, p.163, Squamish)b. ’tu´„’tu ’kw (cf. ’tu ’kws ‘take (something) home’)PROG„go.home‘be going home’ (Dyck, 2004, p.200, Squamish)c. ’kwa„ ’kwa ’yPROG„hungryta=mı´x. aìDET=bear(cf. ’kwa ’y ‘be hungry’)‘The bear is hungry’ / ‘The bear is getting hungry.’ (Bar-el & Watt,1998, p.41, Squamish)d. Pı´Px. wallta=staP@xwìDET=childrenna ’mgotPı´„PimasˇPROG„walknaPRLta=sx. aìnatDET=Sunday‘All the children/every child went walking on Sunday.’ (cf. Pı´m@sˇ‘walk’) (Currie, 1997, p.52, Squamish)e. naRLyuì-Hburn-3SUBJta=yu´„ ’yuì (cf. yuì ‘burn’)DET=PROG„fire‘The fire is burning.’ (Jacobs, 2011, p.52, Squamish)f. naRL’pa„ ’payaq-ant-asPROG„fix-TR-3ERGta=s-n@xwiì-s (cf. ’pa´yaq ‘be fixed’)DET=NMLZ-canoe-3POSS‘He’s in the process of fixing the canoe.’ (Bar-el, 2008, p.47,Squamish)Progressive C1 reduplication applies to verbs.A.3.8.5 Squamish Diminutive C1 ReduplicationThe use of C1 reduplication to mark a diminutive is less frequent in Squamish thanin other Salish languages (Dyck, 2004, p.171). Where it does occur, it involves acopy of the first consonant of the root, and it may be accompanied by epenthetic[i], as shown in (614a).566(614) a. lı´„la ’m (cf. la ’m ‘house’)DIM„house‘little house’ (Squamish Nation Education Department, 2011, p.103,Squamish)b. ’kwa´ă ’kwąxwaP (cf. ’kwa´xwaP ‘box’)DIM„box‘small box’ (Kuipers, 1967, p.346, Squamish)c. xw ı´„xwi ’kw (root: xwi ’kw- ‘grey’)DIM„grey‘small blueberry’ (Kuipers, 1967, p.350, Squamish)Diminutive C1 reduplication in Squamish is found with nouns; it marks somethingsmall in size.567A.3.9 Twana ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Twana is summarised in Table A.16.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓DIM ✓DIM ✓Other Unclear C2 ReduplicationTable A.16: Reduplication in TwanaA.3.9.1 Twana Sources and TranscriptionExamples and corresponding unreduplicated forms come from Drachman (1969).I leave most vowels (e.g., “E” and “O”) as transcribed by Drachman (1969). I re-transcribe sequences of glottal stop and a sonorant as a glottalised sonorant whereappropriate. Note that /b/ and /d/ pattern as sonorants in Twana.A variant of plural C1C2 labeled “wrong side” reduplication is discussed inChapter 6 (Section 6.5.3.3.2 and Section 6.6.2.2.3).A.3.9.2 Twana Plural C1C2 ReduplicationC1C2 reduplication in Twana copies the first two consonants of the root. If one ofthe first two consonants in the stem is a sonorant, there is a [@] between the copiedconsonants, resulting in a C@C shape.(615) a. P@s-xw@’l„xwe´’l-cˇ@d (cf. Pasxwe´ ’lcˇ@d ‘I’m lost.’)STAT-PL„lost-1SG.SUBJ‘I’ve lost them.’ (Drachman, 1969, p.35, Twana)b. t@b„t@´baxw (cf. t@be´xw ‘land’)PL„land‘lands’ (Drachman, 1969, p.68, Twana)c. P@s-ì@b„ìu´b (cf. ìub ‘heals, scars’)STAT-PL„heal/scar‘scarred’ (aug.) (Drachman, 1969, p.54, Twana)568A sonorant in C2 position may be glottalised in the reduplicant, as shown in (616).(616) a. ’qw@’l„ ’qwe´le(h) (cf. ’qwe´le(h) ‘cedar tree’)PL„cedar.tree‘cedar trees’ (Drachman, 1969, p.45, Twana)b. ’qw@’l„ ’qw@´l-ab (cf. P@s ’qw@l-@´b ‘sunk’)PL„sink-MID‘all sunk’ (Drachman, 1969, p.76, Twana)[@] may be omitted when both of the initial two consonants are obstruents, as shownin (617).(617) a. sˇ-cˇt„cˇu´tax. (cf. sˇcˇu´tax. ‘halibut’)NMLZ-PL„halibut‘halibut (collective)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.35, Twana)b. P@sˇ-sˇ ’cˇ„sˇe´ ’cˇ (cf. Pasˇsˇe´ ’cˇ ‘paid’)STAT-PL„pay‘all paid’ (Drachman, 1969, p.35, Twana)c. s-p ’qw„p@´ ’qw (cf. sp@ ’qw ‘feather’)NMLZ-PL„feather‘feathers’ (Drachman, 1969, p.54, Twana)d. s-pcˇ„p@´cˇu (cf. sp@´cˇu ‘berry-basket’)NMLZ-PL„berry.basket‘berry-baskets’ (Drachman, 1969, p.35, Twana)A version of plural C1C2 reduplication, without the first consonant copied, is shownin (618). This is discussed further in Chapter 6 (Section 6.5.3.3.2).(618) a. ’qw„so´ ’qway (cf. so´ ’qway ‘elder sister’)PL„elder.sister‘elder sisters’ (Drachman, 1969, p.32, Twana)b. s-q„te´qaw (cf. steqe´w ‘horse’)NMLZ-PL„horse‘horses’ (Drachman, 1969, p.86, Twana)569c. P@s- ’c„x. @´ ’c (cf. Pasx. @´ ’c ‘measure’)STAT-PL„measure‘measure (pl.)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.55, Twana)Plural C1C2 reduplication is attested with nouns and verbs. Most examples ofC1C2 reduplication given by Drachman (1969) are not given translations. Wheretranslations are provided, C1C2 reduplication marks plural entities with nouns, asshown in (615b), (616a), (617a,b,d), and (618a–b). With verbs, C1C2 reduplicationmarks plural participants with verbs, as shown in (615a), (616b), and (617b).A.3.9.3 Twana Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1 reduplication in Twana doubles the initial consonant and vowel ofthe root, as shown in (619). However, for some words that start with /P/, the vowelis not copied in C1 reduplication, as shown in (620).(619) a. Pa„Pa´xac (cf. Pax. c@d ‘bed’)DIM„go.to.bed‘go to bed (dim.)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.149, Twana)b. PE´„PEy@Pucˇ@d (cf. Pey@PO´(h)cˇ@d ‘untie’)DIM„untie‘untie (dim.)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.149, Twana)c. b@„b@´qs@d (cf. b@qs@´d ‘nose’)DIM„nose‘nose (dim.)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.162, Twana)(620) a. s-PE´ăPąl@txw (cf. sPe´latxw ‘timber, board’)NMLZ-timberăDIMą‘timber (dim.)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.226, Twana)b. PE´ăPąx.@d (cf. P@´x. ad ‘clear the throat’)clear.the.throatăDIMą‘clear the throat (dim.)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.149, Twana)With words that are monosyllabic (prior to reduplication), /P/ is also epenthesizedfollowing the first vowel in C1 reduplication, as shown in (621).570(621) a. ’tE´P„’ts (cf. ’tes ‘shoot’)DIM„shoot‘shoot (dim.)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.147, Twana)b. sE´P„s@l (cf. sel ‘cloth, rag’)DIM„cloth/rag‘cloth, rag’ (dim.) (Drachman, 1969, p.147, Twana)c. dE´P„d@x. (cf. d@x. ‘converse, gossip’)DIM„converse‘converse, gossip (dim.)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.147, Twana )Diminutive C1 reduplication applies to nouns and verbs. There are no translationsgiven for most of the diminutive forms in Drachman (1969). It is likely that formswith C1 reduplication is comparable to diminutive forms found in other Salishlanguages, such that (619c) can be assumed to indicate a nose that is small insize. As the meanings associated with diminutive verbs across the family are quitebroad, nothing further can be about possible readings of diminutive verbs in Twanaat present.A.3.9.4 Twana Diminutive V1 ReduplicationV1 reduplication in Twana copies a root vowel across a glottal stop. ThoughDrachman (1969) attributes a diminutive function to V1 reduplication (e.g., 622e),it is not possible to confirm this from the data he provides because there are notranslations.(622) a. yăEPąE´ ’qw-@b (cf. y@ ’qw ‘wash’)washăDIMą-MID‘wash (dim.)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.170, Twana)b. ’păEPąE´’t-sˇ@d-@b (cf. ’pa´ ’tsˇ@d@b ‘set out’)?ăDIMą-foot-MID‘set out (dim.)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.170, Twana)The attested forms with V1 reduplication are verbs; their meaning is unclear.571A.3.9.5 Other Reduplication in TwanaTwana has a C2 reduplication process with an unclear function. It takes the shape-aC and follows the first CVC sequence. The vowel in the reduplicant is [a].(623) a. s-P@´ ’qw„a ’qw (root: P@ ’q-)NMLZ-snow„C2‘snow’ (Drachman, 1969, p.172, Twana)b. bı´xw„axw (root: bixw- ‘smile’)smile„C2‘smile’ (Drachman, 1969, p.279, Twana)c. Pı´l„al (root: Pil- ‘cry’)cry„C2‘sing’ (Drachman, 1969, p.279, Twana)572A.4 Tsamosan ReduplicationA.4.1 Cowlitz ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Cowlitz is summarised in Table A.17.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓Other Unclear/Lexicalised C2 ReduplicationTable A.17: Reduplication in CowlitzA.4.1.1 Cowlitz Sources and TranscriptionAll examples and unreduplicated forms come from Kinkade (2004). Cowlitz vowellength, which marks diminutivity, is discussed in Chapter 6 (Section 6.6.2.2.1).There are instances of [@] missing in these examples.A.4.1.2 Cowlitz Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationPluractionality is marked on verbs by C1C2 reduplication. The first CVC sequenceof the root is copied; stress falls on the first syllable, excluding fixed segmentprefixes, as shown in (624). Kinkade (2004) labels this type of reduplication as“repetitive”; it has a pluractional function.(624) a. s-cu´yăcuyąqs-mit-n (cf. cu´ ’yqs-m ‘stumble’)IPFV-stumbleăPLą-MID-3SG.SUBJ‘He’s stumbling.’ (Kinkade, 2004, p.259, Cowlitz)b. PitPFV’ka´y„ ’kay-n (root: ’kay-)tickle„PL-3SG.SUBJ‘He tickled him.’ (Kinkade, 2004, p.259, Cowlitz)c. Pac-ìu´m„ìum-ì (root: ìuma-)STAT-wrinkle„PL-INTR‘It’s wrinkled.’ (Kinkade, 2004, p.259, Cowlitz)573d. s-m@´ ’ň„m@ ’ň-csˇi-t-n (root: m@ ’ňa-)IPFV-take.a.chance„PL-REFL-TR-3SG.SUBJ‘He’s shooting at targets.’ (Kinkade, 2004, p.259, Cowlitz)e. te´ ’m„tem- ’m (root: ti ’m-)across„PL-MID‘striped horizontally’ (Kinkade, 2004, p.259, Cowlitz)If the root has obstruents in both C1 and C2 position, there is no vowel in thereduplicant, as shown in (625).(625) a. s- ’cˇe´q„ ’cˇq-mit-n (root: ’cˇiq- ‘whine, squeal’)IPFV-whine„PL-MID-3SUBJ‘he’s whining’ (Kinkade, 2004, p.259, Cowlitz)b. Pac-pu´s„ps-m (cf. pusì ‘swell up’)STAT-swell„PL-MID‘mumps’ (Kinkade, 2004, p.260, Cowlitz)C1C2 reduplication applies to verbs. While the precise type of plurality marked byC1C2 reduplication is unclear, distribution in space or time are sufficient for its usein circumstances with without a plural arguments (e.g., 624a).A.4.1.3 Other Reduplication in CowlitzC2 reduplication is attested, but rare, in Cowlitz (Kinkade, 2004); the secondconsonant of the root is copied, as shown in (626). The function of this type ofreduplication is unclear.(626) a. s-P@´x.„x. -t-n (cf. P@x. n ‘look at’)IPFV-look„C2-TR-3SUBJ‘He’s examining it.’ (Kinkade, 2004, p.226, Cowlitz)b. kw@´s„s-w-n (cf. kw@smn ‘supper’)evening„C2-INTR-3SUBJ‘evening’ (Kinkade, 2004, p.226, Cowlitz)574c. s-’tı´c„c-w-n (cf. s ’tı´csˇitn ‘splashing on’)IPFV-splash„C2-INTR-3SUBJ‘It’s splashing.’ (Kinkade, 2004, p.226, Cowlitz)575A.4.2 Lower Chehalis ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Lower Chehalis is summarised in Table A.18.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓Other Unclear C1 ReduplicationUnclear C2 ReduplicationUnclear V1 ReduplicationUnclear CVCVC ReduplicationTable A.18: Reduplication in Lower ChehalisA.4.2.1 Lower Chehalis Sources and TranscriptionAll examples and unreduplicated forms come from Robertson (2014). There areinstances of [@] missing in these examples.A.4.2.2 Lower Chehalis C1C2 Pluractional ReduplicationPluractional C1C2 reduplication involves a copy of the first and second consonantsof the root, as shown in (627). It is unclear from the available data what determinesthe quality of the vowel in (627b), though it is possible that an epenthetic schwacould be realized as [i] adjacent to a /y/.(627) a. Pi-ca´x. w„c@x. w-cˇ- ’w-n (root: cax. - ‘drip’)IPFV-drip„PL-water-INTR-3.SUBJ.IPFV‘drip continuously’ (Robertson, 2014, p.135, Lower Cheahlis)b. s-yı´’l„yi’l-iP (root: yi ’l- ‘walk’)NMLZ-walk„PL-INTNS.DISTR‘walking around’ (Robertson, 2014, p.135, Lower Chehalis)Examples of C1C2 reduplication are attested with verbs and translated in a mannerthat indicates an exclusively pluractional (rather than plural) function, as inthe other Tsamosan languages, supporting the analysis of this reduplication asspecifically a pluractional, rather than general plural, marker.576A.4.2.3 Other Reduplication in Lower ChehalisThe scarcity of data poses a challenge in determining which types of reduplicationwere productive in Lower Chehalis. Among the documented types, there is a typeof C2 reduplication that involves the doubling of the second consonant of the rootwith no vowel between the matching consonants, as shown in (628), or [i], asshown in (629). The function of this C2 reduplication is unclear.(628) ’ňu´ ’kw„ ’kw-aP (cf. ’ňu ’kw ‘high’)high„C2-IMPER‘a little higher’ (Robertson, 2014, p.134, Lower Chehalis)(629) a. x. i ’w„ı´w (root: x. i ’w- ‘fear’)fear„C2‘fear, frighten’ (Robertson, 2014, p.135, Lower Chehalis)b. s-w@ ’q„ı´ ’q (root: w ’q- ‘frog’)NMLZ-frog„C2‘frog’ (Robertson, 2014, p.135, Lower Chehalis)While there is very little evidence for a productive C1 reduplication process inLower Chehalis, Robertson (2014) documents a handful of words with a copy ofthe first consonant of the root, as shown in (630). C1 reduplication co-occurs withdiminutive morphology in examples where it marks plurality.(630) a. s-kw@„kwa´ăPąm-uP (root: kwm- ‘inland’)NMLZ-PL„inlandăDIMą-DIM‘animal, insect, misbehaved (children)’ (Robertson, 2014, p.134,Lower Chehalis)b. ’cˇ@„ ’cˇa´ì-uP (root: ’cˇaì- ‘maggot’)PL„maggot-DIM‘maggots’ (Robertson, 2014, p.134, Lower Chehalis)There is also a V1 reduplication process in Lower Chehalis. The root vowel iscopied and the copied vowel is positioned following the root, as shown in (631).This reduplication marks plurality; the only examples Robertson (2014) provides577involve nouns. In each of the examples, the reduplicated vowel is followed by aglottal stop.(631) a. cu´ì„uP (root: cuì- ‘foot’)foot„PL‘feet’ (Robertson, 2014, p.119, Lower Chehalis)b. x. a´Pq„aP (cf. x. aPq- ‘child’)child„PL‘children’ (Robertson, 2014, p.119, Lower Chehalis)Robertson (2014) also documents a longer C1C2C3 (CVCVC) reduplicationpattern that has a similar semantic function to pluractional C1C2 reduplication(632).46(632) a. cˇ@pa´Px.„cˇ@p@x. - ’w-nlightning„PL-INTR-3.SUBJ.IPFV‘It is lightening off and on.’ (Robertson, 2014, p.136, Lower Chehalis)b. y@x. wa´x. w„ ’y@x. wax. w- ’w-nlight(?)„PL-INTR-3.SUBJ.IPFV‘blinking lights’ (Robertson, 2014, p.136, Lower Chehalis)c. Pi-x@ ’p@´ ’q„x@ ’p@ ’q- ’w-nIPFV-strike„PL-INTR-3.SUBJ.IPFV‘They (stones) always strike together.’ (Robertson, 2014, p.136, LowerChehalis)46Robertson (2014) labels it as intermittent and notes that it “and the words involved in it, may beborrowings from Chinookan” (p.135).578A.4.3 Quinault ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Quinault is summarised in Table A.19.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓COMP ✓Other Unclear C2 Reduplication(or Gemination)Table A.19: Reduplication in QuinaultA.4.3.1 Quinault Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Modrow (1971). Unreduplicated forms come from Cowlitz,Lower Chehalis, and Upper Chehalis come from Kinkade (2004), Robertson(2014), and Kinkade (1991), respectively; Proto-Salish forms come from Kuipers(2002). As Modrow (1971) did not mark ejectives, I have retranscribed plain stopsas ejectives where appropriate.I provide examples to show a process labelled as reduplication by Modrow(1971) under “Other”, though I consider it to be gemination rather than C2reduplication.A.4.3.2 Quinault Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationThere is no description of C1C2 reduplication in either J. Gibson (1964) or Modrow(1971), but there are examples of C1C2 reduplication in the examples provided inModrow (1971) and Rowicka (2006). The first two consonants of the root arecopied, as shown in (633). It is not clear what determines vowel quality.(633) a. k@lt1PL.PFVjˇa´ ’y„jˇa ’y-@m (cf. L. Chehalis Pi ’ya´ ’ysˇcˇln ‘They (sg.) told me.’)tell„PL-MID‘We told stories.’ (Rowicka, 2006, p.463, Quinault)b. sˇa´m„sˇ@m-t@m (cf. U. Chehalis sˇ@´msì ‘feel faint’)dizzy„C1C2-PASS‘to feel dizzy’ (Modrow, 1971, p.155, Quinault)579c. sˇu´ ’kw„sˇu ’kw-@m (cf. U. Chehalis sˇu´ ’kwsˇu ’kwmitn whooping cough’)whooping.cough„C1C2-MID‘whooping cough’ (Modrow, 1971, p.157, Quinault)d. mı´ ’ň„maň (cf. Cowlitz m@ ’ňn ‘to try, taste, guess’)47look„PL‘look around’ (Modrow, 1971, p.121, Quinault)e. kwi2SG.CONTPı´n„Pindo„PL(cf. L. Chehalis Pini- ‘do what’)‘What are you doing?’ (Rowicka, 2006, p.466, Quinault)f. jˇil„jˇi’l-m-gwal (cf. L. Chehalis yi ’l- ‘walk’)walk„PL-?-RECP‘[walking or whirling] around and around’ (Modrow, 1971, p.63,Quinault)The reduplication in (633) is glossed as an “iterative” in Rowicka (2006); thistranslation is consistent with the patterns found across the Tsamosan languages(i.e., a pluractional types of C1C2 reduplication restricted to verbs).A.4.3.3 Quinault V1 ReduplicationIn V1 reduplication, the stressed vowel is copied and a glottal stop separates theidentical vowels, as shown in (634). This type of reduplication marks comparison.(634) a. qwumı´ăPiąn (cf. qwumı´n ‘slow’)slowăCOMPą‘slower’ (Modrow, 1971, p.356, Quinault)b. na´ăPaąw (cf. na´w ‘big’)bigăCOMPą‘bigger’ (Modrow, 1971, p.356, Quinault)47I am unsure about the vowels in this form; I have left them as transcribed in Modrow (1971).580V1 reduplication in Quinault is attested with adjectives.A.4.3.4 Other Reduplication in QuinaultPlurals in Quinault can be formed by doubling the last consonant of the word andadding a plural suffix (-@lma or -elma), as shown in (635). It is not clear that C2reduplication has a semantic contribution independent of the plural suffix.(635) a. cı´nnup„p-@lma´ (cf. Cowlitz c@nu´p- ‘bed’)bed„C2-PL‘beds’ (Modrow, 1971, p.23)b. s-kwu´Pm„m-@lma´ (cf. Proto-Salish *m@kw(uP) ‘to cover (w. blanket)’)NMLZ-cover„C2-PL‘blankets’ (Modrow, 1971, p.23, Quinault)Though Modrow (1971) does not mention reduplication in the formation ofdiminutives, the forms in (636) suggest that the addition of the diminutive suffixalso triggers this same process.(636) a. mu´smus„s-uP (cf. mu´smus ‘cow’)48cow„C2-DIM‘small cow’ (Modrow, 1971, p.353, Quinault)b. ca´Palaì„ì-uP (cf. Cowlitz ce ’lì ‘lake’)lake„C2-DIM‘small lake’ (Modrow, 1971, p.353, Quinault)Given that C2 “reduplication” occurs in combination with both plural anddiminutive non-reduplicative suffixes, this does not appear to involve areduplicative morpheme.48The C1C2 reduplication in (636a) is lexicalized.581A.4.4 Upper Chehalis ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Upper Chehalis is summarised in Table A.20.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓COS ✓SUPR ✓Table A.20: Reduplication in Upper ChehalisA.4.4.1 Upper Chehalis Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Kinkade (1963), Kinkade (1985), and Kinkade (1995).Unreduplicated forms come from Kinkade (1991), as well as the source materials.Many instances of [@] are omitted in the source materials; I do not reinsert them inmost places. Upper Chehalis vowel length, which marks diminutivity, is discussedin Chapter 6 (Section 6.6.2.2.1).A.4.4.2 Upper Chehalis Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationC1C2 reduplication is used to mark pluractionality in Upper Chehalis. The firsttwo consonants of the root are copied, as shown in (637). If the root has a moraicvowel, the vowel is copied too, as shown in (638).(637) a. s-p@tăptąqwx. w (cf. sp@tqwx. w ‘tonight’)NMLZ-nightăPLą‘night by night’ (Kinkade, 1991, p.98, Upper Chehalis)b. s-’t@ ’qă’t ’qąx. w-t-n ( ’t@ ’qx. w ’mì ‘slap’)IPFV-slapăPLą-TR-IPFV‘They (sg.) are slapping it again and again.’ (Kinkade, 1995, p.358,Upper Chehalis)582(638) a. s- ’cˇı´să ’cˇisą-n (cf. ’scˇisn ‘come’)IPFV-come„PL-3SUBJ.IPFV’They (sg.) are coming from time to time.’ (Kinkade, 1995, p.358,Upper Chehalis)b. s-pa´năpanąapi-t-n (cf. spa´napi ’mì ‘tree falls’)IPFV-tree.fallsăPLą-TR-3SUBJ.IPFV‘They (sg.) are felling trees.’ (Kinkade, 1995, p.358, Upper Chehalis)c. Pe´:ìăPeìąn (cf. Piìn ‘eat’)eatăPLą‘eat slowly away’ (Kinkade, 1963, p.20, Upper Chehalis)d. Pac-’tu ’pă’tu ’pąa´ ’y-m (cf. ’tu ’pa´yn ‘become decayed’)STAT-decayedăPLą-PFV.MID‘It is decaying in spots.’ (Kinkade, 1995, p.358, Upper Chehalis)There are some instances of C1C2 reduplication with roots that surface with [a] inthe reduplicant, instead of [@]. Examples are given in (639).49(639) a. PitPFVw@´ ’q„wa ’q-ì (cf. w@ ’qa´:la ’cˇaPL„run-INTR‘runner’)‘They (sg.) ran around, they (sg.) ran to and fro, they (sg.) ran backand forth.’ (Kinkade, 1995, p.358, Upper Chehalis)b. ì@´x.„ìax. -n (cf. ì@x. ì ‘burn’)burn„PL-TR/3OBJ‘start fires here and there’ (Kinkade, 1995, p.358, Upper Chehalis)C1C2 pluractional reduplication in Upper Chehalis is associated with a distributivefunction: events must be distributed in time or space (Kinkade, 1995). Example(637b) shows distribution in time, while example (638d) shows distribution inspace.49[a] is sometimes found with these roots outside of reduplication in some words; Kinkade (1991,p.194) gives ìaxa´ ’cˇ. a ‘burn one’s hand’, for example, which has the same root as (639b).583A.4.4.3 Upper Chehalis Change-of-State (“Slow”) C2 ReduplicationChange-of-state C2 reduplication in Upper Chehalis is formed by copying thestressed vowel and the following consonant, as shown in (640).(640) a. s-tı´păipąi-w-n (cf. tı´pì ‘get dark’)IPFV-darkăCOSą-INCH-IPFV‘It gets dark gradually.’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.193, Upper Chehalis)b. ’ňisˇ-a´w„aw-m (cf. ’ňisˇ ‘cold’)cold-INCH„COS-MID‘It got cold slowly.’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.191, Upper Chehalis)The vowel in C2 reduplication may be omitted as part of regular vowel deletionrules, though Kinkade (1985, p.190) notes that the precise factors that conditionthis deletion are unclear. Examples with vowel deletion are given in (641).(641) a. ye´p„p-ì (root: yp-)walk„COS-INTR‘He walked slowly back and forth.’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.193, UpperChehalis)b. s- ’ňe´ ’qw„ ’qw-w-n (root: ’ň ’qwi-)IPFV-climb„COS-INCH-IPFV‘They (sg.) climb a little slowly.’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.192, UpperChehalis)c. s-p@t„t-w-n (root: pt-)IPFV-stick„COS-INCH-IPFV‘It sticks and sticks slowly.’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.192, Upper Chehalis)Change-of-state C2 reduplication applies to verbs; it is frequently found incombination with the inchoative suffix -(a)w. It refers to a change of state thatunfolds slowly or gradually (Kinkade, 1985, p.189).A.4.4.4 Upper Chehalis Superlative C2 ReduplicationSuperlative C2 reduplication has the same form as change-of-state C2reduplication: it is formed by copying the consonant and vowel following584the stressed vowel, as shown in (642).50 The vowel may be deleted, as shownin (643), though the circumstances surrounding vowel deletion or retention areunclear.(642) a. sxw-Pa´wăawąt (cf. Lillooet sPa ’wt ‘behind’)SUPR-behindăSUPRą‘the last one’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.193, Upper Chehalis)b. sxw- ’ňu´ ’kw„u ’kw-ì-s (cf. ’ňu ’kw ‘high’)SUPR-high„SUPR-INTR-SUPR‘highest one’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.193, Upper Chehalis)c. sxw-to´:m„um (cf. to´:mylps ‘short-tailed)SUPR-short„SUPR‘the shortest’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.194, Upper Chehalis)(643) a. sxw-q@´x.„x. -s (cf. q@x. ì ‘many’)SUPR-many„SUPR-SUPR‘most’ (Kinkade, 1963, p.21, Upper Chehalis)b. sxw- ’ňu´ ’kw„ ’kw-st (cf. ’ňu ’kw ‘high’)SUPR-high„SUPR-SUPR‘highest’ (Kinkade, 1963, p.21, Upper Chehalis)c. sxw- ’cap-us„s (cf. ’capa´lwn ‘strong-looking’)SUPR-strong-face„SUPR‘strongest’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.193, Upper Chehalis)d. sxw- ’c@p„p (cf. ’capa´lwn ‘strong-looking’)SUPR-strong-face„SUPR‘the strongest’ (Kinkade, 1985, p.193, Upper Chehalis)The type of C2 reduplication shown in (642) and (643 is found with adjectives;it is used in superlative constructions. Superlative C2 reduplication is found incombination with the superlative marking sxw-...(-st).50The vowel lowers in the stressed syllable when it is lengthened in (642c): /u/ ą [o:].585A.5 Tillamook ReduplicationAttested reduplication in Tillamook is summarised in Table A.21.C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL ✓DIM ✓PL/CONT ✓COS ✓Table A.21: Reduplication in TillamookA.5.0.1 Tillamook Sources and TranscriptionExamples come from Edel (1939), Egesdal and Thompson (1996), Kroeber (1999),and Kuipers (2002); unreduplicated forms come from the original sources. Stressis not reliably marked in the Tillamook materials; vowel quality also varies. I useEgesdal and Thompson (1996) and Kroeber (1999) to help guide transcription andglossing decisions.Reduplicated consonants in onsets in Tillamook are deglottalised andvoiced, which is why /d/ surfaces in C1C2 reduplication in (415a) below.See L. C. Thompson and Thompson (1985, pp.140–142) for discussion ofdeglottalisation and voicing in Tillamook.A.5.1 Tillamook Plural/Pluractional C1C2 ReduplicationThe first two consonants of the root are copied in C1C2 reduplication in Tillamook,as shown in (644).51 Examples are given in (644a) and (644d).(644) a. d@n„’t@´ni (cf. ’t@ni ‘ear’)PL„ear‘ears’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996, p.3, Tillamook)b. ì@h„ì@h-ays-@w (cf. ì@hays ‘to sleep’)PL„close-eye-MID‘They were all sleeping together.’ (Edel, 1939, p.15, Tillamook)51Voiceless stops are voiced in reduplication (Edel, 1939, p.14)586c. c-y@’l„y@’l-@´wi(n) (cf. cy@lha´Pwin ‘turn s.t. over’)PL„turn.over-RLT-DRV‘crooked’ (Kuipers, 2002, p.130, Tillamook)d. g@l„ ’qels (root: ’qels-)PL„cook.in.earth.pit‘cook in pit’ (Kuipers, 2002, p.87, Tillamook)e. c-P@h„Pah-@wı´-n-i (cf. Paha ‘carry’)STAT-PL„take-RLT-DRV-LS.SUBJ‘I always take it.’ (Edel, 1939, p.14, Tillamook)A realisation of plural/pluractional C1C2 reduplication, without the first consonantcopied, is shown in (645). This is discussed further in Chapter 6 (Section 6.5.3.3.2).(645) a. deDETsˇ-qw„t@´qw-@n (root: tqw- ‘to break’)DESID-PL„break-3‘They tried to break it.’ (Edel, 1939, p.15, Tillamook)b. s-q„ìe´q-il (cf. sìeqı´si ’I sit down beside them (sg.).’)NMLZ-PL„sit-DVL’Someone is sitting.’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996, p.11, Tillamook)C1C2 reduplication is found with nouns and verbs. With nouns, C1C2 reduplicationmarks plural entities, as shown in (644a) above. With verbs, it marks pluralparticipants, as shown in (644b) and (645a), or events, as shown in (644e). While(644e) involves a habitual reading with distribution in time, there is not enoughdata to determine whether distribution in space is also required.A.5.2 Tillamook Diminutive C1 ReduplicationDiminutive C1 reduplication copies the first consonant of the root, with [u] betweenthe identical consonants, as shown in (646).(646) a. du„’tiy@lhu (cf. ’tiy@lhu ‘man’)DIM„man‘boy’ (Edel, 1939, p.14, Tillamook)587b. du„tuqwu´su (cf. tuqwu´su ‘beaver’)DIM„beaver‘little beaver’ (Edel, 1939, p.14, Tillamook)c. k(ì)-sˇu„sˇe´nsˇ (cf. sˇensˇ ‘rock’)PL-DIM„rock‘gravel’ (Edel, 1939, p.14, Tillamook)d. s-wu-wiìac (cf. swiìa´c ‘woman’)NMLZ-DIM„woman‘girl’ (Kroeber, 1999, p.142, Tillamook)e. s-Pu„P@h ’ňì (cf. P@ ’ňì ‘flounder’)NMLZ-DIM„flounder‘little flounder’ (Edel, 1939, p.14, Tillamook)Diminutive reduplication is only attested with nouns in Edel (1939); it marks asmall referent. It is unclear if diminutive reduplication is possible with adjectivesand verbs in Tillamook.A.5.3 Tillamook Pluractional and Continuative C1 ReduplicationC1 reduplication can also be used to mark either a pluractional or aspectual(continuative) function; the first consonant and a root vowel of the root arereduplicated, as shown in (647–648).52 It is not clear if pluractional andcontinuative C1 reduplication are two distinct processes or the same one withdifferent meanings when applied to different roots.(647) a. g@PFUTcˇi„cˇic-iìPL„reach-?(cf. cˇic ‘reach’)‘They’ll get to them (sg.).’ (Edel, 1939, p.15, Tillamook)b. tDETg@PFUTPi„Pı´wucˇPL„go.upstream(cf. Piwucˇ ‘go upstream’)‘They will paddle upstream.’ (Edel, 1939, p.15, Tillamook)52The ? in the gloss for (648a) comes from Egesdal and Thompson (1996, p.8).588c. ìe=w@-s-n@-nisˇPL=back-ASP-PL-arrivecik(ì)=sigw@kw@lwinDEM(PL)-child‘The young men returned.’ (cf. gwuP waì nı´sˇ(s)txwi ‘I’m coming withit.’) (Kroeber, 1999, p.388, Tillamook)d. n@sˇ-sˇ@-sˇ@’l-wi-t-@´gw@l (cf. sˇ@ ’lwit@´gw@l ‘They hate each other.’)LOC-PL„dislike-RLT-TR-RCP‘They hate each other.’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996, p.20, Tillamook)(648) a. d@DETc-y@„y@l@h-acˇ@´P-@nSTAT-CONT„turn-hand-DRV(cf. cy@lha´Pwin ‘turn s.t. over’)‘He is cheating on him.’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996, p.4, Tillamook)b. ciDEMgw@„gw@h-@s-w@´sˇ-@sCONT„call-PUR-1SG.OBJ-3SUBJ‘If they call me...’ (cf. ci gwu gw@h@´si ‘I’m going to call him.’) (Egesdal& Thompson, 1996, p.6, Tillamook)c. c-y@„yeh-s-ı´wìSTAT-CONT„cause-eye-2PL.OBJgw@lgw@´l@EMPH.2PL(cf. yehis ‘see’)‘They (sg.) are looking at you folks.’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996,p.9, Tillamook)d. ne„ne´ăPąg-il (cf. negil ‘run’)CONT„runăINCHą-DVL‘run’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996, p.11, Tillamook)A.5.4 Tillamook Change-of-State C2 ReduplicationC2 reduplication is attested in Tillamook and marks a change of state. The secondconsonant of the root is copied, as shown in (649); an epenthetic [@] is present.(649) a. de c-qwx. w„@x. w-@´w-i (cf. qw@x. w ‘sleep’)DET STAT-sleep„COS-MID-1SG.SUBJ‘I fell asleep’ (Edel, 1939, p.16, Tillamook)b. P@nc@´EMPH.1SGgw@PFUTy@ì„@ì-nı´-wsˇ (cf. y@ì ‘to be next’)next„COS-NTR-1SG.OBJ‘He will be next to me.’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996, p.9, Tillamook)589c. ’t@n„@n-s-@´-t-i (cf. ìe s ’t@n@cı´ty@ì ‘We burned ourselves.’)burn„COS-PUR-DRV-TR-1SG.SUBJ‘I burned it for him.’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996, p.14, Tillamook)d. de (s-)s@ 9gw„@ ’qw-@wı´-n-i (cf. s@qw ‘to jump’)DET (STAT)-jump„COS-RLT-DRV-1SG.SUBJ‘I jumped over it.’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996, p.14, Tillamook)e. d@ l@sˇ„@sˇ-@wi-c-ı´ (root: l@sˇ-)DET angry„COS-RLT-2SG.OBJ-1SG.SUBJ‘I am angry at you.’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996, p.14, Tillamook)f. ìeDETc-w@gwă@gwąa´l-i (root: w@gw-)STAT-liveăCOSą-1SG.SUBJ‘I am alive.’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996, p.15, Tillamook)590A.6 Bella Coola ReduplicationC1C2 reduplication in Bella Coola is associated with a range of functions includingplural, continuative, and diminutive (Nater, 1978); diminutivity is also marked withC1 reduplication.C1C2 C1 C2 V1✓✓Table A.22: Reduplication in Bella CoolaI discuss plural C1C2 reduplication in Section A.6.2; I treat the continuative as asubtype of pluractional. Diminutive C1C2 and C1 reduplication are discussed inSection A.6.3.Patterns shared by plural and diminutive reduplication are discussed togetherin Section A.6.4. Further discussion of Bella Coola reduplication can be foundin Chapter 6, including discussion of linearisation (Section 6.4.2), spirantisation(Section 6.6.2.2.2), and glottalisation-triggered lengthening (Section 6.7.1.2).A.6.1 Bella Coola Sources and TranscriptionSources include Saunders and Davis (1972), Nater (1978), Nater (1984), Bagemihl(1991), and Nater (1990).Stress is not marked in the examples because it is not indicated in the sourcematerials. Many instances of [@] are omitted in the source material. For formswith diminutive C1C2 reduplication with a sonorant in C2 position, I re-transcribethe first consonant-sonorant (CS) instance (which marks the diminutive) as “CS"”,following Bagemihl (1991), though I suspect these are realised as “C@S”. I do notadd vowels not present in the source nor the unreduplicated forms.A.6.2 Bella Coola Plural C1C2 ReduplicationThe first CVC sequence in the word, excluding any prefixes, is copied in pluralC1C2, as shown in (650). The reduplicative morpheme is infixed following the firstCVC in the word.591(650) a. milămiląixw-ìp (cf. milixw ‘bearberry’)bearberryăPLą-plant‘bearberry/plant’ (Nater, 1978, p.3, Bella Coola)b. s-tan„tan-mc (cf. stan ‘mother’)NMLZ-mother„PL-relatives‘female ancestors’ (Nater, 1978, p.2, Bella Coola)c. ckw-aì„kwaì (cf. ckwaì ‘heavy feet’)heavy-feet„PL‘to walk heavily’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.609, Bella Coola)d. xwul„xwul-m (cf. xwulta ‘drill’)drill„PL-MID‘make fire with drill’ (Nater, 1978, p.2, Bella Coola)e. ya-năyanąk-layx-m (cf. yank ‘to pole a boat adroitly’)good-bottomăPLą-AUT-MID‘to be poling a boat’ (Nater, 1990, p.168, Bella Coola)If a root has obstruents in both C1 and C2 position, the vowel in the reduplicatedsyllable may be omitted, as shown in (651).(651) a. Pa-s ’c-aì„ ’cì (cf. Pas ’caì ‘waterfall’)IPFV-disperse-motion„PL‘heavy rain’ (Nater, 1978, p.2, Bella Coola)b. Paì-qw@ì„qwì-anì (cf. Paìqw@ì ‘printed’)IPFV-design/write„PL-cloth‘variegated dress’ (Nater, 1978, p.2, Bella Coola)With words with a bilabial or alveolar stop in C2 position, [n] replaces the stopin the reduplicant, as shown in (652a–b); velar and uvular stops in C2 positionundergo spirantisation, as shown in (652c). I analyse this as a prefix.(652) a. sun„supt-c (cf. suptc ‘I whistle.’)PL„whistle-1SG.SUBJ‘I whistle (iterative).’ (Saunders & Davis, 1972, p.9, Bella Coola)592b. cin„citumix-c (cf. citumixc ‘I take a nap.’)PL„nap-1SG.SUBJ‘I take a nap (iterative).’ (Saunders & Davis, 1972, p.9, Bella Coola)c. Pun„Pu’tak-c (cf. Pu ’tak ‘I vomit.’)PL„vomit-1SG.SUBJ‘I vomit (iterative).’ (Saunders & Davis, 1972, p.9, Bella Coola)d. six„si ’kw (cf. si ’kw- ‘pull’)CONT„pull‘pull (cont.)’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.601, Bella Coola)With obstruent-only words (i.e., those without vowels), [i] is epenthesized andcopied, as shown in (653b–c).(653) a. ’tix.„’tix. t (cf. ’tx. t ‘stone’)PL„stone‘large stones’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.608, Bella Coola)b. ìix„ìi ’qw (cf. ì ’qw ‘sob’)PL„sob‘to be sobbing’ (Nater, 1990, p.60, Bella Coola)C1C2 reduplication in Bella Coola includes plural and pluractional uses. Itmarks plural entities with nouns (e.g., 650b) and plural events with verbs. Thepluractional uses are labelled as “continuative” by Nater (1984); they includeevents that are distributed in time, such as the iterative forms in (653a–c). It is notclear if a plural participant reading is possible with verbs in Bella Coola. There area number of words where the contribution of plural C1C2 reduplication is unclearor where it may be lexicalised, such as in (650a).A.6.3 Bella Coola Diminutive C1C2 and C1 ReduplicationDiminutivity in Bella Coola is marked by a combination of the suffix -i (realisedas -y or -yi following a vowel), reduplication (either C1 or C1C2 type), and vowellengthening. All three exponents of the diminutive may occur in the same word,as shown in an example with C1C2 reduplication in (654a) and one with with C1reduplication in (654b).593(654) a. s-xwpaăpąniă:ąì-i (cf. sxwpaniì ‘deer’)NMLZ-deerăDIMąăDIMą-DIM‘small deer’ (Nater, 1990, p.107, Bella Coola)b. xwn"ăxwnąaă:ąì-i (cf. xwnaì ‘spring of water’)springăDIMąăDIMą-DIM‘small spring of water’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.615, Bella Coola)The three exponents of the diminutive need not surface concurrently in a singleword. The diminutive suffix -i or reduplication are dropped if the word alreadyends in an /i/ or /y/ or has lexicalised reduplication, respectively. It is thereforepossible to get diminutives without diminutive reduplication if the word alreadyhas reduplication, as shown in (655).53 Vowel lengthening is often absent, thoughthe conditioning factors are unclear at present. I focus only on reduplication inthe remainder of this section, but vowel length is discussed further in Chapter 6(Section 6.7.1.2).(655) a. nax. nx-i (cf. naxnx ‘mallard duck’)mallard.duck-DIM‘small mallard duck’ (Nater, 1990, p.78, Bella Coola)b. mamiă:ąs-i (cf. mamis ‘black fly’)black.flyăDIMą-DIM‘small black fly’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.598, Bella Coola)The choice between C1 or C1C2 reduplication is determined by whether a moraicvowel or a sonorant comes first in the word. C1 is observed when a vowel other than[@] comes before the first sonorant consonant, while C1C2 is found if a sonorantconsonant comes before the first non-[@] vowel.54 Both types of reduplication arepositioned relative to the first vowel or sonorant consonant in the word; like pluralreduplication, diminutive reduplication can target suffixal material if the first voweldoes not occur in the root. Diminutive C1 reduplication is discussed in SectionA.6.3.1; diminutive C1C2 reduplication is discussed in Section A.6.3.2.53There are some other diminutive forms without reduplication, such as kasmiwi from kasmiw‘golden eagle’ (Nater, 1990, p.44)54I have found one example of an obstruent-only word with diminutive marking and it does notundergo reduplication: ’tx. ti ‘stone (dim.) from’tx. t ‘stone’ in (Newman, 1937, p.10).594Examples in the following sections show that both diminutive C1 and C1C2reduplication are attested with nouns. Newman (1971, p.34) notes that diminutivereduplication is “used primarily with nominal [roots]”; it marks a small entity.While it is not clear if diminutive reduplication is permitted with verbs, there isone example of diminutive reduplication applied to adjectives, which are givenin (656).55 The translation of this diminutive adjective suggests a small amountreading, rather than small participants.(656) nu-qn"ăqnąk-i (cf. q@nk ‘deep’)inside-deepăDIMą-DIM‘water is a bit deep’ (Nater, 1990, p.94, Bella Coola)A.6.3.1 Bella Coola Diminutive C1 ReduplicationC1 reduplication marks diminutivity when the first moraic segment in anunreduplicated form is a vowel. Words with C1 reduplication have a copy of thefirst CV sequence of the word, as shown in (657).(657) a. suăsuąm-iă:ą (cf. sum ‘pants’)trousersăDIMą-DIMăDIMą‘small trousers’ (Nater, 1984, p.109, Bella Coola)b. qaăqaąyt-i (cf. qayt ‘hat’)hatăDIMą-DIM‘small toadstool’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.598, Bella Coola)c. t ’qìaă:ąăìaą-y (cf. t ’qìa ‘knife’)knifeăDIMąăDIMą-DIM‘small knife’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.609, Bella Coola)d. q ’paă:ąă ’paą-yi (cf. q ’pa ‘egg’)eggăDIMąăDIMą-DIM‘small egg’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.609, Bella Coola)55Setting aside the vowel length and -i associated with the diminutive, the fact that diminutivereduplication is almost exclusively recorded with nouns means that forms with C1C2 reduplicationare not ambiguous: a verb with C1C2 reduplication is probably pluractional, not diminutive.595The copied vowel in C1 reduplication may be omitted in words where thecopied consonant is an obstruent and the following consonant is also anobstruent (i.e., an obstruent-vowel-obstruent sequence reduplicates as obstruent-vowel-ăobstruentą-obstruent, while an obstruent-vowel-sonorant sequencereduplicates as obstruent-vowel-ăobstruent-vowelą-sonorant).(658) a. tp-iă:ąăpąqw-i (cf. tpi:x. w ‘cover, lid’)spread-head-DIMăDIMą-DIM‘small cover/lid’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.609, Bella Coola)b. qwaă:ąăx. wąl"s-i (cf. qwals ‘fir tree needles’)navelăDIMąăDIMą-DIM‘fir tree needles (dim.)’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.599, Bella Coola)c. kaă:ąăką ’pay (cf. ka ’pay ‘humpback salmon’)humpback.salmonăDIMąăDIMą‘small humpback salmon’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.598, Bella Coola)A.6.3.2 Bella Coola Diminutive C1C2 ReduplicationC1C2 reduplication marks diminutivity when the first moraic segment in anunreduplicated form is coda consonant (i.e., a sonorant consonant). DiminutiveC1C2 reduplication copies the first coda sonorant and the consonant immediatelybefore, as shown in (659).(659) a. s-’tqwl"ăqwlą-us-i (cf. s ’tqwlus ‘black bear snare’)NMLZ-weaveăDIMą-face-DIM‘small black bear snare’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.615, Bella Coola)b. s-km"ăkmąa-y (cf. skma ‘moose’)NMLZ-mooseăDIMą-DIM‘small moose’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.615, Bella Coola)c. s-’txwm"ăxwmą-i (cf. s ’txwm"‘floor mat’)NMLZ-floor.matăDIMą-DIM‘small floor mat’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.609, Bella Coola)596d. s-tn"ătną-iă:ą (cf. stn"‘tree’)NMLZ-treeăDIMą-DIMăDIMą‘small tree’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.609, Bella Coola)Though C1C2 reduplication can mark diminutives or plurals, the two types canbe distinguished because the diminutives have the suffix -i and only copy twosegments; plural C1C2 reduplication copies a vowel in addition to two consonants.A.6.4 Phonological Patterns Shared between Different Types ofReduplication in Bella CoolaPlural and diminutive reduplication pattern together with respect to how ejectivesand /P/ are reduplicated. When an ejective undergoes fission, the first of the twooutput segments is [P], as shown in (660). In previous work (e.g., K. Carlson,1997), reduplication with the form in (660b) is labeled as V1 reduplication.(660) a. Pix„’ti:x. ìala-m (cf. ’ti:x. ìalam ‘to hop on one leg’)56PL„hop.on.one.leg-MID‘hop on one leg (cont.)’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.601, Bella Coola)b. Pi„’tixìala-y (cf. ’tixìala ‘robin’)DIM„robin-DIM‘small robin’ (Bagemihl, 1991, p.598, Bella Coola)When C1 is a glottal stop, C1C2 reduplication has a reduced form (see analysisin Bagemihl, 1991), as shown in (661). These examples appear to have C2reduplication.(661) Pix-Pakwăkwąa (cf. Pakwa ‘to buy (something)’)INT.DIST-buyăPLą‘to be shopping’ (Nater, 1984, p.111, Bella Coola)(662) Paă:ącăcąa-yi (cf. Pacaya ‘fox’)foxăDIMąăDIMą-DIM‘fox (dim.)’ (Nater, 1984, p.111, Bella Coola)56This form also has a x. „ x alternation (see Nater 1984, p.108).597Appendix BSurvey of Multiple ReduplicationPatternsMultiple reduplication, the combination of more than one reduplicative morphemein a single word, is attested in 15 of the 23 Salish languages. This sectionsummarises documented combinations of reduplicative morphemes for eachlanguage with a discussion of associated meanings where possible.Table B.1: Multiple Reduplication in Salish Languages by BranchYes No Lacks Sufficient DataCentral Salish (n=10) 7 2 1Tillamook (n=1) 1 0 0Tsamosan (n=4) 0 3 1Interior Salish (n=7) 7 0 0Bella Coola (n=1) 0 1 0Total (n=23) 15 6 2Multiple reduplication is absent in Nooksack, Squamish, Cowlitz, Lower Chehalis,Upper Chehalis, and Bella Coola. There is not enough available data to concludewhether multiple reduplication was present in Quinault and Pentlatch, thoughcomparison with closely related languages suggests that it is likely to have beenabsent in Quinault and present in Pentlatch.598For languages with attested multiple reduplication, the appendix is sortedby branch: Interior Salish, Central Salish, and Tillamook. The languages areorganised alphabetically within branch. The amount of detail and descriptiongiven for each language and each reduplicative process varies based onavailable documentation. However, multiple reduplication has not been elicitedsystematically in many languages; some missing combinations may reflectaccidental gaps.Transcription decisions and the source of non-reduplicated forms given forcomparison are the same as those detailed in Appendix A. Attested combinationsare marked in tables for each language with ✓; ˆ marks ungrammaticality forlanguages where negative data is available (i.e., Comox-Sliammon and Lillooet).The absence of ˆ in any given cell does not indicate ungrammaticality. Given thatthe comparisons are pairwise, redundant cells in the table are marked in gray (i.e.,DIM-COS is identical to COS-DIM).Given the additional complexity of forms with multiple reduplication, I havechosen to largely follow the transcription in the original sources with respect to[@]. Readers should be particularly careful where there appear to be clusters withsonorants as there is likely to be a [@] that is present in the surface form but absentin the abstract phonemic transcription.599B.1 Interior Salish Multiple ReduplicationB.1.1 Coeur d’Alene Multiple ReduplicationAttested multiple reduplication in Coeur d’Alene is summarised in Table B.2.PL PDEN DIM COS PLC1C2 C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL C1C2 ✓ ✓PDEN C1C2 ✓DIM C1 ✓COS C2PL V1Table B.2: Multiple Reduplication in Coeur d’AleneExamples come from Reichard (1938), Barthmaier (1996), Lyon (2010), and Doak(2023).B.1.1.1 Diminutive PluralIn diminutive plural forms, diminutive C1 reduplication is leftmost (excludingprefixes); plural C1C2 reduplication follows. Examples are provided in (663).(663) a. sˇ@„sˇı´ ’w„sˇe ’wt@ ’m (cf. sˇsˇi ’wt@m ‘girl’)DIM„PL„girl‘little girls’ (Barthmaier, 1996, p.37, Coeur d’Alene)b. Pen-gw@„gw@xw„gw@xw-ı´ ’ncˇ (cf. Petgwe´xw ‘be hanging’)LOC-DIM„PL„hang-interior‘Little ones hung here and there on the wall.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.836,Coeur d’Alene)c. ’c@„ ’c@s„ ’c@s-qı´ ’n-@ ’n (cf. ’cesp ‘annihilate, consume, destroy, use up’)DIM„PL„?-head-?‘catbird’Literal: ‘a little fellow who repeatedly picks things at head’ (Lyon,2010, p.25, Coeur d’Alene)600d. h@n-ì@„ìe´ ’cˇ„ì@ ’cˇ-@m (cf. ìePcˇ ‘string breaks’)LOC-DIM„PL„break.string-mid‘The little one sobbed incessantly.’Literal: ‘He (little one) broke string inside again and again.’ (Lyon,2010, p.48, Coeur d’Alene)e. Pe„Pe ’n„Pe ’nı´s (cf. Penı´s ‘leave’)DIM„PL„leave‘little ones went off one by one’ (Reichard, 1938, p.836, Coeurd’Alene)With a noun, this combination marks a plurality of small entities, as in (663a).The combination marks a small argument (or arguments) participating in multipleevents when applied to a verb; events may be distributed in space or time, as shownin (663b) and (663c–e), respectively.B.1.1.2 Diminutive and Property-DenotingIn words with diminutive and property-denoting reduplication, diminutive C1reduplication is positioned before the root; C1C2 reduplication follows the root.Examples are given in (664).(664) a. s@„si ’y„si ’y-u´s (root: siy- ‘smart’)DIM„PDEN„smart-face‘little one is smart’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)b. sya-qw„qwaPăqwePąePl (cf. qwaPqwePlu´l ‘talkative’)agentive-DIM„talk„PDEN‘lawyer, little speaker’ (Lyon, 2010, p.66, Coeur d’Alene)Property-denoting reduplication applies to adjectives and marks a state orproperty; diminutive reduplication marks that a small argument possesses thisstate or property.B.1.1.3 Plural Change of StateIn words with plural and change-of-state reduplication, plural C1C2 reduplicationsurfaces as a prefix before the root; change-of-state C2 reduplication follows the601second consonant of the root. Examples are given in (665).(665) a. gwa´r„gwar„@r (root: gwar- ‘scrape’)PL„scrape„COS‘They got scraped.’ (Reichard, 1938, p.836, Coeur d’Alene)b. t- ’c@l„ ’c@l„@l-m-ı´ ’ceP (cf. ’ce´lisˇ ‘S/he stood up.’)LOC-PL„upright„COS-MID-cover‘set up on end all over their hides’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)The combination of C1C2 and C2 reduplication is found with verbs: it is used tomark a change-of-state with multiple participants.B.1.1.4 Diminutive Change of StateIn words with diminutive and change-of-state reduplication, diminutive C1reduplication surfaces as a prefix before the root and change-of-state C2reduplication follows the second consonant of the root. Examples are given in(666).(666) a. ’t„’t@ ’kw„ ’kw-ı´’lup (root: ’t@ ’kw- ‘begin’)DIM„begin„COS-foundation‘made a little camp’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)b. t„t@x. w„@x. w-ı´::: (cf. ta´x. w ‘quiet’)DIM-stop„COS-EXAG‘small one lay dead’ (Doak, 2023, Coeur d’Alene)c. kw@„kwe´’l„@’l (cf. kwe ’lt ‘warm’)DIM„hot„COS‘it became clear, pleasant warm weather came on’ (Reichard, 1938,p.836, Coeur d’Alene)d. ’t@„’te´ ’kw„@ ’kw (cf. ’te´ ’kwncut ‘He lay down’)DIM„fall„COS‘He fell to the ground.’ (Barthmaier, 1996, p.18, Coeur d’Alene)The combination of C1 and C2 reduplication is applied to verb and adjective roots;the word with multiple reduplication is a verb. This combination is used to mark a602change-of-state with a small argument, as shown in (666a–b). The meaning is lessclear in (666c–d).603B.1.2 Moses Columbia Multiple ReduplicationAttested multiple reduplication in Moses Columbia is summarised in Table B.3.PL PDEN DIM REP COSC1C2 C1C2 C1 C1 C2PL C1C2 ✓ ✓PDEN C1C2DIM C1 ✓REP C1COS C2Table B.3: Multiple Reduplication in Moses ColumbiaExamples come from Kinkade (1982) and Willett (2003).B.1.2.1 Diminutive PluralIn diminutive plural forms, diminutive C1 reduplication is leftmost (excludingprefixes); plural C1C2 reduplication follows. Examples are provided in (667).(667) a. s- ’q„ ’qaP„ ’q@´Px ’n-s (cf. s ’qaPxn ‘shoe’)NMLZ-DIM„PL-shoe-3POSS‘her little shoes’ (Willett, 2003, p.280, Moses Columbia)b. ’y„ ’y@x„ ’y@´xn (cf. kn ’y ’y@x ’na´ ’lqw ‘I’m short.’)DIM„PL„short‘short pieces’ (Willett, 2003, p.280, Moses Columbia)The diminutive plural examples in (667) include a nominal and an adjectivalroot. These examples refer to a plural entity made up of small individuals. Whileboth types of reduplication allow event readings on the own (i.e., pluractionalor diminutive event), it is not clear if these readings are available in multiplereduplication.B.1.2.2 Plural Change of StateIn words with plural and change-of-state reduplication, plural C1C2 reduplicationsurfaces as a prefix before the root and change-of-state C2 reduplication follows604the second consonant of the root. Examples are given in (668).(668) a. h. ac„h. a´c„@c (cf. h. ac-n ‘I tied it.’)PL„tie„COS‘several knots tangled up’ (Kinkade, 1982, p.70, Moses Columbia)b. ’kì-w@kw„wakw„kw-ı´lx (cf. ’kìwa´kwukw ‘It disappeared.’)POS-PL„disappear„COS-AUT‘They went out of sight.’ (Kinkade, 1982, p.69, Moses Columbia)c. ì@ ’kw„ìa´ ’kw„ ’kw (cf. ìa´ ’kw-n ‘I scratched it.’)PL„scratch„COS‘go through bushes and get scratched’ (Kinkade, 1982, p.70, MosesColumbia)d. qw@ ’Qw„qwa´ ’Qw„ ’Qw (root: qwa ’Qw- ‘drunk’)PL„drunk„COS‘rabid’ (Kinkade, 1982, p.70, Moses Columbia)e. ’k@s„ ’ka´s„@s (cf. ’ka´ssn ‘I argue with him.’)PL„argue„COS‘argue’ (Kinkade, 1982, p.70, Moses Columbia)Words with C1C2 and C2 reduplication are verbs. This combination marks achange of state that involves distribution across participants, as shown in (668a–b),or across time and space, as shown in (668c). There are other cases where thecontribution of the reduplicative morphemes is unclear, such as in (668d–e).B.1.2.3 Diminutive Change of StateIn words with diminutive and change-of-state reduplication, diminutive C1reduplication surfaces as a prefix before the root and change-of-state C2reduplication follows the second consonant of the root. Examples are given in(669).(669) ì„ìu´. ’t„@. ’t (cf. ìu ’t-nt-xw ‘you inhaled it’)DIM„sob„COS‘half crying’ (Kinkade, 1982, p.67, Moses Columbia)605(670) ’m„ ’mı´ ’n„ ’n (root: ’mı´ ’n-)DIM„?„COS‘wiggle’ (Kinkade, 1982, p.68, Moses Columbia)It is not possible to discern the meaning of a diminutive change-of-state fromavailable documentation. However, note that both examples in (669) may referto a change of state that is diminished or small in some way, rather than involvinga small participant.606B.1.3 Okanagan Multiple ReduplicationAttested multiple reduplication in Okanagan is summarised in Table B.4.PL PDEN DIM COS PLC1C2 C1C2 C1 C2 V1PL C1C2 ✓ ✓PDEN C1C2 ✓DIM C1 ✓COS C2PL V1Table B.4: Multiple Reduplication in OkanaganExamples come from A. Mattina (1973), A. Mattina (1987), and A. Mattina andPeterson (1997).B.1.3.1 Diminutive PluralDiminutive plural forms either surface as C1„C1C2, with diminutive before plural,or C1C2ăC1ą, with diminutive infixed within the prefixed plural reduplication.Examples of the C1„C1C2 pattern are given in (671a–d); an example of theC1C2ăC1ą pattern is given in (671e).(671) a. kw@„kw@’r„kw ’r-ı´sx@n (cf. kw ’riP ‘yellow, golden’)DIM„PL„yellow/gold-round‘golden coins, round objects, pennies’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.53,Okanagan)b. ’p@„ ’p@kw„ ’pu´kwlaP (cf. ’pu´kwlaP ‘ball’)DIM„PL„ball‘little balls’ (A. Mattina & Peterson, 1997, p.318, Okanagan)607c. s-t@ătąì„ta´ì@m (cf. sta´ì@m ‘boat’)NMLZ-PLăDIMą„boat‘They are little boats.’ (A. Mattina, 1973, p.65, Okanagan)Nouns are able to undergo plural C1C2 and diminutive C1 reduplication; diminutiveplural nouns refer to multiple entities that are small. It is not clear from theavailable documentation whether this type of multiple reduplication occurs withverbs.B.1.3.2 Diminutive and Property-DenotingIn words with diminutive and property-denoting reduplication, diminutive C1 ispositioned before the root; C1C2 reduplication follows the root. Examples aregiven in (672).(672) a. qw„qwa´Q„qwaQ-t (cf. qwaQ ‘silly, crazy, drunk’)DIM„PDEN„silly/crazy/drunk-CHAR‘ornery children’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.164, Okanagan)b. x. w@„x. wi ’ň„x. w@ ’ň-t (cf. x. wi ’ň-nt ‘break something’)DIM„PDEN„break-CHAR‘weak, brittle objects’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.259, Okanagan)c. qw„qwi’l„qw ’l-t (root: qwi ’l-)DIM„waste.time„PDEN-CHAR‘waste time’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.163, Okanagan)Though the infixed position of C1C2 reduplication in (672) above and the presenceof the adjectival marker -t are consistent with analysing the C1C2 reduplication asproperty-denoting, this is not clear from the meaning. The translations associatedwith (672a–b) suggest plural arguments, which are also small in (672a). Themeaning and status of this combination is unclear at present.B.1.3.3 Plural Change of StateIn words with plural and change-of-state reduplication, plural C1C2 reduplicationsurfaces as a prefix before the root and change-of-state C2 reduplication followsthe second consonant of the root. Examples are given in (673).608(673) a. ’ň@x.„ ’ňa´x.„@x. (cf. ’ň@x. ap ‘grown’)PL„grow„COS‘They are elders.’ (A. Mattina, 1973, p.65, Okanagan)b. n-c@kw„c@kw„kw-iì-x ’n (cf. ckwam ‘haul’)LOC-PL„pull„COS-CONN-leg‘muscle cramps’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.5, Okanagan)The combination of plural C1C2 and change-of-state C2 reduplication marks achange in state that is distributed across participants, as in (673a), or is distributedin space and/or time, as in (673b).B.1.3.4 Diminutive Change of StateWhen diminutive and change-of-state reduplication are combined, C1 reduplicationsurfaces as a prefix; C2 reduplication surfaces as an infix. Examples are given in(674).(674) a. kw@„kwă’ląa’l (cf. kwa ’lt ‘warm’)DIM-warmăCOSą‘bright’ (A. Mattina, 1987, p.53, Okanagan)b. ’c@„căqwąa´qw (cf. ’cqwaqw ‘cry’)DIM-cryăCOSą‘small cry, whimper’ (A. Mattina & Peterson, 1997, p.304, Okanagan)From the limited data, it appears that diminutive change of state reduplicationoccurs with verbs or adjectives, as shown in (674a) and (674b), respectively. Thereis not enough data at present to draw conclusions about the meaning associatedwith a diminutive change-of-state.609B.1.4 Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Multiple ReduplicationAttested multiple reduplication in Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel issummarised in Table B.5.PL PDEN DIM REP COS PL INCHC1C2 C1C2 C1 C1 C2 V1 V1PL C1C2 ✓PDEN C1C2DIM C1 ✓ ✓REP C1COS C2PL V1INCH V1Other: DIM-PL-COSTable B.5: Multiple Reduplication in Montana Salish-Spokane-KalispelExamples come from B. Carlson and Thompson (1981), B. Carlson (1989), andBlack (1996). I have not added [@] in Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel formswith multiple reduplication.B.1.4.1 Diminutive PluralIn diminutive plural forms, diminutive C1 reduplication is leftmost (excludingprefixes); plural C1C2 reduplication follows. Examples are given in (675).(675) a. ’m„ ’m ’ň„ ’me´ ’ň (cf. he-n-me´ ’ň ‘It’s mixed.’)DIM„PL„mix‘little things are scrambled’ (B. Carlson, 1989, p.210, Spokane)b. sˇ„sˇ’l„sˇı´’l (cf. sˇlisˇ ‘chop’)DIM„PL„chop‘small things are cut’ (B. Carlson, 1989, p.210, Spokane)c. cˇì-q„qc„qe´c-i’lsˇ (cf. qe´clsˇ ‘He ran.’)LOC-DIM„PL„run-AUT‘He ran about anxiously on the floor.’ (Black, 1996, p.256, Spokane)610I have only been able to find diminutive plural applied to verbs in MontanaSalish-Spokane-Kalispel. Diminutive plural marking is used with verbs withplural participants where the participants are small, as shown in (675a–b). It is notclear if this combination is permitted on nouns or if the absence of forms merelyreflects a gap in documentation.B.1.4.2 Diminutive RepetitiveIn diminutive plural forms, diminutive C1 reduplication is leftmost (excludingprefixes); repetitive C1 reduplication follows. Examples are given in (676).(676) a. hec- ’m„ ’me„ ’me´ ’ň-iP (cf. he-n-me´ ’ň ‘It’s mixed.’)PROG-DIM„REP„mix-CONT‘they (sg.) are mixing things over and over’ (B. Carlson, 1989, p.210,Spokane)b. sˇ„sˇe„sˇı´’l (cf. sˇlisˇ ‘chop’)DIM„REP„chop‘one small object is cut repeatedly’ (B. Carlson, 1989, p.211, Spokane)Diminutive repetitive marking is found with verbs; it can mark a repeated eventwith a small participant, as shown in (676b).B.1.4.3 Diminutive Change of StateWhen diminutive and change-of-state reduplication are combined, C1 reduplicationsurfaces as a prefix; C2 reduplication surfaces following the second consonant ofthe root. Examples are given in (677).(677) a. sˇ„sˇă’ląı´’l (cf. sˇlisˇ ‘chop’)DIM„chopăCOSą‘small things got all cut up’ (B. Carlson, 1989, p.210, Spokane)b. ’me´ă ’mąă ’ňą ’ň (cf. he-n-me´ ’ň ‘It’s mixed.’)mixăDIMąăCOSą‘a little thing got mixed by accident’ (B. Carlson, 1989, p.210,Spokane)611c. kw„kwă’ląı´’l (cf. kwil ‘red’)DIM„sunnyăCOSą‘sunny’ (B. Carlson & Thompson, 1981, p.113, Spokane)Multiple reduplication marking a diminutive change of state is found with verbor adjective roots, as shown in (677). With verbs, it refers to a small argumentundergoing a change of state, as shown in (677a–b). With adjectives, such as(677c), the meaning is unclear: it is possible that kwkw ’lı´ ’l ‘sunny’ means “got alittle bit red”.B.1.4.4 Diminutive, Plural, and Change of StateDiminutive C1, plural C1C2, and change-of-state C2 reduplication can be combinedto yield multiple reduplication comprised of three reduplicative morphemes, asshown in (678).(678) ’ň„ ’ň@’l„ ’ňăeąă’ląı´’l (cf. ’ňlip ‘It stopped.’)DIM„PL„stillăREPąăCOSą‘They (sg.) keep having little (uncontrolled) seizures (as in epilepsy).’(B. Carlson, 1989, p.211, Spokane)It is not clear what meanings are possible with diminutive plural change-of-statereduplication, though the verb in (678) seems to refer to a change of state (seizure)of a small magnitude that is repeated.612B.1.5 Lillooet Multiple ReduplicationAttested multiple reduplication in Lillooet is marked with ✓ in Table B.6. I use ˆto mark ungrammatical combinations, which are discussed in Chapter 5 (Section5.4).PL PDEN DIM PL INIT COS TRIPC1C2 C1C2 C1 C1 C1 C2 C22PL C1C2 ✓ ˆ ✓PDEN C1C2 ✓DIM C1 ✓ ˆPL C1INIT C1 ✓COS C2 ✓TRIP C22Table B.6: Multiple Reduplication in LillooetExamples come from Van Eijk (1981a), Van Eijk (1997), H. Davis et al. (in prep),and fieldwork conducted by Henry Davis.B.1.5.1 Diminutive PluralsWhen diminutive and plural reduplication are combined, plural C1C2 reduplicationsurfaces as a prefix; diminutive C1 reduplication surfaces as an infix following thestressed vowel. The stressed vowel is replaced by [@] in these forms. Examples aregiven in (679).(679) a. s-q@w„q@´ăqą ’w@c (cf. sqawc ‘potato’)NMLZ-PL„potatoăDIMą‘little potatoes’ (Van Eijk, 1981a, p.57, Lillooet)b. s-q@x.„q@´ăqąx. aP (cf. sqa´x. aP ‘dog’)NMLZ-PL„dogăDIMą‘pups’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.59, Lillooet)c. ’ň@k„ ’ň@´ă ’ňąk=kaì (cf. ’ňak ‘go along’)PL„go.alongăDIMą=1PL.SUBJ‘We went along a little ways’ (CA, Lillooet)613d. t@w„t@´.ătąw@ ’n (cf. ta´. w@n ‘visit’, from English town)PL„visităDIMą‘go visiting’ (CA, Lillooet)e. qw@’l„qwa’l@´ă’ląt (cf. qwa ’lu´t ‘speak’)PL„speakăDIMą‘have a conversation’ (CA, Lillooet)Both nouns and verbs occur with plural diminutive multiple reduplication, asshown in (679a–b) and (679c–e), respectively. With nouns, this combination refersto multiple small individuals (or young animals). With verbs, the contribution ofdiminutive reduplication is not always clear. However, (679c) shows that it canreflect a small amount of progress for a event with multiple participants.B.1.5.2 Diminutive and Property-DenotingWhen diminutive and property-denoting reduplication are combined, property-denoting C1C2 reduplication surfaces either as a prefix or an infix (see Section4.2.3.2 for further discussion of the position of property-denoting reduplication).Diminutive C1 reduplication surfaces as an infix following the stressed vowel; thestressed vowel is replaced by [@] in these forms. Examples are given in (680).(680) a. s- ’ň@qw„ ’ň@´ă ’ňąqw (cf. s ’ň@qw ‘to have a spot on one’s body’)STAT-PDEN„spotăDIMą‘to have little spots, variegated’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.150, Lillooet)b. ’k@´ă ’ką@ ’n„ ’kn-@t (cf. ’kı´n ’k@nt ‘dangerous’)PDENăDIMą„dangerous-CHAR‘a little bit dangerous’ (CA, Lillooet)c. z@´ăzą@ ’w„z ’w-@t (cf. za´ ’wz ’w@t ‘annoying’)PDENăDIMą„annoy-CHAR‘a little bit annoying’ (CA, Lillooet)d. qw@´ăqwą@’l„qw@’l-t (cf. qwa´ ’lqw@ ’lt ‘hurting’)PDENăDIMą„hurt-CHAR‘hurting a little bit’ (CA, Lillooet)614e. ’k@´ă ’ką@ ’w„ ’kw-@t (cf. ’ka´w ’kw@t ‘gross, filthy’)PDENăDIMą„dirty-CHAR‘a little bit gross/filthy’ (CA, Lillooet)Forms with property-denoting and diminutive reduplication are adjectives; thiscombination of reduplicative morphemes marks that a state or property holds toa small degree.B.1.5.3 Plural Change of StateWhen plural and change-of-state reduplication are combined, change-of-state C2reduplication surfaces as an infix following the stressed vowel, while plural C1C2reduplication surfaces as a prefix to the root. Examples are given in (681).(681) a. p@ì„pu´ăì@ąì (cf. pu´ì@ì ‘to be boiling’)PL„boilăCOSą‘rapids’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57, Lillooet)b. c@q„cı´ăq@ąq (cf. cı´qi ’n ‘to stab s.o.’)PL„stabăCOSą‘to get stabbed all over’ (Van Eijk, 1997, p.57, Lillooet)c. c@kw„ckw-a´ănąnaP=ìkan (cf. c@´kw@n ‘pull something’)PL„pull-earăCOSą=1SG.SUBJ‘Both my ears got pulled.’ (CA, Lillooet)d. ’ň@p„ ’ňu´ăp@ąp (root: ’ňup- ‘twist, wrap’)PL„twistăCOSą‘twist or wrap (pl.)’ (H. Davis et al., in prep., Lillooet)e. ì@´Qw„ìăQw@ąQw (root: ìQw- ‘jump’)PL„bounce/hopăCOSą‘bound, hop or jump, of animal (pl.)’ (H. Davis et al., in prep., Lillooet)The combination of plural C1C2 and change-of-state 2 reduplication applies toverbs. It can refer to a change-of-state that holds of multiple participants, as in(681a,c–e), or arises from events distributed in time and space, as in (681b).615B.1.5.4 Diminutive and InitialWhen diminutive and initial reduplication are combined, initial C1 reduplicationsurfaces as a prefix to the root; diminutive C1 reduplication surfaces as an infixfollowing the stressed vowel. Examples are given in (683).(682) a. ’ňakgo.alongkwu=k@„k@´ăką@ ’w (cf. nka´wl@x ‘go far from shore’)DET=INIT.C1„farăDIMą‘Go a little further!’ (CA, Lillooet)b. x.@„x. z@´ăzą@ ’mINIT.C1„bigăDIMąPiza´DEM(cf. x. zum ‘big’)‘These ones are a little bigger.’ (CA, Lillooet)c. xwPitmanyPi=s-qw@„qwy@´ă ’yąc=aPL.DET=NMLZ-INIT.C1„rabbităDIMą=EXIS’qwuP-xı´t-antrap-IND-1SG.ERG‘I trapped a lot of little rabbits.’ (cf. sqw[@]yı´c ‘rabbit’) (CA, Lillooet)The combination of C1 diminutive reduplication and initial C1 reduplication isfound with nouns and adjectives. With adjectives, this combination can marka small degree or difference between two degrees, as in (682b). With nouns, itindicates a plurality of small entities.B.1.5.5 Change of State and InitialWhen change-of-state and initial reduplication are combined, initial C1reduplication surfaces as a prefix to the root; change-of-state C2 reduplicationsurfaces as an infix following the stressed vowel. An example is given in (683).(683) x.@„x. zu´ăm@ąmINIT.C1„bigăCOSąPi=sı´tk-s=aPL.DET=mesh-3POSS=EXISta=s-tìa´yn=aDET=NMLZ-net=EXIS‘The meshes of the net got bigger.’ (CA, Lillooet)The combination of change-of-state C2 reduplication and initial C1 reduplication islimited to adjectival roots that take initial C1 reduplication. The form with multiplereduplication is a verb; it is used to describe plural entities that are undergoing achange of state.616B.1.5.6 Triplication + Change-of-StateThere is one example, given in (684), which has both triplication and change-of-state C2 reduplication. The final consonant (/xw/) is tripled in triplication, whilethe second consonant (/’l/) is doubled in C2 reduplication.(684) q@’lă’ląă@xw@xwą@´xw (root: q ’lxw- ‘hurry’)hurryăCOSąăTRIPą‘rushing to get s.t. done, rushing to get ready’ (H. Davis et al., in prep,Lillooet)It is not possible to say anything about the meaning of this combination at present.617B.1.6 Shuswap Multiple ReduplicationAttested multiple reduplication in Shuswap is marked with ✓ in Table B.7. I useˆ to mark ungrammatical combinations where I have elicited negative data.1PL PDEN DIM 1SG COSC1C2 C1C2 C1 C1 C2PL C1C2 ✓ ✓ ˆPDEN C1C2 ✓ ✓DIM C1 ˆ1SG C1COS C2Other: unclear C1 x 2 (comparative)Table B.7: Multiple Reduplication in ShuswapExamples come from Kuipers (1974a), FirstVoices, and my fieldwork.2B.1.6.1 Diminutive PluralWhen diminutive and plural reduplication are combined, plural C1C2 reduplicationsurfaces as a prefix; diminutive C1 reduplication surfaces as an infix following the1Diminutive/first person C1 + plural C1C2 reduplication and change-of-state C2 + plural C1C2reduplication were rejected, as shown in (i) and (ii). There is one exception, however, qw@ce´c ‘setout’ appears to have C2 reduplication and I have recorded the form qw@cqw@ce´c ‘they set out’, whichhas both change-of-state C2 and plural C1C2 reduplication.(i) a. * ’ňă@xwąu´ăxwą(@)xw (cf. ’ň@xwu´xw ‘numb’)numbăCOSąăC1ąIntended: ‘numb (1SG)’ or ‘a little numb’ (GD, Shuswap)b. *să@xąe´ăxą(@)x (cf. s@xe´x ‘numb’)numbăCOSąăC1ąIntended: ‘numb (1SG)’ or ‘a little numb’ (GD, Shuswap)(ii) a. *t@xw„ ’ňă@xwąu´xw (cf. ’ň@xwu´xw ‘numb’)PL„numbăCOSąIntended ‘They are numb.’ (GD, Shuswap)b. *s@x„să@xąe´x (cf. s@xe´x ‘numb’)PL„numbăCOSąIntended ‘They are numb.’ (GD, Shuswap)2FirstVoices: https://www.firstvoices.com/secwepemc/618stressed vowel. Examples are given in (685).(685) a. c@q„cqe´ă ’qąìp (cf. c ’qeìp ‘tree’)PL„treeăDIMą‘young fir growth’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.38, Shuswap)b. p@s„pe´ăpąs@ìkwe (cf. pe´s@ìkwe ‘lake’)PL„lakeăDIMą‘small lakes’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)c. x-ì@qw„ìu´ăìąqw-m@ ’nLOC-PL„scoopăDIM-instrument‘small cups’ (GD, Shuswap)d. y@x„ye´ăyąx-t (cf. yext ‘long’)PL„longăDIMą-CHAR‘long little things’ (GD, Shuswap)e. ’kwoyı´Ps@small’ňuxwonlys-n@k„nı´ănąk-@n-sNMLZ-PL„cutăDIMą-CTR-3ERGxw@xweytallG@=Q@yu´PDET=carrot‘Henry cut all of the carrots a little bit.’ (cf. ni ’k@m ‘to cut’) (GD,Shuswap)The combination of diminutive and plural reduplication is attested with nouns,verbs, and adjectives. Diminutive plural nouns refer to multiple entities thatare small or young, as shown in (685a–c). A diminutive plural adjective meansthat a state or property holds of multiple small entities, as shown in (685d). Fordiminutive plural verbs, the full range of meanings is unclear, though (685e) showsthat it is possible to use this to mark a diminutive event with plural participants.B.1.6.2 Diminutive and Property-DenotingWhen diminutive and property-denoting reduplication are combined, property-denoting C1C2 reduplication surfaces as a prefix; diminutive C1 reduplicationsurfaces as an infix following the stressed vowel. Examples are given in (686).619(686) SanderSanderP@p@kut-scoat-3POSSì@t„ìa´ăìą ’ňPROP.D„wetăDIMą‘Sander’s coat is a little wet.’ (GD, Shuswap)a. t@x. w„tu´ătąxw-tPDEN„straightăDIMą-CHARG@=qe´wt@n-sDET=hair-3POSS‘Her hair is a little bit straight.’ (GD, Shuswap)b. yı´P@n@thist@=xw@„xwe´ìDET=DIM„roads-t@x. w„tu´ătąxw-t-sNMLZ-PDEN„straightăDIMą-CHAR-3POSSt@=s-PiìxDET=NMLZ-other‘This trail is a little straighter than the others.’ (GD, Shuswap)The combination of diminutive and property-denoting reduplication is found withadjectives; it marks a small amount of the state or property denoted by the adjectiveor small degree of difference, as shown in (686a–b) and (686c), respectively.B.1.6.3 First Person and PluralWhen first person and plural reduplication are combined, plural C1C2 reduplicationsurfaces as a prefix; first person C1 reduplication surfaces as an infix following thestressed vowel. Examples are given in (687).(687) Pan ’kw-ttwist-CHARG@=n-k@l„ke´ăką@lx (cf. kelx ‘hand’)DET=1SG.POSS-PL„handă1SGą‘My hands are gnarled.’ (FirstVoices, Shuswap)a. ’ňhe´P@nwherel@=n-s-p@qw„p@qwe´ăqwą@’ltxw?DET=1SG.POSS-NMLZ-PL„bookăDIMą‘Where are my books?’ (FirstVoices, Shuswap)Multiple reduplication marking first person and plurality is attested with nouns,further elicitation is required to determine if it is possible with verbs.33With a verb, this combination could potentially allow a pluractional reading with a first personargument; it is not clear if a transitive verb would allow for a plural argument as a subject and firstperson argument as an object, or vice versa.620B.1.6.4 First Person PropertiesWhen first person and property-denoting reduplication are combined, property-denoting C1C2 reduplication surfaces as a prefix; first person C1 reduplicationsurfaces as an infix following the stressed vowel. An example is provided in (688).(688) x@t„xe´ăxąt=k@n (root: xet-)PDEN„be.energetică1SGą=1SG.SUBJ‘I am active.’ (Shuswap)The example in (688) is an adjective; this type of multiple reduplication denotes aproperty that holds of a first person argument.B.1.6.5 ComparativesShuswap has a type of multiple reduplication that is a combination of two C1reduplication processes, shown in (689).(689) a. t@„te´ă ’ňąx. -t (cf. ’ňex. t ‘tall’)C1„tallăC1ą-CHAR‘taller’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.38, Shuswap)b. c@„ce´ă ’cąì-t (cf. ’ceìt ‘cold’)C1„coldăC1ą-CHAR‘colder’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.39, Shuswap)c. ì@„ìe´ăìą ’qt (cf. ìe ’qt ‘broad’)C1„broadăC1ą‘broader’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.198, Shuswap)d. y@„ye´ă ’yąx-t (cf. yext ‘long’)C1„longăC1ą-CHAR‘longer’ (Kuipers, 1974a, p.270, Shuswap)This double C1 reduplication process is associated with a comparative meaning,though this combination is restricted in distribution and likely is not productive.44It is possible this pattern should be treated as a type of single reduplication (i.e., triplication).621B.1.7 Thompson River Salish Multiple ReduplicationAttested multiple reduplication in Thompson River Salish is summarised in TableB.8.PL PDEN DIM AFF COSC1C2 C1C2 C1 C1 C2PL C1C2 ✓ ✓ ✓PDEN C1C2 ✓DIM C1 ✓ ✓AFF C1 ✓COS C2Other: PL-DIM-COS, PL-DIM-PDEN, AFF-DIM-PDENTable B.8: Multiple Reduplication in Thompson River SalishExamples come from B. Carlson and Thompson (1981), Jimmie (1994), andL. C. Thompson and Thompson (1996).B.1.7.1 Diminutive PluralIn words with plural C1C2 and diminutive C1 reduplication, the diminutivereduplicant is positioned following the stressed syllable and the plural reduplicantis placed on the left edge of the word. Examples are given in (690).(690) a. ’qi ’qya´ ’ys (cf. ’qyas. ‘barrel’)// ’q@y„ ’qya´ă ’yąs//PL„barrelăDIMą‘little barrels’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.283, ThompsonRiver Salish)b. ’kw@m„ ’kw@măePą-x@´ăxą ’n (cf. ’kwmı´PmeP ‘small’)PL-smallăREP+SPZGą-footăDIMą‘have small feet’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.87, Thompson River Salish)622c. y@ ’qw„yu´ăyą ’qw-n-s (cf. y@ ’qwete´s ‘splash s.o.’)PL-splashăDIMą-TR-3ERG‘splash something/someone a little repeatedly’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.31,Thompson River Salish)d. t@k„teătąkì (cf. stekì ‘rain’)PL„rainăDIMą‘a little shower, rain a little’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996,p.344, Thompson River Salish)e. ’ň@qw„ ’ňu´ă ’ňąqw- ’n-s (root: ’ňuqw- ‘daub’)PL„daubăDIMą-TR-3ERG‘daub a little on several things’‘daub s.t. on a little one’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.186,Thompson River Salish)The combination of diminutive and plural reduplication is found with noun, verb,and adjective roots. It can be used to mark multiple small entities with nounsand adjectives, as shown in (690a) and (690b), respectively. With verbs, it canmark a diminutive plural event (690c–d), a diminutive event with plural participants(690e), or plural events with a small participant (690e).B.1.7.2 Diminutive and Property-DenotingIn words with property-denoting C1C2 and diminutive C1 reduplication, thediminutive reduplicant is positioned following the stressed syllable and theproperty-denoting reduplicant is placed either on the left edge of the word orfollowing the second consonant of the root. Examples are given in (691).5(691) a. c@k„ce´ăcąk (cf. Pesce´k ‘already cool(ed)’)PDEN„coolăDIMą‘a little cooler’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.87, Thompson River Salish)5It is likely that the [u] in (691b) comes from a schwa that has undergone rounding.623b. kw@s„kwu´ăkwąs-t (cf. Peskw@´s ‘very dim’)PDEN„darkenăDIMą-CHAR‘be a little dark’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.119,Thompson River Salish)c. l@x. w„l@´ă’ląx. w-t (root: lx. w- ‘flow free’)PDEN„flow.freeăDIMą-CHAR‘a little runny’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.141, ThompsonRiver Salish)d. ’cu´ă ’cą’l„ ’c@’l-t (cf. ’cPu ’l ‘get sour’)sourăDIMą„PDEN-CHAR‘a little, somewhat, kind of, slightly sour’ (L. C. Thompson &Thompson, 1996, p.1244, Thompson River Salish)e. n-kw@’l„kwaăkwą’l (root: kwel- ‘lukewarm’)LOC-PDEN„lukewarmăDIMą‘just (barely) warm’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.1374,Thompson River Salish)f. ’ňoQw ’ňo´ ’ňQwt (root: ’ňQw- ‘hard’)// ’ň@Qw„ ’ň@´ă ’ňąQw-t//PDEN„hardăDIMą-CHAR‘somewhat hard’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.905,Thompson River Salish)The combination of diminutive and property-denoting reduplication is found withadjectives. It marks a state or property that holds to a small degree. It is not possibledetermine if this combination could be used to refer to a state or property that holdsof a small individual.B.1.7.3 Plural Change of StateIn words with plural and change-of-state reduplication, plural C1C2 reduplicationsurfaces as a prefix before the root and change-of-state C2 reduplication followsthe second consonant of the root. Examples are given in (692).624(692) a. ì@ ’p„ì ’p„@´ ’p (cf. ì ’p@m ‘hang s.t.’)PL„hang.over„COS‘(of plants) droop, wither’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.88, Thompson RiverSalish)b. xwu ’y=ktgoing.to=1PLn@ ’k„ne´ ’k„@ ’kPL„change„COSt@=k=c@´knsOBL=DET=chicken‘We’re going to turn into chickens.’ (cf. ne´ ’kes ‘change, transform’)(B. Carlson & Thompson, 1981, p.118, Thompson River Salish)c. cucuwuste´s (cf. Pescu´w ‘already done, made, built’)//c@w„cuw-@w-s-t-e´s//PL„work/do„COS-CAUS-TR-3ERG‘raise children or plants’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.39,Thompson River Salish)d. wiP„wı´P„iP-t (cf. wı´Pes ‘disable someone’)PDEN„disable„COS-CHAR‘(become) completely disabled’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996,p.379, Thompson River Salish)The combination of plural and change-of-state reduplication is found with verbs.This type of multiple reduplication marks a change of state with plural participantsin (692a–c). The plural marking in (692d) is translated as “completely”: I interpretC1C2 reduplication in this example as having a pluractional interpretation wherethe change of state is understood to have a spatial distribution (i.e., “completely”may mean “all over”).B.1.7.4 Diminutive Change of StateThere are a handful of examples that have both diminutive C1 and change-of-stateC2 reduplication, as shown in (693).(693) a. n-ìe´ăìą ’m„ ’m-tn (cf. Pesnìe´ ’m ‘be inside’)LOC-enterăDIMą„COS-instrument‘a small container’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.88, Thompson River Salish)625b. x. wuăx. wąs„@s (cf. Pesx. wu´s ‘(of soapberries) already beaten’)foamăDIMą„COS‘a little foam’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.88, Thompson River Salish)The examples in (693) are atypical for C2 reduplication because they appear tonouns, based on their translation, despite being formed on verbal roots. The statusof diminutive and change-of-state reduplication is unclear at present; this mayreflect a lexicalised combination. However, these types of reduplication do co-occur in a multiple reduplication pattern with plural reduplication, discussed inSection B.1.7.8.B.1.7.5 Plural and Property-DenotingIn words with plural and property-denoting reduplication, plural C1C2reduplication surfaces as a prefix before the root and property-denoting C1C2reduplication follows the second consonant of the root. Examples are given in(694).(694) a. siPse´ ’ysiP (cf. s@z ’lmı´ns ‘play around with s.t.’)//s@ ’y„se´ ’y„s@ ’y//PL„play„PDEN‘several play, have a good time’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996,p.326, Thompson River Salish)b. qwiPqwe´ ’yqwiPt (cf. qwiPste´s ‘have s.t. ache’)//qw@ ’y„qwe´ ’y„qw@ ’y-t//PL„ache„PDEN-CHAR‘be (generally) very painful, have many aches and pains’ (L. C. Thompson& Thompson, 1996, p.294, Thompson River Salish)The combination of plural and property-denoting reduplication marks a state orproperty that holds of plural participants or is spatially distributed, as shown in(694a) and (694b) above.626B.1.7.6 Affective Change of StateWhen affective and change-of-state reduplication are combined, affective C1reduplication surfaces as a prefix to the root; change-of-state C2 reduplicationsurfaces following the stressed vowel. An example is given in (695).(695) a. ì@„ìı´ ’Q„ ’Q (cf. Pesìı´Q ‘scattered’)AFF„disperse„COS‘scattered far and wide’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.155,Thompson River Salish)b. n-x. w@„x. ws-cı´ ’n„ ’n (root: x. ws-)LOC-AFF„diverge-mouth„COS‘forked logs, sticks all over’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996,p.435, Thompson River Salish)It is unclear from the available data which lexical categories permit the combinationof affective and change-of-state reduplication. However, affective reduplication inthese forms appears to mark plurality and possibly spatial distribution.6B.1.7.7 Affective DiminutiveWhen affective and diminutive reduplication are combined, affective C1reduplication surfaces as a prefix to the root; diminutive C1 reduplication surfacesfollowing the stressed vowel. Examples are given in (696).(696) a. Pes-c@„c@´ăcą ’Qw (cf. Pesco´Qw ‘have a stripe’)STAT-AFF„DIM„stripe‘striped (baby talk)’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.37,Thompson River Salish)b. ’k@„ ’ke´ă ’kąm-iPx (cf. ’ke´mix ‘sneak along’)AFF„stealthyăDIMą-AUT‘sneak up (esp. in hunting game animals’ (L. C. Thompson &Thompson, 1996, p.103, Thompson River Salish)6Affective reduplication in these forms is likely cognate to the initial C1 reduplication process inLillooet that marks plurality with certain nouns and adjectives.627c. ’ň@„ ’ňuă ’ňąqw (cf. ’ňu ’ňqw ‘a little speckled animal’)AFF„daubăDIMą‘a little speckled animal’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.173,Thompson River Salish)d. n-m@„ ’ma´ă ’mąQ- ’m (cf. ma´Qes ‘illuminate s.t.’)LOC-AFF„light.upăDIMą-MID‘a little lightning bolt’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.192,Thompson River Salish)Affective diminutive forms include nouns, verbs, and adjectives. The contributionof the affective reduplication is unclear; diminutive reduplication marks the samerange of meanings as described in Section A.2.7.B.1.7.8 Plural, Diminutive, and Change of StateDiminutive C1, plural C1C2, and change-of-state C2 reduplication can be combinedto yield multiple reduplication comprised of three reduplicative morphemes, asshown in (697).(697) a. n-ì@m-ìe´ăìą ’m„@ ’m (cf. nìe´ ’m@m ‘to carry unannounced’)LOC-PL-enterăDIMą„COS‘Small things are carried unnoticed.’ (Jimmie, 1994, p.90, ThompsonRiver Salish)b. n@x„ne´ă ’nąx„@x (cf. ne´xkwu ‘have waves’)PL„waveăDIMą„COS‘small, tiny waves, ripples’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996,p.217, Thompson River Salish)c. c@m„cmăePą„m-e´ă ’mąkst (root: cm- ‘small’)7PL-smallăREP+SPZGą„COS-handăDIMą‘have small hands’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.35,Thompson River Salish)7This example shows an “out of control” use of change-of-state C2 reduplication. L. C. Thompsonand Thompson (1996, p.35) state that “a person has no control over the size of [thier] hands”.628B.1.7.9 Diminutive, Plural, and Property-DenotingDiminutive C1, plural C1C2, and property-denoting C1C2 reduplication canbe combined to yield multiple reduplication comprised of three reduplicativemorphemes, as shown in (698).(698) a. PeINTs-t-paQ„pa´ăpą ’Q„pa ’Q-tSTAT-QUAL-PL„fade„PDEN-CHAR‘little grey faded ones’ (cf. Pe stpaQpa´QpaQt ‘several are grey, faded’)(L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.227, Thompson River Salish)b. t@p„t@ătąp„t@p-t (cf. t@pte´p ‘between black and grey’)PL„blackăDIMą„PDEN-CHAR‘a very little black one’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.351,Thompson River Salish)B.1.7.10 Affective, Diminutive, and Property-DenotingAffective C1, diminutive C1, and property-denoting C1C2 reduplication canbe combined to yield multiple reduplication comprised of three reduplicativemorphemes, as shown in (699).(699) qw@qwoqw ’zqw@ ’zt (cf. tqw@zqw@zt ‘blue’)//qw@„qw@ăqwą ’z„qw@ ’z-t//AFF„blueăDIMą„PDEN-CHAR‘bluish’ (L. C. Thompson & Thompson, 1996, p.293, Thompson RiverSalish)629B.2 Central Salish Multiple ReduplicationB.2.1 Comox-Sliammon Multiple ReduplicationAttested multiple reduplication in Comox-Sliammon is marked with ✓ in TableB.9. I useˆ to mark ungrammatical combinations, which are discussed in Chapter5 (Section 5.5).PL PDEN DIM PL PROG COS PLC1C2 C1C2 C1 C1 C1 C2 V1PL C1C2 ˆ ✓ ✓PDEN C1C2 ✓ ✓DIM C1 ✓ ✓PL C1PROG C1 ✓ ✓COS C2 ˆPL V1Other: PROG-V1 .PL-DIM, C1C2 .PL-V1 .PL-DIMTable B.9: Multiple Reduplication in Comox-SliammonExamples come from Watanabe (1994a), Blake (2000), Watanabe (2021), and myfieldwork.B.2.1.1 Diminutive and Property-DenotingWhen diminutive and property-denoting reduplication co-occur, diminutiveC1 reduplication is leftmost; property-denoting C1C2 reduplication follows.The diminutive always surfaces with its Ci- allomorph in this type of multiplereduplication, regardless of whether the -C- allomorph would be used in thecontext of single reduplication. Examples are given in (700).(700) a. x. i„x.@ì„x.@ì (cf. x. @ì ‘get angry’)DIM„PDEN„angry‘a little angry’ (FL, Comox-Sliammon)630b. sˇi„sˇ@ ’m„sˇ@m (cf. kwu sˇ@ ’m ‘It got dry.’)DIM„PDEN„dry‘a little dry’ (FL, Comox-Sliammon)c. ňi„ň@ ’m„ň@mDIM„PDEN„wett@=Pa ’pust@nDET=towel(cf. ’ň@ ’m ‘get wet’)‘The towel is a little wet/damp.’ (BW, Comox-Sliammon)d. ’tTi„’tT@ ’y„’tTay (cf. ’tT@ ’y ’tTay ‘loud’)DIM„PDEN„loud‘a little loud’ (FL, Comox-Sliammon)e. ’ňi„ ’ň@s„ ’ňas@m (cf. ’ňas@m ‘strong’)DIM„PDEN„strong‘kinda strong’ (Fl, Comox-Sliammon)Forms with diminutive and property-denoting reduplication are adjectives; theyrefer to a small amount of a state or property.B.2.1.2 C1 Plural and Property-DenotingWhen plural and property-denoting reduplication co-occur, plural C1 reduplicationis leftmost; property-denoting C1C2 reduplication follows. The plural morphemealways surfaces with its Ca- allomorph in this type of multiple reduplication,regardless of whether the -C- allomorph would be used in the context of singlereduplication. Examples are given in (701).(701) a. hihiwreally’ňa„ ’ň@s„ ’ňas@mPL„PDEN„strongt@=t@q„tiqiwDET=PL„horse(cf. ’ňas@m ‘strong’)‘Those horses are really strong.’ (EP, Comox-Sliammon)b. hihiwreally’tTa„’tT@ ’y„’tTay-mut (cf. ’tT@y ’tTay ‘loud’)PL„PDEN„noisy-INTS‘They’re really noisy.’ (EP, Comox-Sliammon)c. hihiwreallyňa„ň@ ’m„ň@m-mutPL„PDEN„wet-INTSt@=t@m„tumisˇDET=PL„man(cf. ’ň@ ’m ‘get wet’)‘Those men are really wet.’ (EP, Comox-Sliammon)Forms with diminutive and plural C1 reduplication are adjectives; they refer a stateor property which holds of multiple individuals.631B.2.1.3 Diminutive and C1 PluralWhen diminutive C1 and plural C1 reduplication co-occur, diminutive C1reduplication is realised with its Ci- allomorph; plural C1 reduplication is realisedwith its Ca- allomorph. With respect to surface linear order, both DIM-PLand PL-DIM are attested without an apparent change of meaning, as shown in(702a–b). However, note that only the PL-DIM order is permitted for (702c).Further elicitation is required to determine if there is a systematic reason why theDIM-PL form is rejected.(702) a. pi„pa„px. -itDIM„PL„rip-STAT(✓(pa„pi„px. -it)PL„DIM„rip-STAT)‘They (sleeves of a shirt) are ripped a little.’ (root: px. - ‘rip’) (FL,Comox-Sliammon)b. ’ki„ ’ka„ ’kp-itDIM„PL„cut-STAT(✓(’ka„ ’ki„ ’kp-it)PL„DIM„cut-STAT)‘It has small little cuts.’ (root: ’kp- ‘cut’) (FL, Comox-Sliammon)c. ňa„ňi„ňm-itPL„DIM„wet-STAT(˚(ňi„ňa„ňm-it)DIM„PL„wet-STAT)‘They are a little wet.’ (root: ň ’m- ‘wet’) (FL, Comox-Sliammon)The combination of diminutive C1 and plural C1 reduplication is attested withstative-marked verbs, as shown in (702); it marks a small degree of a state thatholds of plural participants, as shown in (702a–b) or a state that is distributedacross a single participant (702c.) It is likely that this combination is also possiblewith adjectives (without stative marking), though further elicitation is required toconfirm this prediction.B.2.1.4 Diminutive and C1C2 PluralWhen diminutive and plural reduplication co-occur, diminutive C1 reduplication isleftmost; plural C1C2 reduplication follows. The diminutive always surfaces withits Ci- allomorph in this type of multiple reduplication, regardless of whether the-C- allomorph would be used in the context of single reduplication. Examples aregiven in (703).632(703) a. ’ti„’t@ì„’tuìaì (cf. ’tuìaì ‘bed’)DIM„PL„bed‘a bunch of little beds’ (EP/FL, Comox-Sliammon)b. si„s@p„supayu (cf. supayu ‘axe’)DIM„PL„axe‘lots of little axes’ (EP/FL, Comox-Sliammon)c. ’qi„ ’q@s„ ’q@sna ’y (cf. ’q@sna ’y ‘shirt/dress’)DIM„PL„shirt/dress‘a bunch of little shirts or dresses’ (EP/FL, Comox-Sliammon)d. pi„p@cˇ„p@cˇu (cf. p@cˇu ‘basket’)DIM„PL„basket‘small baskets’ (EP/FL, Comox-Sliammon)This combination is only attested with nouns; it is used to refer to multiple smallentities. It is not possible to form a diminutive pluractional verb using C1C2reduplication, V1 reduplication must be used instead (see following section).B.2.1.5 Diminutive and V1 PluralWhen diminutive C1 and plural V1 reduplication are combined, diminutive C1reduplication surfaces either following the first root vowel (-C- allomorph) or asa prefix to the root (Ci- allomorph); plural V1 reduplication surfaces immediatelybefore the root vowel. Examples are given in (704).(704) a. păiPąi„pcˇ@mDIMăPLą„wakeBaileyBailey‘Bailey wakes up now and then.’ (BW, Comox-Sliammon)b. cˇăiPąi„cˇì@mDIMăPLą„dance-MIDFreddieFreddie‘Freddie does a little jig now and then.’ (BW, Comox-Sliammon)c. namaì=Putlittle.bit=EXCLqăiPąi„qkw-@mDIMăPLą„stop-MID‘It kept stopping and starting for a little while.’ (BW, Comox-Sliammon)633d. ’kwăiPąi„ ’kw@n-[t]=cˇanDIMăPLą„see-[CTR]=1SG.SUBJDanielDaniel‘I’m looking at Daniel (several times to see what he’s doing).’ (BW,Comox-Sliammon)The combination of diminutive C1 and plural V1 reduplication is attested withverbs, as shown in (704) above, and nouns, as shown in (705). With verbs, thistype of multiple reduplication marks pluractionality: there are a number of smallevents that are distributed in time. With nouns, diminutive C1 and plural V1 markmultiple small entities.8(705) a. săuPąuăsąpayu (cf. supayu ‘axe’)axeăPLąăDIMą‘little axes’ (JF, Comox-Sliammon)b. ’tăuPąuă’tąìaì (cf. ’tuìaì ‘bed’)DIMăPLą„bed‘little beds’ (EP, Comox-Sliammon)c. măiPąiămąx. aì (cf. mix. aì ‘black bear’)DIMăPLą„bear‘baby black bears’ (FL, Comox-Sliammon)d. cˇăiPąi„cˇuy (cf. cˇuy ‘child’)DIMăPLą„child‘little children’ (FL, Comox-Sliammon)B.2.1.6 C1C1 Plural and V1 PluralWhen plural C1C2 and plural V1 reduplication are combined, plural C1C2reduplication surfaces as a prefix; plural V1 reduplication surfaces immediatelybefore the vowel in the C1C2 reduplicant. The vowel in the C1C2 reduplicant is[a], rather than [@]. Examples are given in (706).8The meaning of diminutive C1 and plural V1 reduplication is identical to that of diminutive C1and plural C1V2 reduplication in the previous section.634(706) a. hiìCLFBaileyBaileyP@=’tTăaPąakw„’tT@kwtCLF=PLăPLą„wipe-CTRt@DETT@kw„Tukwnacˇt@nPL„chair‘It was Bailey who wiped down the chairs.’ (cf. ’tT@kwtcˇan ‘I wiped it.’)(EP, Comox-Sliammon)b. ìăaPąa ’kw„ìu ’kwPLăPLą„flyt@=hiyumDET=seagull(cf. ìu ’kw Fred ‘Fred flew.’)‘The seagull flies around (go a little distance, stop, and repeat).’ (BW,Comox-Sliammon)c. jˇăaPąa ’ň„jˇ@ ’ňPLăPLą„runt@= ’cˇanu (cf. jˇ@ ’ň ‘run’)DET=dog‘The dog is running around the yard (starting and stopping, sniffing atthings).’ (BW, Comox-Sliammon)This combination is only found with verbs, where it marks pluractionality andrequires a spatio-temporal distribution. Further elicitation is required to determinehow the meaning of this type of reduplication differs from pluractional C1C2reduplication on its own.B.2.1.7 Progressive Change of StateWhen progressive and change-of-state reduplication co-occur, progressive C1reduplication surfaces as prefix; change-of-state C2 reduplication surfacesfollowing the first consonant of the root. Examples are given in (707).(707) a. ’tTu„’tTău ’kwąu ’kw (cf. ’ň@qt ’tTu ’kw ‘The day is long.’)PROG„dayăCOSą‘becoming daylight’ (EP, Comox-Sliammon)b. qw@lcomePa„PăahąahPROG„soreăCOSątT=cˇayis (cf. Pah ‘sore’)1SG.POSS=hand‘My hand is starting to get sore.’ (BW/FL, vf)c. hu=cˇango=1SG.SUBJ’kwa„ ’kwăasąas (cf. ’kwas ‘warm/hot’)PROG„warm/hotăCOSą‘I am getting warm.’ (EP, Comox-Sliammon)635d. q@„qăx.@ąx. (cf. q@x. ‘more’)PROG„moreăCOSą‘increasing, getting to be more’ (EP/FL, sf/vt)e. p@„păs@ąsPROG„moreăCOSątT=cˇayisˇ (cf. p@s ‘numb’)1SG.POSS=hand‘My hand is getting numb.’ (BW, Comox-Sliammon)Progressive change-of-state forms are built on adjectival roots, but the reduplicatedforms are always verbs. This type of multiple reduplication refers to a change ofstate that is in progress.B.2.1.8 Progressive and V1 PluralThere are two recorded forms with progressive C1 reduplication and plural V1reduplication, given in (708).9(708) a. ’tTăEPąE„’tT ’q-aPam (cf. ’tT@ ’qP@m ‘throw (s.t.)’)PROGăPLą„throw-A.INTR‘throwing lots’ (Blake, 2000, p.285)b. Put=cˇxw= ’kwaif=2SG.SUBJ=QUOTìăaPąa„ìaw-sˇ...PROGăPLą„leave-TR‘If you keep leaving them (sg.) alone...’ (cf. ìaw@xwas ‘Someone leftthem (sg.).’) (Watanabe, 2021, p.101, Comox-Sliammon)The multiple reduplication pattern shown in (708) has only been recorded with twoverbs to my knowledge; the examples are progressive and pluractional, involvingmultiple participants in (708a) and temporal distribution in (708b).B.2.1.9 Diminutive, Progressive, and V1 PluralDiminutive C1, progressive C1, and plural V1 reduplication can combine to yieldmultiple reduplication comprised of three reduplicative morphemes, as shown in(709).9I leave the vowel in (708a) as given by Blake (2000) because it seems to correspond to anepenthetic /i/, but I have not managed to re-elicit the form to confirm my analysis.636(709) a. ’cˇăiPąi„cˇi„cˇ@ìPROGăPLą„DIM„rainPas ’q (cf. ’cˇ@ì ‘rain’)outside‘It is raining a little (throughout the day).’ (BW, Comox-Sliammon)b. jˇăiPąi„jˇi„jˇ@ ’ň (cf. jˇ@ ’ň ‘run’)PROGăPLą„DIM„run‘running around’ (Watanabe, 1994a, p.70, Comox-Sliammon)B.2.1.10 Diminutive, V1 Plural, and C1C2 PluralI have found one form with diminutive C1, plural V1, and plural C1C2reduplication, which is given in (710).(710) săiPąi„s@p„saplin (cf. saplin ‘bread’)DIMăPLą„PL„bread‘lots of little bits of bread’ (Blake, 2000, p.285, Comox-Sliammon)637B.2.2 Halkomelem Multiple ReduplicationAttested multiple reduplication in Halkomelem is summarised in Table B.10.Multiple reduplication in Halkomelem is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5(Section 5.3).PL PDEN IPFV DIMC1C2 C1C2 C1 C1PL C1C2 ✓PDEN C1C2IPFV C1 ✓DIM C1Table B.10: Multiple Reduplication in HalkomelemExamples come from Hukari (1976), Leslie (1979), and Suttles (2004).B.2.2.1 Diminutive ImperfectiveIn diminutive imperfective forms, diminutive C1 reduplication is leftmost(excluding prefixes); a glottal stop is infixed following the stressed vowel;imperfective C1 reduplication immediately precedes the root. Examples are givenin (711).(711) a. qw@„qwa´ăPą„qw@’l (cf. qwel ‘speak’)DIM„IPFVăDIMą„speak‘little one is speaking’ (Suttles, 2004, p.193, Downriver Halkomelem)b. ’q@„ ’qı´ăPą„ ’q@ ’kw (cf. ’qı´ ’kw ‘get bitten’)DIM„IPFVăDIMą„get.bitten‘little one is getting bitten’ (Suttles, 2004, p.191, DownriverHalkomelem)c. ’p@„ ’pe´ăPą„ ’p@’tT (cf. ’pe´ ’tT@t ‘sew it’)DIM„IPFVăDIMą„sew‘sewing (dim.)’ (Suttles, 2004, p.172, Downriver Halkomelem)638d. ’c@„ ’ce´ăPą„ ’c@w@t (cf. ’ce´w@t ‘help them (sg.)’)DIM„IPFVăDIMą„help‘help him’ (prog. dim.) (Suttles, 2004, p.170, Downriver Halkomelem)e. ’t@„’tı´ăPą„’t@l@ ’m (cf. ni ’tı´l@m ‘They (sg.) sang.’)DIM„IPFVăDIMą„sing-MID‘A little thing (as a child) is singing.’ (Suttles, 2004, p.172, DownriverHalkomelem)f. s-p@„pı´ăPą„p@ ’w (cf. pı´ ’w@t ‘freeze it’)STAT-DIM„IPFVăDIMą„freeze‘poor little frozen thing’ (Suttles, 2004, p.189, DownriverHalkomelem)Diminutive imperfective multiple reduplication applies to verb roots. Thediminutive imperfective forms in (711a–e) are imperfective verbs with a smallparticipant. The example in (711f) is has reduplication that Suttles (2004, p.189)labels as “resultative”. The combination of s- and C1 reduplication in this formmarks a state (i.e., spı´p@ ’w ‘frozen’); it is unclear if the C1 reduplication in theseforms is independently meaningful.B.2.2.2 Plural ImperfectiveWhen plural C1C2 reduplication co-occurs with imperfective C1 reduplication,plural C1C2 reduplication surfaces as a prefix to the root. This combination is foundwith words that form their imperfective with C1 reduplication and debuccalisationof the initial sonorant to [h] (see Section A.3.2.4): the [h] is copied in C1C2reduplication. Examples of plural imperfectives formed by multiple reduplicationare given in (712–712).(712) a. h@m„h@´ă ’mą@x (cf. me´Px ‘remove it’)PL„removeăIPFVą‘removing them’ (Suttles, 2004, p.169, Downriver Halkomelem)b. h@w„h@´ă ’wą ’qw (cf. w@´ ’qw ‘drift away’)PL„drift.awayăIPFVą‘They are drifting.’ (Suttles, 2004, p.171, Downriver Halkomelem)639c. h@ ’m„h@´ă ’mą ’q-@tPL„swallowăIPFVą-CTR‘swallowing them’ (Hukari, 1976, p.187, Island Halkomelem)d. h@’l„h@´ă’ląkw-@t (cf. l@kwat ‘break it’)PL„breakăIPFVą-CTR‘breaking them’ (Leslie, 1979, p.52, Island Halkomelem)The combination of plural and imperfective reduplication is only found with verbs,where it marks an imperfective verb with plural participants.640B.2.3 Lushootseed Multiple ReduplicationAttested multiple reduplication in Lushootseed is summarised in Table B.11.PL DIM PLC1C2 C1 C2 V1PL C1C2 ✓ ✓DIM C1 ✓C2PL V1Table B.11: Multiple Reduplication in LushootseedExamples come from Hess (1967), Bates et al. (1994), Bates (1999), andUrbanczyk (2006).B.2.3.1 Diminutive and C1C2 PluralExamples with diminutive C1 and plural C1C2 reduplication are given in (713).(713) a. ’qı´„ ’qs„ ’qis-sˇ@d (cf. ’qis ‘expose’)DIM„PL„expose-leg‘legs partly uncovered’ (Urbanczyk, 2006, p.214, from Bates et al.1994, Lushootseed)b. sa´P„sxw„saxw-@b (cf. sa´xw@b ‘jump, leap, run’)DIM„PL„jump-MID‘hopping’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.201, Lushootseed)c. [P@b]s-bi„b@d„b@daPPOSS-DIM„PL„offspringP@OBLtiP@PDETqah„a(h)many„C2tiP@PDETsgw@lubpheasant‘Pheasant had children a-plenty.’ (cf. b@da´P ‘child’) (Bates, 1999, p.4,Lushootseed)C1 and C1C2 reduplication can co-occur in the order in (713), with the C1reduplicant on the left edge, or in the reverse order (714), with the C1C 2reduplicant on the left edge. The examples in (714) have a C1C2 reduplicant, but641there is no copy of the second consonant.10(714) a. pa´„pa„past@d (cf. pa´st@d ‘white people’)PL„DIM„white.person‘many white children’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.160, Lushootseed)b. yu´„yu„y@bil (cf. yu´bil ‘starve’)PL„DIM„starve‘Children are starving.’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.279, Lushootseed)c. s-dı´„di„du:kw (cf. sdu´ukw ‘knife’)NMLZ-PL„DIM„knife‘small knives’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.85, Lushootseed)d. ’cˇi„ ’cˇi„ ’cˇ ’ňaP (cf. ’cˇ ’ňaP ‘rock’)PL„DIM„rock‘gravel’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.74, Lushootseed)The pair in (715) shows that the two orders are possible with the same root.The translations are different, but there is not enough data to determine if this issystematic.(715) a. bı´„b@d„b@daP (cf. b@da´P ‘child’)DIM„PL„child‘dolls, litter (of animals)’ (Bates et al., 1994, p.36, Lushootseed)b. bı´„bi„b@daPPL„DIM„child‘small children’ (Urbanczyk, 2006, p.214, from Bates et al. 1994,Lushootseed)This type of multiple reduplication is found with nouns and verbs. With verbs, itcan mark diminutive plural events (e.g., small events distributed in space or time),as shown in (713), or multiple small arguments, as shown in (714b). With nouns,it marks small entities (e.g., 714c).10Though the second consonant is not copied and therefore it is not clear from the surface formsthat these have C1C2 reduplication from the surface realisation; they are assumed to be there fromthe plural meanings and I adopt the assumptions about order from previous work (e.g., Broselow,1983).642B.2.3.2 Diminutive and V1 PluralThe combination of diminutive C1 and plural V1 reduplication is shown in (713).Diminutive reduplication surfaces either as an infix or a prefix; plural reduplicationsurfaces as an infix following the stressed vowel.(716) a. s-ìa´ăaąăìą@d@yP (cf. sìa´d@yP ‘woman’)NMLZ-womanăPLąăDIMą‘girls’ (Hess, 1967, p.65, Lushootseed)b. s-tu´ăuą„tubsˇ (cf. stubsˇ ‘man’)NMLZ-DIMăPLą„man‘boys’ (Hess, 1967, p.65, Lushootseed)This combination is found with nouns and marks plural entities that are small oryoung.B.2.3.3 C1C1 Plural and C2 ReduplicationWhen plural C1 C2 and C2 reduplication co-occur, plural reduplication surfacesas prefix; change-of-state C2 reduplication surfaces between the plural reduplicantand the root. Examples are given in (717).(717) a. sa´ ’qw„a ’qw„sa ’qw (cf. Pusa´ ’qw ‘It flew.’)PL„COS„fly‘Many wheeling (flying slowly in circles) all about.’ (Hess, 1967, p.67,Lushootseed)b. sa´xw„axw„saxw-@b (cf. sa´xw@b ‘jump, leap, run’)PL„COS„jump-MID‘Many scurrying all about’ (Hess, 1967, p.67, Lushootseed)This type of multiple reduplication is found with verbs. The meaning of C2reduplication in Lushootseed is unclear, but this combination is used to indicatethat there are multiple participants in the C2-marked event.643B.2.4 Sechelt Multiple ReduplicationAttested multiple reduplication in Sechelt is summarised in Table B.12.PL PDEN DIM PL IPFV COSC1C2 C1C2 C1 C1 C1 C2PL C1C2 ✓ ✓PDEN C1C2DIM C1PL C1 ✓IPFV C1 ✓COS C2Table B.12: Multiple Reduplication in SecheltExamples come from Beaumont (2011).B.2.4.1 Diminutive and C1C2 PluralWhen diminutive and plural reduplication co-occur, diminutive C1 reduplication isleftmost; plural C1C2 reduplication follows. The diminutive always surfaces withits Ci- allomorph in this type of multiple reduplication, regardless of whether the-C- allomorph would be used in the context of single reduplication. Examples aregiven in (718).(718) a. sı´„s@y„sı´ya (cf. sı´ya ‘tree’)DIM„PL„tree‘small trees’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.489, Sechelt)b. s-tı´„t@l„tu´lu (cf. stu´lu ‘river’)NMLZ-DIM„PL„river‘creeks, streams’(Beaumont, 2011, p.787, Sechelt)c. hı´„h@p„hu´pit (cf. hu´pit ‘deer’)DIM„PL„deer‘young deer (more than one)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.115, Sechelt)d. s-lı´„l@m„l@´may (cf. sl@´may ‘branch’)NMLZ-DIM„PL„branch644‘small branches’(Beaumont, 2011, p.771, Sechelt)e. ìı´„ì@ ’cˇ„ìa´ ’cˇ-t@n (cf. ìa´ ’cˇt@n ‘knife’)DIM„PL„stick-instrument‘small knives’(Beaumont, 2011, p.246, Sechelt)This type of multiple reduplication is found with nouns: it is refers to multiplesmall entities.B.2.4.2 Imperfective Change of StateWhen imperfective and change-of-state reduplication co-occur, C1 reduplicationsurfaces as prefix; C2 reduplication surfaces following the second consonant of theroot. Examples are given in (719).(719) a. ’kwa´„ ’kwas„as (cf. ’kwas ‘warm’)IPFV„warm„COS‘getting hotter/warmer’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.511, Sechelt)b. ’kwu´„ ’kwu ’ň„u ’ň (cf. ’kwu´ ’ňu ’ň ‘get rusty’)IPFV„rust„COS‘getting rusty’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.622, Sechelt)c. ’qı´„ ’qilăiląt (cf. ’qilt ‘light (sky)’)IPFV„lightăCOSą‘daybreak, dawn, starting to get light (sky)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.259,Sechelt)d. x. w@´„x. ws„@s (cf. x. @s ‘fat’)IPFV„fat„COS‘gaining a lot of weight, getting fat’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.942, Sechelt)This type of reduplication applies to adjective roots and marks an ongoing changeof state.B.2.4.3 C1 Plural and Change of StateWhen plural C1 and change-of-state C2 reduplication co-occur, the Ca- allomorphof plural C1 reduplication surfaces as prefix; C2 reduplication surfaces followingthe second consonant of the root. An example is given in (720).645(720) x. wa´„x. wal„a´l (cf. x. wa´la´m ‘glowing (not very brightly)’)PL„glow„COS‘starting to glow all over the place (lights, sparks, etc.) (not very brightly)’‘lots of sparks glowing’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.418, Sechelt)B.2.4.4 C1C2 Plural and Change of StateWhen plural C1C2 and change-of-state C2 reduplication co-occur, pluralreduplication surfaces as prefix; C2 reduplication surfaces following the secondconsonant of the root. An example is given in (721).(721) ’ň@´x.„ ’ňa´x.„ax. (cf. ’ňa´x. ax. ‘old/getting old’)PL„old„COS‘old/getting old (more than one person/thing)’ (Beaumont, 2011, p.865,Sechelt)This type of reduplication applies to adjective roots and marks a change of statethat involves a plural argument.646B.2.5 Northern Straits and Klallam Multiple ReduplicationAttested multiple reduplication in Northern Straits and Klallam is summarised inTable B.13.PL PDEN IPFV DIMC1C2 C1C2 C1 C1PL C1C2PDEN C1C2 ✓IPFV C1 ✓DIM C1Table B.13: Multiple Reduplication in Northern Straits and KlallamMultiple reduplication is only attested in the Saanich dialect of NorthernStraits; Raffo (1972) and Galloway (1990) do not describe patterns of multiplereduplication in Songish and Samish, respectively. While Crawford (2015, p.92)states that there are “quite a few cases of multiple reduplication” in Klallam (froma survey of published data in Montler 2012 and Montler 2015), this equates toa total of twenty tokens; some forms that appear to have multiple reduplicationinvolve lexicalised reduplication, such as maPmu´Psmus ‘a group of calves, smallcows’ (Montler, 2012, p.253). As it is not clear that multiple reduplication isproductive in Klallam, I only provide examples from Saanich in this section.Examples come from Montler (2018).B.2.5.1 Diminutive and Property-DenotingWhen diminutive C1 and property-denoting C1C2 reduplication co-occur,diminutive reduplication surfaces as a prefix and property-denoting reduplicationfollows the second consonant of the root. Examples are provided in (722).(722) a. Tı´P„T@ì„T@ì (cf. Tı´ì@N ‘stand’)DIM„high„PDEN‘a little high’ (Montler, 2018, p.1426, Saanich - Northern Straits)647b. n@-kw ı´P„kw@m„kw@m (cf. n@kw ı´m ‘red’)color-DIM„red„PDEN‘a little red’ (Montler, 2018, p.1236, Saanich - Northern Straits)Forms with this type of reduplication are adjectives that refer to a small amount ofa property.B.2.5.2 Imperfective DiminutivesWhen diminutive C1 and imperfective C1 reduplication co-occur, diminutivereduplication surfaces as a prefix and imperfective reduplication surfaces betweenthe diminutive and the root. Examples are provided in (723).(723) a. s-l@„le„l@[P]-s@t (cf. lePsı´t ‘fix for someone’)STAT-DIM„IPFV„fix-REFL‘fixing (dim)’ (Montler, 2018, p.1251, Saanich)b. P@„Pe„Pex. -@ ’N-e´’lN@n (cf. Pex. @N ‘say’)DIM„IPFV„say/do-MID-want‘to want to be saying or doing a little’ (Montler, 2018, p.137, Saanich)The combination of diminutive and imperfective reduplication is found with verbs.648B.2.6 Twana Multiple ReduplicationAttested multiple reduplication in Twana is summarised in Table B.14.PL DIM DIMC1C2 C1 V1PL C1C2DIM C1 ✓DIM V1Table B.14: Multiple Reduplication in TwanaExamples come from Drachman (1969).B.2.6.1 Double DiminutiveC1 and V1 reduplication are combined in diminutive forms in Twana, whichDrachman (1969) labels as “attenuative”.11 Examples are given in (724).(724) a. cˇa´ăPaą„cˇ@l@sˇ (cf. cˇa´lasˇ ‘hand’)DIMăDIMą„hand‘little hand’ (Drachman, 1969, p.137, Twana)b. x. wu´ăPuą„x. w@b@t (cf. x. wuPbat ‘paddle’)DIMăDIMąhand‘paddle (dim.)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.139, Twana)c. s- ’kwăaPąa´„ ’kw ’t@d (cf. s ’kwa´ ’kw ’t@d ‘rat’)DIMăDIMą„rat‘rat (dim.)’ (Drachman, 1969, p.138, Twana)While most of C1- and -V1- forms are not given full English translations inDrachman (1969), this combination appears to mark a small entity with a noun, asin (724) above. Drachman (1969) notes that the reduplication pattern associatedwith diminutives formed this way can affect the action or the object; bothinterpretations are shown in (725a).11Drachman (1969, p.269) describes this as combination of C1- and -V´1h-, but most of the givenforms have glottal stop instead of /h/.649(725) a. be- ’kwăaPąa´ă ’kwąsˇ-@-cˇ@d (cf. be ’kwasˇa´cˇ@d ‘I’m cutting things.’)CONT-cutăDIMąăDIMą-TR-1SG.SUBJ‘I’m cutting a little.’‘I’m cutting things small.’ (Drachman, 1969, p.137, Twana)b. be- ’cı´ăPią„ ’cxw-@-cˇ@d (cf. be ’cxw@cˇ@d ‘I’m slaughtering.’)CONT-DIMăDIMą„kill-TR-1SG.SUBJ‘I’m slaughtering little ones.’‘I’m slaughtering unimportant ones.’ (Drachman, 1969, p.137, Twana)Though the forms in (724) and (725) have multiple reduplication, there is nosemantic evidence for the two types of reduplication having their own semanticcontributions; this is likely a single diminutive morpheme, which may be expressedwith either a C1 or a /P/ infix, or both, and vowel reduplication is triggered by theinfix. Therefore, these may be treated straightforwardly as diminutives in functiondespite having the shape of multiple reduplication.650B.3 Tillamook Multiple ReduplicationThere are not many examples of multiple reduplication available in thedocumentation of Tillamook; attested multiple reduplication is summarisedin Table B.15.PL DIM or PL COSC1C2 C1 C2PL C1C2 ✓DIM or PL C1 ✓COS C2Table B.15: Multiple Reduplication in TillamookExamples come from Edel (1939) and Egesdal and Thompson (1996).B.3.1 Plural Change of StateWhen plural C1C2 and change-of-state C2 reduplication co-occur, pluralreduplication surfaces as prefix; C2 reduplication surfaces following the secondconsonant of the root. An example is given in (726).(726) a. d@DETc- 9g@l„ ’qelă@ląs-@´n-i (cf. Proto-Salish * ’q@l ‘to steam-cook’)STAT-PL„cook.pităCOSą-DRV-1SG.SUBJ‘I am baking them [clams] in the oven.’ (Egesdal & Thompson, 1996,p.4, Tillamook)b. c-y@sˇ„yisˇ„@sˇ-ni-w@sˇ (cf. Thompson River Salish zix ‘go lower slowly’)STAT-C1C2„loose„C2-NTR-1SG.OBJ‘My sleeveholder is getting loose on me.’ (Edel, 1939, p.16,Tillamook)B.3.2 Plural + Unclear C1 ReduplicationThe combination of C1C2 and C1 reduplication is shown in (727). This has a pluralmeaning, though the identity of the two reduplicative morphemes is unclear.651(727) a. s-l@„l@x.„l@x. -@n-i (cf. l@x. ‘remember’)STAT-C1„C1C2-remember-DRV-1SG.SUBJ‘I remember you (pl).’ (Edel, 1939, p.16, Tillamook)b. g@PFUTP@-P@l-a´l-il (cf. Proto-Salish *Pal- ‘be alive, move the body’)C1„C1C2-move-DEV‘The tide comes in slowly.’ (Reichard, 1959, p.244, Tillamook)c. c-y@-y@h-y@h-is-@w-i (cf. yehis ‘see’)STAT-C1„C1C2„cause-eye-MID-1SG.SUBJ‘I begin to see.’ (Reichard, 1959, p.244, Tillamook)d. ciDEMy@„ye(h)„y@(h)-gwat-(n/t)-iC1„C1C2„cause-know-(CTR)-1SG.SUBJ‘I know them.’ (cf. cyegwatı´gw@l ‘They (sg.) know them (sg.).’) (Edel,1939, p.31, Tillamook)652Appendix CIndex of Constraints andSummary of RankingsC.1 Index of ConstraintsThe following lists the constraints used in this dissertation and their definitions.The constraints are listed in alphabetical order. Constraints that start with *, oranother symbol, are alphabetized by the first letter in the name. The section wherethe constraint was first defined is also provided. The notation CS refers to Comox-Sliammon, Li refers to Lillooet, and Hk refers to Halkomelem. The codes and theircorresponding section are summarised in the following table with a section numberto which they correspond.Table C.1: Sections for Constraint DefinitionsArchG Architecture of Grammar (Chapter 3) (§3.5)CS1-C1 Comox-Sliammon Level 1 C1 (Chapter 4) (§4.1.3)CS1-C1C2 Comox-Sliammon Level 1 C1C2 (Chapter 4) (§4.1.3.2)CS3-C2 Comox-Sliammon Level 3 C2 (Chapter 4) (§4.1.5.1)Code Section Name Section LocationContinued on next page653Table C.1: Sections for Constraint Definitions (Continued)CS3-V1 Comox-Sliammon Level 3 V1 (Chapter 4) (§4.1.5.2)Li1-C1C2 Lillooet Level 1 C1C2 (Chapter 4) (§4.2.3.2)Li2-C2 Lillooet Level 2 C2 (Chapter 4) (§4.2.4.1)Li2-C1 Lillooet Level 2 C1 (Chapter 4) (§4.2.4.2)Li2-G Lillooet Level 2 Glottalisation (Chapter 4) (§4.2.4.3)MR Multiple Reduplication (Chapter 5)CrS Cross-Salish Chapter (Chapter 6)Code Section Name Section LocationTable C.2: Constraint Definitions*-△FT y△FT: Assign a violation for every non-headsyllable in a foot with a greater weight than thecorresponding head syllable.Li2-C1*P]σ : Assign a violation mark for any [P] in a coda. CrS*@CP/h]σ (*@P]σ ): Sequences of @P or @h within a singlesyllable are not permitted.Li2-C1AFFIXLn: Assign a violation mark for every affix with an Lndiacritic that is parsed into the phonological word (where ncorrespond to a phonological level).ArchGANCHOR-L: If α is at the left edge of a foot and αRβ , thenβ is at the left edge of a foot.Li2-C2Constraint FirstDefinedContinued on next page654Table C.2: Constraint Definitions (Continued)ANCHOR-L(Word, Segment): Any segment at the leftperiphery of a word in the output has a correspondent at theleft periphery of an input word.CS3-V1ANCHOR-R: If α is at the right edge of a foot and αRβ ,then β is at the right edge of a foot.Li2-C2*CLASH: Rhythm is alternating; no two adjacent stressedsyllables.Li2-C2*COMPLEXONSET: Syllables do not have complex onsets. CS1-C1CULMINATIVITY-µ+ (CULMIN): Every word has exactlyone head foot with one head mora.Li2-C1DEP: Output segments must have input correspondents CS1-C1DEP-C: Output consonants must have input correspondents CS1-C1DEP-LINK[C.G.] (DEPL[C.G.]): Any association line betweena segment and a phonological feature in the output musthave an input correspondent.Li2-GDEP-LINK-µ(N): When a nucleus is linked to a mora in theoutput, it is also linked to a mora in the input.CS1-C1C2DEP-LINKOBS[C.G.]: Any association line between anobstruent and a phonological feature in the output must havean input correspondent.Li2-GDEP-V: Output vowels must have input correspondents CS1-C1DEP-Vµ : Every moraic vowel in the output must have acorresponding moraic vowel in the input.CSl1-C1C2Constraint FirstDefinedContinued on next page655Table C.2: Constraint Definitions (Continued)*FLOAT: @p P O, where p is a prosodic unit or phonologicalfeature: Ds, where s is a segment (i.e., phonological contenton the segmental tier), and p dominates or is associated withs.CS1-C1HEAD-MATCH: If α is the prosodic head of the word andαℜβ , then β is the prosodic head of the word.Li2-C1IDENT-IO[C.G.]: The specification (or lack of specification)for the feature [c.g.] of an input segment must be preservedin its output correspondent.CS3-V1INT¨AGREE-[C.G.] (INT¨AGR-[C.G.]): If two outputsegments correspond to the same input segment, then eitherboth or neither are specified for [c.g.].Li2-GINT¨EDGE-(σ ): If two output segments correspond to thesame input segment, then they are in the same σ .Li2-C1INTEGRITY: No element of the input has multiplecorrespondents in the output.CS1-C1INTEGRITY-C: No consonant in the input has multiplecorrespondents in the output.CS1-C1INTEGRITY-V: No vowel in the input has multiplecorrespondents in the output.CS1-C1INTEGRITYWORD-INITIAL (INT-WI): No word-initial elementof the input has multiple correspondents in the output.CS3-C2LINEARITY: S1 is consistent with the precedence structureof S2, and vice versa.CrSConstraint FirstDefinedContinued on next page656Table C.2: Constraint Definitions (Continued)MAX: All segments in the input have a correspondent in theoutput. Assign a violation mark for every segment in theinput that does not have a correspondent in the output.CS1-C1MAX[C.G.]: Any [c.g.] feature must have an outputcorrespondent.Li2-GMAX-FLOAT (MAXFLT): All prosodic units or features thatare floating in the input have output correspondents.CS1-C1MAX-CONTIGUITY (MAX-CONTIG): If x, y P S1 and ximmediately precedes (Ñ)y, then Dx’, y’ such that xRx’ andyRy’ and x’ immediately precedes (Ñ)y’CS1-C1MAX-µ: All moras in the input have a correspondent in theoutput. Assign a violation mark for every mora in the inputthat does not have a correspondent in the output.Li2-C1MIN=2σ : The prosodic word should be minimally twosyllables.CS1-C1*MORA[-sonorant]: Assign a violation mark for everyobstruent associated with a mora.CrS*MORA[-continuant]: Assign a violation mark for every[-continuant] segment associated with a mora.CrSConstraint FirstDefinedContinued on next page657Table C.2: Constraint Definitions (Continued)MORPHEME-AFFILIATION (MAFFIL): For any three outputsegments S (S1, S2, S3) that belong to the same morphemeMa, if S1 is associated with a prosodic unit belonging to Maand S2 is associated with a prosodic unit belonging to someother morpheme Mb, then S3 must be associated with aprosodic unit belonging to either Ma or Mb. Assign aviolation mark for any three segments where all threesegments belong to the same morpheme and each segment isassociated with a prosodic unit belonging to a differentmorpheme (*S1-Ma, S2-Mb, S3-Mc).MRMPARSE: Given a candidate (o, ăią, ăoą,R), ifR is not atotal bijective function from ăią to ăoą, assign a violationmark.MROCP: Adjacent identical elements are prohibited. Assign aviolation for each sequence of identical elements.Li2-C1ONSET: Syllables have onsets. CS1-C1*ONSET"σ [C.G.]: A segment in the onset of a stressed syllableis not associated with a [c.g.] feature.Li2-G*P/@: Do not associate schwa with a prosodic head. Li2-C2PARSEAFFIX: Assign a violation mark for any affix leftunparsed.ArchGPARSE-µ: Moras are parsed by feet. Li2-C1PARSE-SYLL: Syllables are parsed by feet. Li1-C1C2Constraint FirstDefinedContinued on next page658Table C.2: Constraint Definitions (Continued)PREFIX: The output correspondent(s) of a prefix are notpreceded by a segment.CS1-C1PREFIX/µ: The output correspondent(s) of a prefix is notpreceded by a mora.CS1-C1PREFIX/σ : The output correspondent(s) of a prefix is notpreceded by a syllable.CS1-C1PRIORITY: Given an input containing allomorphs m1, m2,...,mn, and a candidate mi’, where mi’ is in correspondencewith mi, PRIORITY assigns as many violation marks as thedepth of ordering between mi and the highest dominatingmorph.CS1-C1PRWD=GRWD: A grammatical word must be a prosodicword.Li2-C2REALIZEMORPHEME (RM): Let α be a morphologicalform, β be a morphosyntactic category, and F(α) be thephonological form from which F(α+β ) is derived to expressa morphosyntactic category β . Then RM is satisfied withrespect to β iff F(α+β )‰F(α) phonologically.CS1-C1*SON[C.G] /-△FT: Glottalised sonorants are only permittedin head feet.Li2-GSTROLE: A segment in the input and its correspondent inthe output must have identical syllabic roles.CrSSTRESSSTRESS (STRESS2): Assign a violation mark for anyprosodic unit with a [stress] feature in the input that does notcorrespond to a head in the output.Li2-C1Constraint FirstDefinedContinued on next page659Table C.2: Constraint Definitions (Continued)*STRUC-FT: No feet. Assign a violation mark for everyfoot.Li1-C1C2TROCHEE: Feet are L-dominant at the level of the mora.Assign one violation per foot where the head is not theleftmost mora.Li2-C1*UNSTRESSEDσµµµ : Unstressed syllables are maximallybimoraic. Assign a violation mark for any unstressedsyllable associated with three (or more) moras.Li2-C2WT-IDENT-IO: If α P Domain(f), if α is non-moraic, thenf(α) is non-moraic. if α is monomoraic, then f(α) ismonomoraic. if α is bimoraic, then f(α) is bimoraic.CrSConstraint FirstDefinedC.2 Summary of Linear RankingsI provide flat linear rankings in (728–732) that were used to generate tableaux ateach strata. While these linear rankings represent an order of constraints that allowsfor the correct outputs, not all pairwise rankings suggested by these lists representcrucial rankings (e.g., PREFIX/σ does not need to be ranked above PREFIX); thetables given in Chapter 4 provide a more accurate summary of rankings.(728) Comox-Sliammon - Flat Linear Ranking at Level 1*FLOAT, MAX, MAX-FLOAT, DEPL-µ (N), DEP-C, INT-V, DEP-Vµ ,PREFIX/σ , *COMPLEX, ONSET yy DEP-V yy MIN=2σ yy PRIORITY,MAX-CONTIGUITY, PREFIX/µ , PREFIX yy INT-C(729) Comox- Sliammon - Flat Linear Ranking at Level 2*FLOAT, REALIZEMORPHEME, MAX-FLOAT, PREFIX/µ , PREFIX/σ ,DEP-C, ONSET, *COMPLEX, MAX, DEP-Vµ , DEP-LINK-µ(N) yy INT-Cyy INT-V yy DEP-V660(730) Comox-Sliammon - Flat Linear Ranking at Level 3*FLOAT, REALIZEMORPHEME, INTEGRITY-WI, PREFIX/σ , PREFIX/µ ,ONSET, DEP-V, ANCHOR-L, MAX-FLOAT, IDENT[C.G.] yy DEP-C yyINT-C, INT-V(731) Lillooet - Flat Linear Ranking at Level 1*FLOAT, REALIZEMORPHEME, MAX-FLOAT, PREFIX/σ , INT-V, DEP-C, SONORITY, TROCHEE, PARSE-SYLL yy INT-C, DEP-V, *STRUC-FT,DEP-Vµ(732) Lillooet - Flat Linear Ranking at Level 2PRWD=GRWD, *FLOAT, REALIZEMORPHEME, MAX-FLOAT,TROCHEE, CULMIN, *@P]σ , INT-V, DEP-Vµ , DEP-C, OCP, PARSE-µ , ANCHORFOOT, INT¨EDGE-(σ ), DEP-LINKO[C.G.], IDENT[C.G.] ąąSTRESS2 ąą *P/@, *STRUC-FT, *SON[C.G] /-△FT, *ONSET"σ [C.G.] ąąHEAD-MATCH, PARSE-σ , DEP-V, PREFIX/σ , MAX-µ ąą MAX[C.G.],MAX-FLOAT ąą INT¨AGR-[c.g.] ąą DEPL[C.G.], INT-C661Appendix DSources for Salish ReduplicationThis appendix summarises which types of reduplication are discussed in differentsources. Primary and secondary sources are discussed in Chapter 1 (Section1.5). These sources include description, analysis, or brief discussion of thelanguage or pattern. Sources are listed are given by language; languages arelisted in alphabetical order. I only include dictionaries and similar sources withreduplication data where the patterns are described in a stand-alone section (e.g.,where a brief grammatical sketch accompanies the resource). Data sources forthese papers are discussed in Chapter 1. Papers considering reduplication acrossSalish are not included in this appendix (e.g., Haeberlin, 1918).A ✓ in a cell means a type of reduplication was mentioned in some capacity,which includes everything from a brief summary of reduplicative patterns to morecomplete analyses. Where possible, I also show whether the reduplicative pattern isdescribed as a prefix or an infix (e.g., C1C2- vs. -C1C2). I convert the notation fromthe original sources to my four core types of reduplication for ease of comparison(see Section 2.4); not all authorsThis section is intended to provide a descriptive overview of the patterns in theliterature as described in the original source materials. I have reanalysed some ofthe patterns listed in this section in my survey; I have also set aside a number ofpatterns where there was minimal evidence or the patterns appeared to be marginalor lexicalised (see Chapter 2, Chapter 6, and Appendix A for how I have interpretedand reanalysed data).662D.1 Bella CoolaTable D.1: Sources for Bella Coola ReduplicationAngermeyer (2003) ✓ ✓ ✓Bagemihl (1990, 1991) ✓ ✓ ✓Brown (2004) ✓ ✓K. Carlson (1997) ✓ ✓ ✓Cho and King (2003) ✓Cook (1994) ✓ ✓Frampton (2009) ✓M. Gibson (1995) ✓ ✓Ingram (1973) ✓ ✓Kirchner (2010) ✓Marlo (2004) ✓Nater (1978, 1989)Nater (1984) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Nelson (2003) ✓Newman (1937) ✓ ✓Newman (1947) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Newman (1971) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (✓)Raimy and Idsardi (1997) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Saunders and Davis (1972) ✓ ✓Shaw (2005) ✓Topintzi (2005) ✓ ✓ ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- -C2 -V1-Continued on next page663Table D.1: Sources for Bella Coola Reduplication (Continued)Topintzi (2006) ✓ ✓ ✓Vaux and Wolfe (2009) ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- -C2 -V1-D.2 Coeur d’AleneTable D.2: Sources for Coeur d’Alene ReduplicationDoak (1997) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Doak (2004) ✓ ✓ ✓Palmer et al. (2003) ✓ ✓Reichard (1938) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Reichard (1959) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Vincent (2014) ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C2 -V1-D.3 Comox-SliammonTable D.3: Sources for Comox-Sliammon ReduplicationBerg (2022) ✓Blake (1992) ✓ ✓ ✓Blake (2000) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓*Czaykowska-Higgins (2006) ✓Source C1C2- C1- -C1- -C2 V1Continued on next page664Table D.3: Sources for Comox-Sliammon Reduplication (Continued)J. Davis (1970a, 2019) ✓J. Davis (1970b) ✓ ✓J. Davis (1971) ✓ ✓J. Davis (2020) ✓ ✓Harris (1981) ✓ ✓Hage`ge (1981) ✓ ✓ ✓Huijsmans (2023b) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Huijsmans and McCarthy (2024) ✓ ✓Huijsmans and Mellesmoen (2021) ✓ ✓Huijsmans et al. (2018) ✓Kroeber (1988) ✓ ✓ ✓Mellesmoen (2017) ✓Mellesmoen (2018a) ✓ ✓Mellesmoen (2020, 2021a) ✓ ✓Mellesmoen (in press) ✓ ✓Mellesmoen and Huijsmans (2019c) ✓Mellesmoen et al. (2020) ✓ ✓Reisinger (2024) ✓Sapir (1915) ✓ ✓Urbanczyk (2005) ✓Watanabe (1994a, 1994b, 2003) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓**Watanabe (1997) ✓ ✓ ✓**Watanabe (2010) ✓ ✓ ✓Source C1C2- C1- -C1- -C2 V1Continued on next page665Table D.3: Sources for Comox-Sliammon Reduplication (Continued)Wilbur (1973) ✓Source C1C2- C1- -C1- -C2 V1*Analysed as L’-.**Analysed as CVPV- and CVPVC-.D.4 CowlitzTable D.4: Sources for Cowlitz ReduplicationKinkade (2004) ✓Source C1C2D.5 HalkomelemTable D.5: Sources for Halkomelem ReduplicationDownriver HalkomelemH. Davis (2024) ✓ ✓ ✓Inkelas (2014) ✓ ✓Shaw (2002) ✓Shaw (2004) ✓ ✓Shaw (2008) ✓ ✓Suttles (2004) ✓ ✓Upriver HalkomelemBrown (2004) ✓ ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- -C2 -V1-Continued on next page666Table D.5: Sources for Halkomelem Reduplication (Continued)Galloway (1973, 1977, 1984a) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Galloway (1991) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Galloway (1993a)Kurisu (2001) ✓Marinakis (2004) ✓ ✓Monahan (2002) ✓ ✓J. Thompson (2005a, 2009) ✓Urbanczyk (1998) ✓Wiltschko (2005) ✓ ✓Wiltschko (2008) ✓Wiltschko and Steriopolo (2007) ✓Zimmermann (2009, 2013, 2017) ✓Island HalkomelemGerdts and Peter (2021) ✓Hukari (1976, 1977, 1978, 1981a,1981b, 1984)✓ ✓Jones (1976) ✓ ✓Leslie (1979) ✓ ✓ ✓Mellesmoen (2024b) ✓ ✓Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2020) ✓Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2021a) ✓ ✓Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2021b) ✓ ✓Urbanczyk (2004a) ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- -C2 -V1-Continued on next page667Table D.5: Sources for Halkomelem Reduplication (Continued)Urbanczyk (2010) ✓ ✓Urbanczyk (2011) ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- -C2 -V1-D.6 LillooetTable D.6: Sources for Lillooet ReduplicationBird (2000) ✓Caldecott (2009) ✓H. Davis (2011) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓H. Davis (2014) ✓H. Davis (in prep) ✓ ? ✓ ✓H. Davis and Mellesmoen (2023) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Downing and Inkelas (2015) ✓Nelson (1998) ✓Shaw (2005) ✓ ✓Van Eijk (1981a, 1997); Van Eijk (2011) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Van Eijk (1993) ✓Van Eijk and Hess (1986) ✓Source C1C2- C1- -C1- -C2668D.7 Lower ChehalisTable D.7: Sources for Lower Chehalis ReduplicationRobertson (2014) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ CVCVCSnow (1969) ✓ CVCVCSource C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C2 -V1- OtherD.8 LushootseedTable D.8: Sources for Lushootseed ReduplicationAlderete et al. (1999) ✓Bates (1986) ✓ ✓Bates (1990) ✓Benua (1997) ✓ ✓Broselow (1983) ✓ ✓S. Davis (1988) ✓Demers (1974) ✓Downing and Inkelas (2015) ✓ ✓Fidelholtz (1978) ✓ ✓Fitzpatrick (2006) ✓ ✓ ✓Fitzpatrick and Nevins (2003) ✓ ✓ ✓Frampton (2009) ✓ ✓ ✓Hess (1966, 1967) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Kim (1992) ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- -C2 V1-Continued on next page669Table D.8: Sources for Lushootseed Reduplication (Continued)Kirkham (1991, 1992) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Kye (2023) ✓ ✓ ✓McCarthy and Broselow (1983) ✓ ✓Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2021b) ✓ ✓Mellesmoen and Urbanczyk (2024) ✓Park (1999, 2000) ✓ ✓Ransom (1945) ✓ ✓ ✓Reichard (1959) ✓ ✓Samuels (2010) ✓ ✓Snyder (1968) ✓ ✓ ✓Struijke (2000) ✓Tweddell (1950) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Urbanczyk (1996b, 2005) ✓Urbanczyk (1999) ✓ ✓Urbanczyk (2000, 2001, 2006) ✓ ✓ ✓Van Eijk and Hess (1986) ✓Zimmermann (2021a) ✓Zimmermann (2021b) ✓ ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- -C2 V1-670D.9 Montana Salish-Spokane-KalispelTable D.9: Sources for Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel ReduplicationKalispelIdris (1981) ✓ ✓ ✓Speck (1977) ✓ ✓ ✓Vogt (1940) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Montana SalishPete (2010) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓SpokaneBates (1990) ✓Bates and Carlson (1989) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Bates and Carlson (1998) ✓ ✓ ✓Black (1996) ✓ ✓ ✓B. Carlson (1972a) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓B. Carlson (1989) ✓ ✓ ✓B. Carlson (1996) ✓B. Carlson (1972b) ✓B. Carlson (1980) ✓B. Carlson and Bates (1990) ✓B. Carlson and Thompson (1982) ✓Inkelas (2008) ✓Kirchner (2010) ✓Kroeber (1988) ✓Source C1C2- C1- -C1- -C2 -V1-Continued on next page671Table D.9: Sources for Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel Reduplication(Continued)Reichard (1959) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Vaux and Wolfe (2009) ✓Yu (2005) ✓Multiple DialectsThomason (1997) ✓ ✓Thomason (1999) ✓x 1-3 ✓x 2-3Source C1C2- C1- -C1- -C2 -V1-D.10 Moses ColumbiaTable D.10: Sources for Moses Columbia ReduplicationBessell (1993a) ✓ ✓Czaykowska-Higgins (1993a, 1998) ✓ ✓Czaykowska-Higgins (1985, 1990) ✓Czaykowska-Higgins (1993b) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Czaykowska-Higgins (2006) ✓Czaykowska-Higgins and Willett (1997) ✓ ✓ ✓Czaykowski (1983) ✓ ✓ ✓Kinkade (1982, 1989) ✓Raimy (2009) ✓ ✓Urbanczyk (2005) ✓ ✓Willett (2003) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C2Continued on next page672Table D.10: Sources for Moses Columbia Reduplication (Continued)Willett and Czaykowska-Higgins (1995) ✓ ✓ ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C2D.11 NooksackTable D.11: Sources for Nooksack ReduplicationGalloway (1984b, 1993b) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- -C2 V1-D.12 OkanaganTable D.12: Sources for Okanagan ReduplicationA. Mattina (1973) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓A. Mattina (1979) ✓A. Mattina (1993) ✓A. Mattina and Peterson (1997) ✓ ✓Pattison (1978) ✓ ✓Watkins (1970) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Watkins (1974) ✓ ✓ ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- -C2 -V1-673D.13 PentlatchTable D.13: Sources for Pentlatch ReduplicationPulhug (2023) ✓ ✓Source C1C2- C1-D.14 QuinaultTable D.14: Sources for Quinault ReduplicationModrow (1971) ✓ ✓Modrow (1969) ✓ ✓Source C1C2- C1- -C2 -V1-D.15 SecheltTable D.15: Sources for Sechelt ReduplicationBeaumont (1985) ✓ ✓Hill-Tout (1904) ✓Source C1C2- C1-674D.16 ShuswapTable D.16: Sources for Shuswap ReduplicationBroselow (1983) ✓ ✓Bell (1983) ✓Bjorkman (2006) ✓ ✓J. Gibson (1973) ✓ ✓Hendricks (1998, 1999) ✓Ignace and Ignace (2017) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Kim (2017b) ✓Kim and Gardiner (2016) ✓ ✓Kuipers (1974a, 1989) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Kuipers (1974b) ✓McCarthy and Broselow (1983) ✓ ˆNakamura (2000) ✓ ✓Taylor (1996) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Van Eijk (1990a) ✓Source C1C2- C1- -C1- -C2D.17 SquamishTable D.17: Sources for Squamish ReduplicationBar-el (2000, 2006, 2008) ✓ ✓Bar-el and Watt (2001) ✓ ✓Source C1C2- -C1-Continued on next page675Table D.17: Sources for Squamish Reduplication (Continued)S. Davis (1984) ✓ ✓Demers and Horn (1978) ✓ ✓Downing (2008) ✓Dyck (2004) ✓ ✓Jacobs (2012) ✓ ✓Kuipers (1967) ✓ ✓Source C1C2- -C1-D.18 Straits (Northern Straits and Klallam)Table D.18: Sources for Northern Straits and Klallam ReduplicationSaanichS. Davis and Ueda (2006) ✓Kirchner (2010) ✓Kiyota (2008) ✓ ✓Kurisu (2001) ✓Leonard (2009, 2019) ✓ ✓Leonard and Turner (2010) ✓Montler (1986) ✓ ✓Montler (1988, 1989) ✓Stonham (1994, 2007) ✓Svenonius and Bye (2012) ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- V1-Continued on next page676Table D.18: Sources for Northern Straits and Klallam Reduplication(Continued)Turner (2005) ✓ ✓Turner (2006, 2007, 2011) ✓Zimmermann and Trommer (2013) ✓SamishGalloway (1986, 1990) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓SongishM. Mitchell (1975) ✓ ✓Raffo (1970) ✓ ✓ ✓Raffo (1972) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓KlallamCrawford (2015) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Montler and Bates (1998) ✓Montler (2015) ✓ ✓ ✓L. C. Thompson and Thompson (1971) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓L. C. Thompson and Thompson (1968) ✓SookeEfrat (1969) ✓ ✓LummiDemers and Jelinek (1984) ✓ ✓Demers and Jelinek (1996) ✓ ✓Jelinek and Demers (1997) ✓ ✓Haag (1998) ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- V1-Continued on next page677Table D.18: Sources for Northern Straits and Klallam Reduplication(Continued)Demers (1974) ✓Multiple DialectsMellesmoen (2023) ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- V1-D.19 ThompsonTable D.19: Sources for Thompson ReduplicationBroselow (1983) ✓ ✓Brown (2017) ✓ ✓B. Carlson and Thompson (1982) ✓Coelho (1999) ✓Howett (1993) ✓Jimmie (1994) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Kroeber (1988) ✓Luntzlara (in prep)McCarthy and Broselow (1983) ✓ ˆRobertson (2004) ✓*Shaw (2005) ✓ ✓L. C. Thompson (1985) ✓L. C. Thompson and Thompson (1981) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓L. C. Thompson and Thompson (1992) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- -C2Continued on next page678Table D.19: Sources for Thompson Reduplication (Continued)L. C. Thompson et al. (1996) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Zimmermann (2021b) ✓ ✓Source C1C2- -C1C2 C1- -C1- -C2*Discusses a process of glottalisation related to reduplication.D.20 TillamookTable D.20: Sources for Tillamook ReduplicationEdel (1939) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Egesdal and Thompson (1996, 1998) ✓* ✓ ✓Kim and Gardiner (2016) ✓*Reichard (1959) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓L. C. Thompson and Thompson (1985) ✓ ✓Source C1C2- C1- -C2 -V1-*Includes a “wrong side” realisation.D.21 TwanaTable D.21: Sources for Twana ReduplicationDrachman (1969) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Kim (2017a, 2017b) ✓N. Thompson (1979) ✓N. Thompson (1985) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Source C1C2- C1- -C1- -C2 V1-679D.22 Upper ChehalisTable D.22: Sources for Upper Chehalis ReduplicationHaag (1998) ✓Kinkade (1963) ✓ ✓Kinkade (1985) ✓Kinkade (1975, 1995) ✓Mellesmoen (2022) ✓ ˆ ✓Reichard (1959) ✓ ˆ ✓Source C1C2- C1- -C2680Appendix ENAPA to IPA Conversion ChartA conversion chart between the North American Phonetic Alphabet (NAPA)and the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) are given in the following tablefor obstruent and sonorant consonants. Note that /P/ and the voiced obstruentsbehave phonologically as sonorants in Salish; this is because they have largelydeveloped from Proto-Salish sonorants (see, e.g., Mellesmoen, 2018b). I providesome additional representations (orthographies and transcriptions) in the rightmostcolumn that are found across source materials cited in Appendix D. While /P/behaves as a sonorant across the family, /h/ does not (Czaykowska-Higgins &Kinkade, 1998, p.8).1Table E.1: NAPA Conversion Chart: Obstruentsp p’p p’ Bt t’t t’ Dk k kyNAPA IPA Other RepresentationsContinued on next page1A sonorant analysis of /h/ has been proposed for some languages.681Table E.1: NAPA Conversion Chart: Obstruents(Continued)’k k’kw kw kw, k˝, C, ku’kw kw’ kw’, k’w, ’k˝, ’ku, Qq q K, k’q q’ k, Kqw qw qw, kw, qu, kw, K´, q˝, q˝’qw qw’ q’w, kw’, K, ’q˝, ’qutT>tT tth’tT>tT’ T’, tth’,Tň>tì tl’ň>tì’ t’, ’t, tl’c >ts (or>tS) ts’c >ts’ c’, t ’s, ts’cˇ>tS C´, tc, ch’cˇ>tS’ t ’c, ch’, Js s (or S)T T th, T, c¸ì ì ł, lh, λ , l, Lsˇ S sh, c, S´x x cxw xw cw, xw, W, x˝x. X xˇ, x, x, XNAPA IPA Other RepresentationsContinued on next page682Table E.1: NAPA Conversion Chart: Obstruents(Continued)x. w Xw xˇw, xw, xw, X, xˇ˝h. èh. w èwh hNAPA IPA Other RepresentationsTable E.2: NAPA Conversion Chart:Sonorant Consonantsm m’m Pm m’, mP, Pm, m7, 7mb b’b Pb bP, Pbn n’n n’, Pn nP, Pn, n7, 7nd d’d Pd Pd, dPz z*’z Pz* z’dz>dz j, djl l’l Pl l’, lP, Pl, l7, 7lr r RNAPA IPA Other RepresentationsContinued on next page683Table E.2: NAPA Conversion Chart:Sonorant Consonants(Continued)’r Pr ’öjˇ>dZ j’jˇ P>dZ jˇ’g g gygw gw gw’gw Pgw’g Pg g’G G r’G PG ’r, r’N N N’N PN N,y j i’y Pj y’, yP, Py, y7, 7y, iP, i7g. å 9gg.w åw 9gww w u’w Pw Pw, wP, w’, 7w, w7, u7P P 7, ’, PQ Q g’Q PQ g’Q Qw gw, Q˝NAPA IPA Other RepresentationsContinued on next page684Table E.2: NAPA Conversion Chart:Sonorant Consonants(Continued)’Qw PQw gw’, ’Q˝NAPA IPA Other Representations*This is not quite the same as a typical [z]; it is a sonorant in Salish.685Appendix FFission and Alternate Analyses ofV1 ReduplicationDecisions about vowel reduplication in this dissertation, and across existingdescriptions, are very reliant on particular assumptions about phonologicalprocesses. A case in point concerns “link vowels”, which are found in combinationwith transitivizing morphology in many Salish languages. Link vowels occurbefore certain transitivizing suffixes and typically match the quality of the rootvowel; it is a question of analysis as to whether these link vowels, which arebolded in the Comox-Sliammon examples in (733) below, should be treated asreduplicated.(733) a. x. iq-it-as (root: x. iq-)scratch-CTR-3ERG‘They (sg.) scratched it.’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.439, Comox-Sliammon)b. qwum-ut-as (root: qwum-)put.in.mouth-CTR-3ERG‘They (sg.) put it in their mouth.’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.439, Comox-Sliammon)Examples such as these allow for different analyses, some of which would beconsidered reduplication under my definition. In order to count, the link voweland the root vowel must correspond to the same input vowel and fission must be686motivated by the addition of a morpheme. While the link vowel is associated withthe addition of the control transitivizer -t in the examples in (733), it is not clear thatit arises via fission, feature agreement, or spreading between two input segments(one of which may be underspecified); alternatively, the lexical entry could containfour allomorphs (-t, -ut, -it, and -at) that are selected based on properties of theroot.1Where a 1:2 input-output mapping is hard to evaluate, as is the case with linkvowels, I include only patterns in the survey where it is possible to propose anempty prosodic unit in the input. This means that in order for the link vowels tobe considered as reduplication, the transitivizer -t would have to be accompaniedby a floating prosodic unit, such as a mora or syllable. The simplest analysis ofthe transitivizer does not involve an affixed prosodic unit: the presence of a linkvowel depends on root shape and vowel quality (see Watanabe, 2003, pp.214–216).Furthermore, a reduplicative analysis would need to account for the deletion of anaffixed prosodic unit in words where the transitivizer appears without a link vowel,such as those with a CC root in (734).(734) a. t@q-t (root: tq- ‘close’)close-CTR‘Close it!’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.213, Comox-Sliammon)1The middle marker -Vm in Comox-Sliammon can also surface with any of the four vowels [i],[a], [u], or [@], but the vowel does not always match that of the root, unlike with the transitivizer -t.Examples with the middle marker are shown in (i).(i) a. ’tTi ’kw-a ’mleft-MID‘(be on) the left side’b. ’tikw-umdisembark-MID‘disembark (from boat, car)’c. kw@jˇ-imshine-MID‘shining’d. jˇat-@mmove-MID‘move’(Watanabe, 2003, pp.191–192, Comox-Sliammon)687b. y@q-t (root: yq- ‘buy’)buy-CTR‘Buy it!’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.214, Comox-Sliammon)There is no independent motivation for the deletion of a prosodic unit. Further,the lack of a link vowel in (734) below cannot be reduced to the fact that there isno underlying vowel in the root: the example given in (735) shows that [a] is thelink vowel with CCC roots. If the transitivizing suffix had a mora or syllable, then[a] would also be expected in (734). Further, the vowel qualities in (735) do notmatch, which means that there is no 1:2 mapping between input and output.(735) p@lkw-at (root: plkw- ‘roll’)roll-CTR‘Roll it!’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.30, Comox-Sliammon)There are four potential analyses for vowel reduplication: (i) as a segmental affix(no fission), (ii) as a segmental affix (fission), (iii) as a mixed affix (fission),and (iv) as a prosodic affix (fission). The latter three all involve fission andare therefore classified as reduplication in this dissertation. Tables F.1 and F.2show these possible analyses for Montana Salish-Spokane-Kalispel inchoatives in(736) repeated from (10) in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2.2.2), and Comox-Sliammonlink vowels in (733), respectively. Subscripts are used to show whether vowelscorrespond to the same input segment (V1) or are epenthetic (Vx), as well as if thesegments are associated with affixed prosodic material from the input (e.g., Vµ ).Angled brackets mark epenthetic material.(736) a. qwăuPąu´ì (cf. hi qwuì ‘It is dusty.’)2dustyăINCHą‘It gets dusty.’ (Vogt, 1940, p.64, Kalispel)b. k@n ìăaPąa´’t (cf. cìQa ’t ‘be/get wet’)32The Spokane form qwPuì is given in B. Carlson and Flett (1989, p.176). It is possible that thereis idiolectal or dialectal variation with respect to the presence of a doubled vowel with the inchoative.See Mellesmoen (2024a) for further discussion of V1 reduplication across different Salish languageswith multiple sources of data.3The underlying /Q/ in the root ìQa ’t- ‘wet’ (10b) is absent in forms with -P-, based on the examplesprovided in A. Mattina (1987, p.88).6881SG.SUBJ wetăINCHą‘I got wet.’ (Watkins, 1970, p.107, Okanagan)Potential analyses of the inchoative include a segmental affix consisting of /P/that either (i) triggers epenthesis (with subsequent harmony or feature sharing), or(ii) triggers fission (“copy-repair”). Both options involve a repair; the differencein analysis comes down to the source of the vowel. The remaining options includean allomorph of the inchoative that is (iii) a mixed affix consisting of segment(/P/) and a prosodic unit (µ), or (iv) a prosodic affix (σ ). Fission occurs to fill aprosodic unit in options (iii) and (iv), with the additional epenthesis of [P] in (iv) toprevent vowel hiatus. These options are summarised in Table F.1.4 Of the possibleanalyses, only (i) is not considered reduplication.Table F.1: Defining Reduplication - InchoativesNot Reduplication ReduplicationEpenthesis Fissioni. Segmental Affix ii. Segmental Affix iii. Mixed Affix iv. Prosodic AffixInput CV1C + P CV1C + P CV1C + µP CV1C + σCVPC CVPC CVPC µ CV1V1σCCVPă@ąC CV1PV1C CV1PV1µC CV1ăPąV1CCV1PVxC - - -Output CVPVCCertain analyses in Table F.1 are less well-motivated than others; for example, theprosodic affix option given in (iv) renders any resemblance between the inchoativein other environments (-P-) and vowel reduplication (-VP-) purely accidental,despite their similar form; two distinct allomorphs would be needed. However, allfour analyses are plausible. As there is no reason to favour an epenthesis analysisover a fission one, I consider the inchoative as a reduplicative morpheme.Unlike the inchoative example, I do not treat the link vowels in (733) aboveas a type of vowel reduplication. The epenthesis analysis in (i) in Table F.2 is the4Tables F.1 and F.2 in this section are intended to illustrate possible analyses by breaking theminto “steps”. However, this is just an illustration; lines given between input and output here do notcorrespond to strata.689most viable explanation of the four.5Table F.2: Defining Reduplication - Link VowelsNot Reduplication ReduplicationEpenthesis Fissioni. Segmental Affix ii. ?Segmental Affix iii. ?Mixed Affix iv. ?Prosodic AffixInput CV1C + t CV1C + t CV1C + µt CV1C + σCVCt CVCt CVCt µ CV1C(V1)σCVCă@ąC CV1CV1t CV1CV1µ t CV1CVătąCV1CVxt - - -Output CVCVtNone of the fission analyses of link vowels are promising. The segmental affixanalysis in (ii), with fission of a vowel would reflect a grammar that can onlycopy moraic vowels. However, [@] can be copied in change-of-state reduplication(see discussion of C2 reduplication in Section 2.6). Examples given in (737) showthat epenthetic [a] is used if change-of-state reduplication is present, regardless ofthe form of the root (i.e., [i] would be the link vowel for ’pi ’q- ‘wide’ otherwise).However, (737b) shows that epenthetic [@] is present and copied in change-of-statereduplication; there is therefore no explanation for why [@] not undergo fission tosupply a link vowel.(737) a. ’păi ’qąi ’q-at (root: ’pi ’q-)wideăCOSą-CTR‘Make it wide.’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.215, Comox-Sliammon)b. ’ňă@ìą@ì-at (root: ’ňì-)stiffăCOSą-CTR‘Iron it.’ (Watanabe, 2003, p.215, Comox-Sliammon)The mixed affix analysis in (iii) proposes that the underlying form of thetransitivizer contains µ and /t/; the underlying mora in the transitivizer wouldbe lost in a word like t@qt ‘Close it!” in (734a) above.6 However, there is no5My preferred analysis is actually that an underspecified vowel in the transitivizer takes on theplace features of a nearby vowel, though this makes no difference to the present discussion becauseneither epenthesis nor feature sharing with an underlying unspecified vowel count as reduplication.6Parsing the /q/ as a moraic coda to satisfy the floating mora is ruled out because it is vacuous:Comox-Sliammon does not allow complex onsets.690motivation for an input prosodic unit to be lost.Finally, the prosodic affix analysis in (iv) is also problematic because it requiresan epenthetic [t] which is not attested elsewhere in the language.None of alternative analyses of link vowels that fit my definition ofreduplication are viable. I therefore only consider patterns in Appendix A andChapter 2 where there is a viable fission analysis that involves the affixation of amorpheme. I therefore set aside link vowels at present as there is no convincingevidence for any of the fission-based analyses (ii–iv).691
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Linguistics
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Davis, Henry, 1958-
The grammar of Salish reduplication
Text