The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reduplication with Fixed Segmentism
Abstract
Fixed segmentism is the phenomenon whereby a reduplicative morpheme contains segments that are invariant rather than copied. We investigate it within Optimality Theory, arguing that it falls into two distinct types, phonological and morphological. Phonological fixed segmentism is analyzed under the OT rubric of emergence of the unmarked. It therefore has significant connections to markedness theory, sharing properties with other domains where markedness is relevant and showing context-dependence. In contrast, morphological fixed segmentism is a kind of affixation, and so it resembles affixing morphology generally. The two types are contrasted, and claims about impossible patterns of fixed segmentism are developed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The forms in (69a) indicate that even in the selection of form types considered by Alderete et al (1999) vowel quality in the reduplicant is not predictable.”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as Alderete et al (1999)
In the citing paper
“The fact that the presence of a coda in a reduplicant can be predicted from non-reduplication specific information is an important fact that will be discussed when the modular approach is compared with Alderete et al (1999).”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as Alderete et al (1999)
In the citing paper
“The emergence of the unmarked aspects of Nancowry reduplication as argued for by Alderete et al (1999) must be abandoned if the vowel quality and appearance of the glottal stop at the surface is accounted for in all of the data.”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as Alderete et al (1999)
In the citing paper
“The analysis presented here is clearly superior because it accommodates all of the known reduplication data in Nancowry. The analysis in Alderete et al (1999) only accounts for a subset of this data.”
From The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication (2000) · cites this paper as Alderete et al (1999)
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 47
- 10.1017/S0952675700002268 · DOI
- Bao Zhiming, 1990, Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 317
- 10.3765/bls.v12i0.1843 · DOI
- Beckman Jill, 1995, Papers in Optimality Theory, 53
- Benua Laura, 1995, Papers in Optimality Theory, 77
- 10.1086/464736 · DOI
- Clements G. N., 1990, John Kingston and Mary Beckman, 283
- Clements G. N., 1995, John Goldsmith, 245
- Crowhurst Megan, 1991, NELS, 21, 49
- 10.1515/jall.1985.7.2.105 · DOI
- Downing Laura J, 1994, NELS, 24, 81
- 10.1162/002438998553851 · DOI
- Goswami Upendra, 1955, Indian Linguistics, 17, 161
- 10.1016/0024-3841(89)90044-2 · DOI
- Hess Thom, 1977, Anthropological Linguistics, 19, 403
- 10.1007/BF00132604 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0008413100014742 · DOI
- Itô Junko, 1995, John Goldsmith, 817
- Itô Junko, 1995, Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 571
- Kirchner Robert, 1996, Linguistic Inquiry, 27, 341
- 10.1017/S0952675797003291 · DOI
- Marantz Alec, 1982, Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 483
- McCarthy John, 1994, Patricia Keating, 191
- 10.1007/BF00208524 · DOI
- McCarthy John, 1994, NELS, 24, 333
- McCarthy John, 1995, Papers in Optimality Theory, 249
- 10.1017/S095267570000018X · DOI
- 10.1007/BF01118137 · DOI
- Pulleyblank Douglas, 1988, Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 233
- 10.1017/S0952675700000324 · DOI
- Selkirk Elisabeth O, 1984, Mark Aronoff and Richard T. Oehrle, 107
- Shaw Patricia, 1987, Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology, 291
- Singh Amar Bahadur, 1969, Indian Linguistics, 30, 185
- 10.1017/S0952675700002190 · DOI
- Steriade Donca, 1995, John Goldsmith, 114
- 10.2307/409403 · DOI
- Urbanczyk Suzanne, 1995, Papers in Optimality Theory, 499
- Urbanczyk Suzanne, 1996, NELS, 26, 425
- Voegelin C. F., 1935, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 34, 55
- 10.1086/464459 · DOI
- 10.2307/412914 · DOI
- Yip Moira, 1982, Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 637
- 10.1007/BF00134493 · DOI
- Yip Moira, 1991, Paradis and Prunet, 1991, 61
- Yip Moira, 1992, NELS, 22, 459
- Yip Moira, 1998, Farrell, 216
- 10.1017/S0952675700002396 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication
Raimy, E. (2000) · doi:10.1515/9783110825831 · Cited by 161
Metadata
- Authors
- Alderete, J., Beckman, J., Benua, L., Gnanadesikan, A., McCarthy, J., & Urbanczyk, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- University of Iowa (US)
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Educational Testing Service (US)
- University of Calgary (CA)
- Venue
- Linguistic Inquiry
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 1999-07
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 327-364
- ISSN
- 0024-3892 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9150
- OpenAlex
- W2021996203
- Cited by
- 376
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 31
- FWCI
- 22.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Linguistic Inquiry (publishedVersion)
- ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) (submittedVersion)
- Scholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and language evolution
- Keywords
- reduplication, Optimality Theory, markedness theory, affixation, morphological reduplication, context sensitivity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reduplication with Fixed Segmentism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/002438999554101
- The paper
- Alderete, J., Beckman, J., Benua, L., Gnanadesikan, A., McCarthy, J., & Urbanczyk, S. (1999). Reduplication with Fixed Segmentism. Linguistic Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554101
