Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:44:13.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Hypocoristic reduplications and embellished clippings in Hungarian and elsewhere

from Uralic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2023

By
Mario Brdar ,
Rita Brdar-Szabó ,
Nikolett F. Gulyás  and
Laura Horváth
Edited by
Jeffrey P. Williams
Jeffrey P. Williams
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University
Get access

Summary

The chapter focuses on two sets of items with hypocoristic function in Hungarian: 1. so-called embellished clippings, i.e. truncations that are subsequently furnished with one of the diminutive/endearment suffixes, such as Feri (Ferenc), Zoli/Zotya/Zotyi/Zolesz/Zolcso/Zoló (Zoltán), Kata/Kati/Kató (Katalin); 2. reduplications, typically consisting of two identical CV syllables. These can be based on first names, surnames, or some common nouns referring to people, denoting kinship relationships, profession, or property, e.g., Zozó (Zoltán), Zsozsó (Zsófia), Kokó (Kovács). Except for reduplications that are based on surnames, for all the others there is also at least one parallel hypocoristic form of the former type, i.e. an embellished clipping: Zoli/Zotya/Zotyi/Zolesz/Zolcso/Zoló – Zozó (Zoltán); Zsófi/Zsóca – Zsozsó (Zsófia). The goal of this chapter is to document the range of possibilities as well as to try to account for this peculiar distribution in the sense of which morphological processes interact with each other and in which order, but also in the sense of suggesting the factors that may have facilitated this state of affairs.

Keywords

hypocoristicreduplicationembellished clippingHungariandiminutive
Type
Chapter
Information
Expressivity in European Languages , pp. 13 - 52
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alasheyeva, A. A. (2011). Makenim. In Timerhanova, N. N. (ed.) Udmurt kyllen kylkabtodosez (morfologijez). Izhevsk: Udmurt State University, 21–64.Google Scholar
Alber, B. (2010). An exploration of truncation in Italian. Rutgers Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 1–30.Google Scholar
Alhoniemi, A. (2010). Marin kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. D. S. (ed.) (2008). The Munda Languages. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Asztalos, E., F. Gulyás, N., Horváth, L., & Timár, B. (2021). New aspects in the study of Mari, Udmurt, and Komi-Permyak. Studia Uralo-Altaica, 54, 255–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14232/sua.2021.54.255-274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartens, R. (2000). Permilaisten kielten rakenne ja kehitys. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Batalova, R. M. (Баталова, Р. М.) (2002). Кудымкарско-иньвенский диалект коми-пермяцкого языка. Kudymkarsko-in’venskij dialect komi-permjackogo jazyka [The Kudymkar-Inva dialect of the Komi-Permyak language]. Hamburg: Societas Uralo-Altaica.Google Scholar
Batalova, R. M. & Krivoshchekova-Gantman, A. S. (Баталова, Р. М. & Кривощёкова-Гантман, А. С.) (1985). Коми-пермяцко-русский словарь. [Komi-permjacko-russköj slovar]. [Komi-Permyak–Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., & Huddleston, R. (2002). Lexical word-formation. In Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (eds.) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1621–721.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001Google Scholar
Benkő, L. (ed.) (1967–1976). A magyar nyelv történeti-etimológiai szótára 1–3. (TESz.) The historical-etymological dictionary of the Hungarian language. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Bíró, B. (2021). The use and semantics of the Northern Mansi diminutive -riś~rəś. Studia Uralo-Altaica, 54, 81–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14232/sua.2021.54.81-97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, W. (2009). On the evolution of complexity: Sometimes less is more in east and mainland Southeast Asia. In Sampson, G. R., Gil, D., & Trudgill, P. (eds.) Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 34–49.Google Scholar
Botha, R. P. (1988). Form and Meaning in Word Formation: A study of Afrikaans reduplication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511659447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, J., Riese, T. & Guseva, E. (2014.) Mari–English Dictionary. Vienna: University of Vienna. https://mari-language.univie.ac.atGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2002). Usvajanje prijedloga, odnosno postpozicija i adpozicija te prefiksa u jednom slučaju hrvatskog-mađarskoga bilingvizma: Međuovisnost fonoloških i morfosintaktičkih čimbenika. In Vodopija, I. (ed.) Dijete i jezik danas: Dijete i učenje hrvatskoga jezika. Dijete i učenje stranoga jezika. Osijek: Sveučilište Josipa Jurja Strossmayera, Visoka učiteljska škola, 177–90.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2012). Intensification of adjectives and adverbs by means of reduplication in Germanic, Romance, Slavic and Finno-Ugric languages. In Oebel, G. (ed.) Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich. Crosslinguistic Comparison of Intensified Adjectives and Adverbs. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač, 293–344.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2008). On the marginality of lexical blending. Jezikoslovlje, 9(1–2), 171–94.Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
Burenhult, N. (2002). A grammar of Jahai. PhD thesis, Lund University.Google Scholar
Caballero, G. (2006). Templatic backcopying in Guarijio abbreviated reduplication. Morphology, 16(2), 273–89.Google Scholar
Csepregi, M. (2011). Szurguti osztják chrestomathia. 2nd ed. Szeged: JATE Press.Google Scholar
Csepregi, M. (2015). Reduplication. Surgut Khanty. In Havas, F., Csepregi, M., Gulyás, N. F. & Németh, Sz. (eds.) Typological Database of the Ugric Languages. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University, Finnugor Tanszék. http://en.utdb.nullpoint.info/node/916Google Scholar
Csúcs, S. (2005). Die Rekonstruktion der permischen Grundsprache. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dabašinskienė, I. (2009). Easy way to language acquisition: Diminutives in Lithuanian child language Ad verba liberorum: Linguistics & Pedagogy & Psychology, 1(1), 11–22. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/43791Google Scholar
Diffloth, G. (1972). Notes on expressive meaning. Chicago Linguistics Society, 8(1), 440–47.Google Scholar
Diffloth, G. (1976). Expressives in Semai. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications, (13), 249–64.Google Scholar
Diffloth, G. (1979). Expressive phonology and prosaic phonology in Mon-Khmer. In Thongkum, T. L., Panupong, V., Kullavanijaya, P., & Tingsabadh, M. R. K. (eds.) Studies in Tai and Mon-Khmer Phonetics and Phonology in Honour of Eugénie J. A. Henderson. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press, 49–59.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. & Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1994). Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and intensifies in Italian, German, and other languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdal, M. (1991.) Old Turkic Word Formation: A functional approach to the lexicon, Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Fejér, B., Rácz, P., Sóskuthy, M., & Szeredi, D. (2010). Morphology in the extreme: Labial reduplication in Hungarian. Talk at Sinfonija 3, 2 October, University of Novi Sad.Google Scholar
Fejes, L. (2016). Permic. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S. & Rainer, F. (eds.) Word-Formation, Vol. 5. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 3260–274.Google Scholar
F. Gulyás, N. (2015). Reduplication: Synja Khanty. In Havas, F., Csepregi, M., Gulyás, N. F., & Németh, Sz. (eds.) Typological Database of the Ugric Languages. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University, Finnugor Tanszék. http://en.utdb.nullpoint.info/node/916Google Scholar
Foolen, A. (2015). Word valence and its effects. In Lüdtke, U. M. (ed.) Emotion in Language: Theory – research – application. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 241–56.Google Scholar
Frazier, M. S. (2011). Expressive language. In Goldstein, S. & Naglieri, J. A. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Boston, MA: Springer, 620–21.Google Scholar
Gerstner, K. (2018). Szókészlettörténet. In Kiss, J. & Pusztai, F. (eds.) A magyar nyelvtörténet kézikönyve, Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó, 249–70.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (2013). Decorative morphology in Khmer. In Williams, J. P. (ed.) The Aesthetics of Grammar: Sound and meaning in the languages of mainland Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 61–82.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T. R., & Alho, I. (2008.) Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Kotimaisten Kielten Tutkimuskeskus. https://kaino.kotus.fi/visk/etusivu.phpGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2002). Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Haugen, J. D. (2014). Laryngeals in Guarijío (Uto-Aztecan): Synchrony. In Bennett, R., Dockum, R., Gasser, E., Goldenberg, D., Kasak, R., & Patterson, P., (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on the Sound Systems of Mexico and Central America, New Haven, CT: Department of Linguistics, Yale University.Google Scholar
Healey, P. M. (1960). An Agta Grammar. Manila: Bureau of Printing.Google Scholar
Inkelas, S. (2012). Reduplication. In Trommer, J. (ed.) The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 355–78.Google Scholar
Inkelas, S. (2014). The Interplay of Morphology and Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Inkelas, S., & Zoll, C. (2005). Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 350–77.Google Scholar
Jamet, D. (2009). A morphophonological approach to clipping in English: Can the study of clipping be formalized? Lexis, HS 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.884Google Scholar
Karpova, L. L. (Карпова, Л. Л.) (2011). О степенях качества прилагательных в северно-удмуртских диалектах [O stepenyakh kachestva prilagatel’nykh v severno-udmurtskikh dialektakh]. Урало-алтайские исследования [Uralo-altayskiye issledovaniya], 1(4), 24–33.Google Scholar
Keľmakov, V. K. (Кельмаков, В. К.) (2006). Краткий курс удмуртской диалектологии [Kratkiy kurs udmurtskoy dialektologii]. Izhevsk: Udmurt State University.Google Scholar
Keľmakov, V. K. & Saarinen, S. (1994). Udmurtin murteet. Publications of the Department of Finnish and General Linguistics of the University of Turku 47. Turku and Izhevsk: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Kiefer, F. (1995–1996). Prefix reduplication in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 43(1–2), 175–94.Google Scholar
Kiss, J. (2003). Általános kérdések. In Kiss, J. & Pusztai, F. (eds.), Magyar nyelvtörténet. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 11–68.Google Scholar
Kozmács, I. (2002). Udmurt nyelvkönyv. Szeged: JATEPress.Google Scholar
Kruspe, N. (2004). A Grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladányi, M. (2007). Produktivitás és analogia a szóképzésben: Elvek és esetek. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Ladányi, M. (2017). Alaktan. In Tolcsvai, N. G. (ed.) Nyelvtan, Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lőrinczi, R. (1992). Összetett szavak és szoros szókapcsolatok. In Benkő, L. (ed.) A Magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana II/1. A kései ómagyar kor. Morfematika. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 853–910.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2013). Extra-Grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, blends, reduplicatives, and related phenomena. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110295399Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J., Kimper, W., & Mullin, K. (2012). Reduplication in harmonic serialism. Morphology, 22(2), 173–232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-012-9203-3Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1999). Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In van der Hulst, H., Kager, R., & Zonneveld, W. (eds.) The Prosody-Morphology Interface. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 218–309.Google Scholar
Miller, W. R. (1996). Guarijío: Gramática, textos y vocabulario. Mexico City: National Autonomous University of Mexico.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E. (1978). Reduplicative constructions. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.) Universals of Human Language. Vol. 3: Word Structure. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 297–334.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E. (1992). Reduplication. In Bright, W. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 323–24.Google Scholar
Németh, Sz. (2015). Reduplication: Northern Mansi. In Havas, F., Csepregi, M., Gulyás, N. F. & Németh, Sz. (eds.) Typological Database of the Ugric Languages, Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University, Finnugor Tanszék. http://en.utdb.nullpoint.info/node/787Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. (1999). Ostyak. Munich and Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Papp, Zs. (2003). Az ómagyar kor. In Kiefer, F. (ed.) A magyar nyelv kézikönyve. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 63–85.Google Scholar
Parisi, D. (2011). The other half of the embodied mind. Frontiers in Psychology, 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00069Google Scholar
Pengitov, N. T., Galkin, I. S. & Isanbaev, N. I. (1960). Современный марийский язык: Морфология [Sovremennyy mariyskiy yazyk: Morfologiya]. [Contemporary Mari language: Morphology]. Yoshkar-Ola: Mari Publishing.Google Scholar
Piechnik, I. (2015). Reduplicative syllables in Romance languages. Romanica Cracoviensia, 15(1), 30–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4467/20843917RC.15.003.4000Google Scholar
Pitkänen-Heikkilä, K. (2016). Finnish. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S. & Rainer, F. (eds.) Word-Formation, Vol. 5. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 3209–228.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2003). Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ponomareva, L. (2010). Komi-permják nyelvkönyv. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2007). The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(2), 165–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.011Google Scholar
Rafferty, E. (2002). Reduplication of nouns and adjectives in Indonesian. In Macken, M. A. (ed.) Papers from the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, Program for Southeast Asian Studies, 317–32.Google Scholar
Raimy, E. (2009). Deriving reduplicative templates in a modular fashion. In Raimy, E. & Cairns, C. E. (eds.) Contemporary Views on Architecture and Representations in Phonology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regier, T. (1998). Reduplication and the arbitrariness of the sign. In Gernsbacher, M. A. & Derry, S. J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 887–92.Google Scholar
Riese, T. (2001). Vogul. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Riese, T. (2016). Mari. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S. & Rainer, F. (eds.) Word-Formation, Vol. 5. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 3275–288.Google Scholar
Riese, T., Bradley, J., Yakimova, E. & Krylova, G. (2017.) Оҥай марий йылме. Oŋaj marij jə̑lme [A comprehensive introduction to the Mari language]. Vienna: University of Vienna. https://mari-language.univie.ac.at/book.php?int=0Google Scholar
Rohlfs, G. (1967). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Morfologia. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Rombandeeva, E. I. (Ромбандеева, E. И.) (2017). Современный мансийский язык. Лексика, фонетика, графика, орфография, морфология, словообразование. Sovremennyy mansiyskiy yazyk. Leksika, fonetika, grafika, orfografiya, morfologiya, slovoobrazovaniye [Modern Mansi language. Vocabulary, phonetics, graphics, spelling, morphology, word formation]. Tyumen: Format.Google Scholar
Rubino, C. (2005). Reduplication. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D., & Comrie, B. (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 114–17.Google Scholar
Sárosi, Zs. (2003). Morfématörténet. Az ősmagyar kor. In Kiss, J. & Pusztai, F. (eds.) Magyar nyelvtörténet, Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 129–72.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. (1984). Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. (2003). Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Sgroi, S. C. (1986). Interferenze fonologiche, morfo-sintattiche e lessicali fra l’arabo e il siciliano. Palermo: Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani.Google Scholar
Shiyanova, A. A. (Шиянова, А. А.) (2011). Парно-повторные слова в хантыйском языке (на материале шурышкарского диалекта). Parno-povtornyye slova v khantyyskom yazyke (na materiale shuryshkarskogo dialekta) [Pairwise repeated words in the Khanty language (on the material of the Shuryshkar dialect)]. Вестник угроведения. Vestnik ugrovedeniya [Bulletin of Ugric Studies], 3(6), 38–40.Google Scholar
Shlyakhova, S. S. (2013a). Study of reduplication in Finno-Ugrian languages of Permic group. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 16, 1329–333.Google Scholar
Shlyakhova, S. S. (Шляхова, С. С.) (2013b). Иконичность редупликации в коми-пермяцком языке. Ikonichnost’ reduplikatsii v komi-permyatskom yazyke [Iconicity of reduplication in the Komi-Permyak language] Финно-угроведение. Finno-ugrovedeniye [Finno-Ugric Studies], 1, 24–44.Google Scholar
Sidwell, P. (2013). Expressives in Austroasiatic. In Williams, J. P. (ed.) The Aesthetics of Grammar: Sound and meaning in the languages of mainland Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17–35.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. (2008). Hypocoristics in Australian English. In Bernd, K. & Edgar, W. S. (eds.) A Handbook of Varieties of English: A multimedia reference tool. Vol. 2: Morphology and syntax. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 643–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197181-111Google Scholar
Smolak, L. (1982). Cognitive precursors of receptive vs. expressive language. Journal of Child Language, 9(1), 13–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900003573Google Scholar
Stankiewicz, E. (1972). Problems of emotive language. In Sebeok, T. A., Hayes, A. S., & Bateson, M. C. (eds.), Approaches to Semiotics: Cultural anthropology, education, linguistics, psychiatry, psychology. Transactions of the Indiana University Conference on Paralinguistics and Kinesics. The Hague and Paris: De Gruyter Mouton, 239–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111349022Google Scholar
Ştefănescu, I. (1992). On diminutive suffixes. Folia Linguistica, 26(3–4), 339–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1992.26.3-4.339Google Scholar
Stolz, T. (2008). Total reduplication vs. echo-word formation in language contact situations. In Siemund, P. & Kintana, N. (eds.) Language Contact and Contact Languages. Amsterdam and Philaelphia: John Benjamins, 107–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.7.07stoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P. (1998). An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.46Google Scholar
Szegfű, M. (1991). A névszóképzés. In Benkő, L. (ed.) A Magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana I: A korai ómagyar kor és előzményei. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 188–258.Google Scholar
Szegfű, M. (1992). A névszóképzés. In Benkő, L. (ed.) A Magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana II/1: A kései ómagyar kor. Morfematika. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 268–320.Google Scholar
Timár, B. (in press). Distributive numerals: Meadow Mari. In Havas, F., Asztalos, E., Gulyás, N. F., Horváth, L., & Timár, B. (eds.) Typological Database of the Volga Area Finno-Ugric Languages. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University, Department of Finno-Ugric Studies.Google Scholar
Veszelszki, Á. (2013). Digilektus és netszótár. Irodalomismeret, 24(1), 184–97.Google Scholar
Veszelszki, Á. (2017). Digilect: The impact of infocommunication technology on language. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110499117Google Scholar
Uchaev, Z. V. (Учаев, З. В.) (1982). Марийский язык: Марий йылме [Mariyskiy yazyk: Mariy yylme]. Yoshkar-Ola: Mari Publishing.Google Scholar
Watson, R. L. (1966). Reduplication in Pacoh. Hartford Seminary Foundation, unpublished Master’s thesis.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1986). Italian reduplication: Cross-cultural pragmatics and illocutionary semantics. Linguistics, 24(2), 287–316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1986.24.2.287Google Scholar
Williams, J. P. (ed.) (2014). The Aesthetics of Grammar: Sound and meaning in the languages of mainland Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139030489Google Scholar
Williams, J. P. (2021). Expressive Morphology in the Languages of South Asia. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315265629Google Scholar
Wong, J. (2004). Reduplication of nominal modifiers in Singapore English: A semantic and cultural interpretation. World Englishes, 23(3), 339–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0883-2919.2004.00362.xGoogle Scholar
Zelliger, E. (1991). A szóösszetétel. In Benkő, L. (ed.) A Magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana I: A korai ómagyar kor és előzményei. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 523–52.Google Scholar
Zsilinszky, É. (2003). Szókészlettörténet. In Kiss, J. & Pusztai, F. (eds.), Magyar nyelvtörténet. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 372–92.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M., & Pullum, G. K. (1987). Plain morphology and expressive morphology. Berkeley Linguistics Society: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, 13, 330–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1817Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×