Adding "extra" phonological material to avoid homophony

[LoneWolf]

Here is the thing, in a given language sound changes can occur which have the effect of greatly reducing the number of syllables contained in roots (via syncope, apocope, etc...). This in turn can have the result of causing a lot of the originally distinct roots to have the same phonological shape. I've heard it suggested that many languages in such situation will resort to adding "extra" phonological material to roots in order to avoid homophony. How true is this? Are there any rules that can determine which roots get affected by the addition of new material and which don't?

I've heard it said that both French and Hungarian have resorted to such a solution by adding a lot of diminutive suffixes to original roots (and perhaps also by compounding). But it seems in both cases this was done in somewhat of a sporadic manner and it was limited to only a few words. I also heard something similar happened in Sino-Tibetan languages where seemingly meaningless particles mysteriously got stakked on to a good deal of roots, but I don't know the details. I'd really like to know what happened in Chinese, were particles simply affixed at random on some words but not others or were there rules for which words would be affected?

So I will repeat myself. My first question was has it been shown conclusively that in some cases a language in order to avoid homophony may add extra phonological material to its roots? My second question was how can we determine which roots will be affected by the addition of new affixes? Is it done entirely randomly or are there certain rules or tendencies that have been observed?

[linguoboy]

It won't be "random"; like most linguistic changes, it will be arbitrary but motivated. I would imagine that word frequency is a prominent factor, but I'm not sure what kind of systematic research has been done.

The most common affixes used to disambiguate Chinese nouns are 兒 ér (particularly characteristics of Beijing vernacular) and 子 zǐ. These can be described as diminutive suffixes, both being in origin independent nouns meaning "son" or "offspring". But it's arguable whether as a strategy this is more common than compounding, which is the chief strategy for other parts of speech, notably verbs.

[Grimalkin]

Sidenote perhaps, but the usual Mandarin word for 'son', 兒子 érzi is a combination of the two aforementioned words for 'son/offspring'. The same is true for 朋友 péngyǒu 'friend', which iirc is a compound of two monosyllables which formerly both meant 'friend'.

[Soap]

and taeyong "sun" is really something like "great sun". I imagine we could come up with 1000 more. French has "big fish" for fish and English has "island" which is etymologically "island land".

[linguoboy]

and taeyong "sun" is really something like "great sun".

Not quite. Tàiyáng (太陽) is actually "great yang". Etymologically, 陽 means "sunny slope" (e.g. the south side of a mountain or the north bank of a river) and its extension to refer to the active principle in nature precedes the coinage of 太陽. A better example is 月亮 yuèliang "moon" where the first element is the Literary Chinese word for "moon" and 亮 liàng means "bright" or "shine". (You do have 太陰 tàiyīn corresponding to 太陽, but the seems to appear most often in more formal compounds rather than as an independent word for "moon".) As for the Literary Chinese for "sun", 日 rì, this was also used for "day" or "date" and over time that became its primary meaning. In modern Standard Chinese, it usually appears in the disyllabic form 日子 rìzi.

Another English example: pin-pen merged speakers often make use of the compounds "ink pen" and "stick pin" or "straight pin". (Although my speech is so merged, I've never felt the need for them.)

[Jashan]

Another English example: pin-pen merged speakers often make use of the compounds "ink pen" and "stick pin" or "straight pin". (Although my speech is so merged, I've never felt the need for them.)

I have the pin/pen merger, and usually differentiate by means of gestures (which may or may not be an interesting development). If I ask for a "pen", I'll accompany it by the gesture of holding a pen and making a few "air-scribbles". If I'm asking for a "pin", I'll either pantomime poking something with a pin, or I'll call it a "straight pin".

Locally, being in Oklahoma ("Indian Territory" or "Native Oklahoma"), we also routine distinguish between "Indian" (Native American) and "Indian" (people from India). The rude of way doing this is to ask if they're "feathers" or "dots"; however, nowadays, it's thankfully much more common to say either "India-Indian" or "American Indian".

[linguoboy]

Locally, being in Oklahoma ("Indian Territory" or "Native Oklahoma"), we also routine distinguish between "Indian" (Native American) and "Indian" (people from India). The rude of way doing this is to ask if they're "feathers" or "dots"; however, nowadays, it's thankfully much more common to say either "India-Indian" or "American Indian".

For the latter, I generally use "South Asian" (with the more academic crowd) or "from India". I don't have as much cause to refer to American Indians and I tend to waver between that term, "Amerind", "Native American", or "First Nation" depending on my audience.

I've noticed increasing use of reduplication to disambiguate homophones in American English. It's so productive, in fact, that you can use it as a semantic test to find the prototypical meaning of word. Examples would be "hot hot" (as opposed to "spicy hot"), "book book" (as opposed to an "e-book"), "bone bone" (as opposed to "Milkbone", a brand of dog treat), "change change" (i.e. coins as opposed to bills), "French French" (as opposed to "Canadian French"), "drink drink" (as opposed to a "soft drink" or other non-alcoholic beverage), and so on and so forth. I can't think of any that are truly lexicalised yet, but it looks to me like it's going that way.

[TaylorS]

My English-derived lang Mekoshan has a lot of homophones because of vowel mergers and consonant cluster simplification and in response it has developed lots of disambiguating compounds, much like, as has been mentioned, people with the Pen-Pin Merger say "ink pen" and "stick pin"

[TaylorS]

Locally, being in Oklahoma ("Indian Territory" or "Native Oklahoma"), we also routine distinguish between "Indian" (Native American) and "Indian" (people from India). The rude of way doing this is to ask if they're "feathers" or "dots"; however, nowadays, it's thankfully much more common to say either "India-Indian" or "American Indian".

For the latter, I generally use "South Asian" (with the more academic crowd) or "from India". I don't have as much cause to refer to American Indians and I tend to waver between that term, "Amerind", "Native American", or "First Nation" depending on my audience.

I've noticed increasing use of reduplication to disambiguate homophones in American English. It's so productive, in fact, that you can use it as a semantic test to find the prototypical meaning of word. Examples would be "hot hot" (as opposed to "spicy hot"), "book book" (as opposed to an "e-book"), "bone bone" (as opposed to "Milkbone", a brand of dog treat), "change change" (i.e. coins as opposed to bills), "French French" (as opposed to "Canadian French"), "drink drink" (as opposed to a "soft drink" or other non-alcoholic beverage), and so on and so forth. I can't think of any that are truly lexicalised yet, but it looks to me like it's going that way.

I love how English uses "X-X" reduplication to mean "real X".

[Jetboy]

I think that oftentimes, small allophonic details will become phonemic where there would otherwise be a merger. For example, when Sanskrit merged /e o a/, I believe that some consonants in front of what had been /e/ became phonemically palatalized, IIRC.

[spats]

I love how English uses "X-X" reduplication to mean "real X".

Best use of reduplication EVAR.

Finnish evidently does this, too.

[Acid Badger]

I love how English uses "X-X" reduplication to mean "real X".

Best use of reduplication EVAR.

Finnish evidently does this, too.

German too, at least I hear it quite frequently among my friends.

[hwhatting]

I think that oftentimes, small allophonic details will become phonemic where there would otherwise be a merger. For example, when Sanskrit merged /e o a/, I believe that some consonants in front of what had been /e/ became phonemically palatalized, IIRC.

The palatalisation was probably there before the merger, just what was allophonic before became phonemic.

[Grunnen]

love how English uses "X-X" reduplication to mean "real X".

Wouldn't that be because compounds in Germanic languages are formed on the model of specifier-headword? So that if you use reduplication, the headword is specified to mean it(-s real )self? It works that way in Dutch too btw.

[linguoboy]

love how English uses "X-X" reduplication to mean "real X".

Wouldn't that be because compounds in Germanic languages are formed on the model of specifier-headword? So that if you use reduplication, the headword is specified to mean it(-s real )self? It works that way in Dutch too btw.

I'm not sure what difference that makes. Every language is either modifier-head or head-modifier, but that doesn't mean that reduplications are always considered compounds of this sort. The most common use I've encountred cross-linguistically is pluralisation. (In English, a meaning expressed with the addition of coordinate conjunctions for nouns, e.g. "tonnes and tonnes", "piles and piles", "hundreds and hundreds", etc.)

And even in English, reduplication doesn't always express prototypicality. With adverbs, for instance, it simply expresses intensification. If you are "terribly terribly sorry", it doesn't means that you're sorry in a terrible manner. Adjectives can go either way, e.g. "It was a terrible, terrible play." "Okay, the food wasn't terrible terrible, but it sure wasn't good!"

[Grunnen]

love how English uses "X-X" reduplication to mean "real X".

Wouldn't that be because compounds in Germanic languages are formed on the model of specifier-headword? So that if you use reduplication, the headword is specified to mean it(-s real )self? It works that way in Dutch too btw.

I'm not sure what difference that makes. Every language is either modifier-head or head-modifier, but that doesn't mean that reduplications are always considered compounds of this sort. The most common use I've encountred cross-linguistically is pluralisation. (In English, a meaning expressed with the addition of coordinate conjunctions for nouns, e.g. "tonnes and tonnes", "piles and piles", "hundreds and hundreds", etc.)

And even in English, reduplication doesn't always express prototypicality. With adverbs, for instance, it simply expresses intensification. If you are "terribly terribly sorry", it doesn't means that you're sorry in a terrible manner. Adjectives can go either way, e.g. "It was a terrible, terrible play." "Okay, the food wasn't terrible terrible, but it sure wasn't good!"

I should have said compound nouns. That's what I meant to say anyway. You're right about the other cases. What I mean is that for me (a native speaker of Dutch), reduplication in nouns doesn't feel as a special category. It just feels like a compound like all other compounds, and therefore can't suddenly mark plurality or something else. I hope this explains it better.

[LoneWolf]

The most common affixes used to disambiguate Chinese nouns are 兒 ér (particularly characteristics of Beijing vernacular) and 子 zǐ. These can be described as diminutive suffixes, both being in origin independent nouns meaning "son" or "offspring". But it's arguable whether as a strategy this is more common than compounding, which is the chief strategy for other parts of speech, notably verbs.

Sidenote perhaps, but the usual Mandarin word for 'son', 兒子 érzi is a combination of the two aforementioned words for 'son/offspring'. The same is true for 朋友 péngyǒu 'friend', which iirc is a compound of two monosyllables which formerly both meant 'friend'.

Quite interesting, I had heard about those affixes before. Does this process affect historically homophonic roots to the same extent as non-homophonic roots? In otherwords can we be sure that there really is somekind of systematic pattern here affecting mostly those words threatened of merger?

On a similar note, I just read yesterday in one of my books on Romance languages that more often than not where there used to be word doublets in Latin, the modern daughter languages have favored retaining the longer form of the two. Also many final consonants were apparently ''restored'' in French as for instance 'chef' /ʃɛf/ cf. 'clef' /kle/ cf. (perhaps because 'chef' would have otherwise been homophonous with chez??? On second thoughts I doubt that would be the explanation as chef and chez are not at all the same word category and therefore there couldn't be any semantic ambiguity).

[Ser]

[On a similar note, I just read yesterday in one of my books on Romance languages that more often than not where there used to be word doublets in Latin, the modern daughter languages have favored retaining the longer form of the two.

1. What's the name of that book? 2. What are some of the examples it gives?

[LoneWolf]

[On a similar note, I just read yesterday in one of my books on Romance languages that more often than not where there used to be word doublets in Latin, the modern daughter languages have favored retaining the longer form of the two.

1. What's the name of that book? 2. What are some of the examples it gives?

The book is: The Romance Languages by Rebecca Posner. Cambridge University Press, 1996 - Foreign Language Study - 376 pages
Unfortunately I can't find the page where I read about this. I'll get back to you when I do.

[Nortaneous]

love how English uses "X-X" reduplication to mean "real X".

Wouldn't that be because compounds in Germanic languages are formed on the model of specifier-headword? So that if you use reduplication, the headword is specified to mean it(-s real )self? It works that way in Dutch too btw.

And Finnish, supposedly, so unless it was borrowed from a Germanic language, that's probably not it.

[LoneWolf]

[On a similar note, I just read yesterday in one of my books on Romance languages that more often than not where there used to be word doublets in Latin, the modern daughter languages have favored retaining the longer form of the two.

1. What's the name of that book? 2. What are some of the examples it gives?

I finally found the page (believe it or not I took me nearly an hour to find!) However it would appear I somewhat mislead everyone with my comment. I said that where there used to be word doublets in Latin, Romance favored retaining the longer more complex form of the two. As you will see it isn’t quite what Posner is saying:

The popular idiom, and Romance, often preferred longer, derived forms to a shorter word. Diminutives were particularly favored.

And then Posner gives the following examples: AURICULA, AVICELLA, GENUCULUM ‘little ear, bird, knee’. She also adds to the list frequentatives such as CANTARE ‘to keep on singing’ for Latin CANERE ‘to sing’.

So it’s on page 101, if you want to see for your self here is the google book link: http://books.google.ca/books?id=FtxywY_ ... rm&f=false
Again the book is The Romance Languages by Rebecca Posner. Cambridge University Press, 1996 - Foreign Language Study - 376 pages

[Radius Solis]

love how English uses "X-X" reduplication to mean "real X".

Wouldn't that be because compounds in Germanic languages are formed on the model of specifier-headword? So that if you use reduplication, the headword is specified to mean it(-s real )self? It works that way in Dutch too btw.

I'm not sure what difference that makes. Every language is either modifier-head or head-modifier, but that doesn't mean that reduplications are always considered compounds of this sort.

Further evidence is that we can do it with verbs, even main verbs, that cannot otherwise act as modifiers to a verb. For example, "No, we just slept slept together." We can't use "slept" that way before any other verb: *we slept rested together. Further, even entire VP constituents can be reduplicated: "it came out in the wash came out in the wash" would specify that we're talking about actual laundry rather than employing the idiom, for instance, if we can come up with a context where the two could be confused. And we certainly can't use that to modify a different VP: *the stain came out in the wash went away deserves so many asterisks I'd be here for years typing them all.

And even in English, reduplication doesn't always express prototypicality. With adverbs, for instance, it simply expresses intensification. If you are "terribly terribly sorry", it doesn't means that you're sorry in a terrible manner.

FWIW, "He was terribly terribly dressed" does describe something that has a terrible manner, but the reduplication is still of the intensifier type.

[LinguistCat]

For example, "No, we just slept slept together." We can't use "slept" that way before any other verb: *we slept rested together. Further, even entire VP constituents can be reduplicated: "it came out in the wash came out in the wash" would specify that we're talking about actual laundry rather than employing the idiom, for instance, if we can come up with a context where the two could be confused. And we certainly can't use that to modify a different VP: *the stain came out in the wash went away deserves so many asterisks I'd be here for years typing them all.

I think that has to do more with the double meanings of the words. I could say "We rested together slept together." I could also say "It went away came out in the wash." Again, I would need a reason to disambiguate, but those are perfectly legal constructions IMD.