In Tagalog, sulat means 'write' and su-sulat means 'will write' (future aspect). Which explanation best describes why the reduplicant (su-) sounds like the beginning of the root?
ATagalog lacks enough consonants to form independent affixes, so it borrows sounds from roots
BThe reduplicant is not a stored morpheme with its own sounds — it is a phonological template (e.g., CV) that gets filled by copying from the base, so it necessarily sounds like the root
CTagalog speakers find doubled syllables easier to remember than arbitrary affixes, so reduplication spread culturally
DThe future marker happens to share the same sounds as the root by coincidence in most Tagalog verbs
The reduplicant has no independent phonological content of its own — it specifies a shape (e.g., CV) that is filled by copying from the base. For sulat, the CV template yields su-; for a different root like bili, it would yield bi-. This is templatic reduplication: the 'morpheme' is a copying instruction rather than a stored sequence of sounds. This is fundamentally different from an affix like English -ed, which always contributes the same sounds regardless of the base.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Which of the following best explains why linguists describe reduplication as 'iconic' — a property they consider rare in morphology?
AReduplication is iconic because it appears in languages with the oldest and most prestigious writing traditions
BReduplicated words are easier to pronounce across languages, which explains their spread
CThe form (repeating phonological material) directly mirrors the meaning (repetition, plurality, or diffuseness) — unlike most morphological relationships, where form-meaning pairings are arbitrary
DReduplication is iconic because it was first documented by linguists whose work became canonical in the field
Most morphological relationships are arbitrary in Saussure's sense: the English plural suffix -s has no inherent connection to the concept of plurality. Reduplication is an exception: repeating the word form iconically represents repeating the action or distributing the referent across multiple instances. 'Saying it again' means 'doing it again.' This systematic form-meaning motivation is extremely rare in language and is what makes reduplication theoretically significant — it is one of language's clearest counterexamples to the arbitrariness of the sign.
Question 3 True / False
In partial reduplication, the reduplicant does not have its own fixed phonological content — its sounds are determined by copying from the base according to a specified template such as CV or CVC.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
This is the defining property of templatic reduplication. The morpheme specifies only a phonological shape (e.g., 'copy the initial CV of the base'), not specific sounds. The actual phonology of the reduplicant is derived from the base at the time of word formation. This is why different roots produce different-sounding reduplicants — the template stays constant, but the copied material varies. It distinguishes reduplication fundamentally from affixation, where the morpheme's sounds are stored independently of the base.
Question 4 True / False
Reduplication is a morphological rarity found in primarily a handful of language families, making it typologically exceptional.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Reduplication is cross-linguistically widespread, appearing in Austronesian languages (Tagalog, Indonesian, Malay), Bantu languages, many Amerindian languages, and historically in Indo-European languages (Greek perfect, Sanskrit intensive). Its cross-linguistic frequency is part of what makes its iconicity significant: the same form-meaning relationship (formal repetition = semantic repetition or distribution) recurs independently across unrelated language families. This suggests the iconic motivation is cognitively natural, not culturally transmitted.
Question 5 Short Answer
Explain what makes reduplication different from prefixation or suffixation as a morphological process, and what the linguistic significance of this difference is.
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: In affixation, the morpheme has fixed phonological content added to the base (un-, -ed). In reduplication, the 'morpheme' has no fixed sounds — it copies material from the base, specifying only a template shape. The significance is twofold: (1) it demonstrates that morphology can operate on phonological form directly, using copying as a grammatical operation; and (2) the form-meaning relationship is iconic rather than arbitrary, making reduplication a systematic exception to the principle that linguistic signs are arbitrary.
Affixes are arbitrary signs: -s means plural by convention, not because the sounds /s/ inherently signal plurality. Reduplication is motivated: the grammar instructs 'copy this part of the root,' and the result sounds like the root because it is derived from it. This challenges the Saussurean doctrine that all linguistic signs are arbitrary — reduplication is a systematic, cross-linguistic counterexample where form and meaning are formally related. It also shows that morphological operations are not limited to concatenation (adding pieces); copying is a distinct operation with its own theoretical implications.