Jump to: navigation, search

Reduplication, in linguistics, is a morphological process by which the root or stem of a word, or only part of it, is repeated.

Reduplication is used both in inflections to convey a grammatical function, such as plurality, intensification, etc., and in lexical derivation to create new words. It is often used when a speaker adopts a tone more "expressive" or figurative than ordinary speech and is also often, but not exclusively, iconic in meaning. Reduplication is found in a wide range of languages and language groups, though its level of linguistic productivity varies.

Typological description


Reduplication is often described phonologically in one of two different ways: either (1) as reduplicated segments (sequences of consonants/vowels) or (2) as reduplicated prosodic units (syllables or moras). In addition to phonological description, reduplication often needs to be described morphologically as a reduplication of linguistic constituents (i.e. words, stems, roots). As a result, reduplication is interesting theoretically as it involves the interface between phonology and morphology.

The base is the word (or part of the word) that is to be copied. The reduplicated element is called the reduplicant, often abbreviated as RED or sometimes just R.

In reduplication, the reduplicant is most often repeated only once. However, in some languages, reduplication can occur more than once, resulting in a tripled form, and not a duple as in most reduplication. Triplication is the term for this phenomenon of copying three times. Pingelapese has both reduplication and triplication.

Basic Verb Reduplication Triplication
kɔul  'to sing' kɔukɔul  'singing' kɔukɔukɔul  'still singing'
mejr  'to sleep' mejmejr  'sleeping' mejmejmejr  'still sleeping'
(Rehg 1981)

Triplication occurs in other languages, e.g. Ewe, Shipibo, Twi, Mokilese, Min Nan.

Sometimes gemination (i.e. the doubling of consonants or vowels) is considered to be a form of reduplication. The term dupleme has been used (after morpheme) to refer to different types of reduplication that have the same meaning.

Full and partial reduplication

Full reduplication involves a reduplication of the entire word. For example, Kham derives reciprocal forms from reflexive forms by total reduplication:

    [gin] 'ourselves' [gingin] 'we (to) us' (gin-gin)
    [jaː] 'themselves' [jaːjaː] 'they (to) them' (jaː-jaː) (Watters 2002)

Another example is from Musqueam Halkomelem "dispositional" aspect formation:

    [k’ʷə́ɬ] 'to capsize' [k’ʷə́ɬk’ʷəɬ] 'likely to capsize' (k’ʷə́ɬ-k’ʷəɬ)
    [qʷél] 'to speak' [qʷélqʷel] 'talkative' (qʷél-qʷel) (Shaw 2004)

Partial reduplication involves a reduplication of only part of the word. For example, Marshallese forms words meaning 'to wear X' by reduplicating the last consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) sequence of a base, i.e. base+CVC:

    kagir 'belt' kagirgir 'to wear a belt' (kagir-gir)
    takin 'sock' takinkin 'to wear socks' (takin-kin) (Moravsik 1978)

Many languages often use both full and partial reduplication, as in the Motu example below:

Base Verb Full reduplication Partial reduplication
mahuta  'to sleep' mahutamahuta  'to sleep constantly' mamahuta  'to sleep (plural)'
  (mahuta-mahuta) (ma-mahuta)

Reduplicant position

Reduplication may be initial (i.e. prefixal), final (i.e. suffixal), or internal (i.e. infixal), e.g.

Initial reduplication in Agta (CV- prefix):

    [ɸuɾab] 'afternoon' [ɸuɸuɾab] 'late afternoon' (ɸu-ɸuɾab)
    [ŋaŋaj] 'a long time' [ŋaŋaŋaj] 'a long time (in years)' (ŋa-ŋaŋaj) (Healey 1960)

Final reduplication in Dakota (-CCV suffix):

    [hãska] 'tall (singular)' [hãskaska] 'tall (plural)' (hãska-ska)
    [waʃte] 'good (singular)' [waʃteʃte] 'good (plural)' (waʃte-ʃte) (Shaw 1980, Marantz 1982, Albright 2002)

Internal reduplication in Samoan (-CV- infix):

    savali 'they walk' savavali 'he walks' (sa-va-vali)
    alofa 'they love' alolofa 'he loves' (a-lo-lofa) (Moravcsik 1978, Broselow and McCarthy 1984)

Internal reduplication is much less common than the initial and final types.

Copying direction

A reduplicant can copy from either the left edge of a word (left-to-right copying) or from the right edge (right-to-left copying). There is a tendency for prefixing reduplicants to copy left-to-right and for suffixing reduplicants to copy right-to-left:

Initial L → R copying in Oykangand Kunjen (a Pama-Nyungan language of Australia):

    [eder] [ededer] 'rain' (ed-eder)
    [algal] [algalgal] 'straight' (alg-algal)

Final R → L copying in Sirionó:

    achisia achisiasia 'I cut' (achisia-sia)
    ñimbuchao ñimbuchaochao 'to come apart' (ñimbuchao-chao) (McCarthy and Prince 1996)

Copying from the other direction is possible although less common:

Initial R → L copying in Tillamook:

    [gaɬ] 'eye' [ɬgaɬ] 'eyes' (ɬ-gaɬ)
    [təq] 'break' [qtəq] 'they break' (q-təq) (Reichard 1959)

Final L → R copying in Chukchi:

    nute- 'ground' nutenut 'ground (abs. sg.)' (nute-nut)
    jilʔe- 'gopher' jilʔejil 'gopher (abs. sg.)' (jilʔe-jil) (Marantz 1982)

Internal reduplication can also involve copying the beginning or end of the base. In Quileute, the first consonant of the base is copied and inserted after the first vowel of the base.

Internal L → R copying in Quileute:

    [tsiko] 'he put it on' [tsitsko] 'he put it on (frequentative)' (tsi-ts-ko)
    [tukoːjoʔ] 'snow' [tutkoːjoʔ] 'snow here and there' (tu-t-koːjoʔ) (Broselow and McCarthy 1984)

In Temiar, the last consonant of the root is copied and inserted before the medial consonant of the root.

Internal R → L copying in Temiar (an Austro-Asiatic language of Malaysia):

    [sluh] 'to shoot (perfective)' [shluh] 'to shoot (continuative)' (s-h-luh)
    [slɔg] 'to marry (perfective)' [sglɔg] 'to marry (continuative)' (s-g-lɔg) (Broselow and McCarthy 1984, Walther 2000)

A rare type of reduplication is found in Semai (an Austro-Asiatic language of Malaysia). "Expressive minor reduplication" is formed with an initial reduplicant that copies the first and last segment of the base:

    [kʉːʔ] [kʔkʉːʔ] 'to vomit' (-kʉːʔ)
    [dŋɔh] [dhdŋɔh] 'appearance of nodding constantly' (dh-dŋɔh)
    [cruhaːw] [cwcruhaːw] 'monsoon rain' (cw-cruhaːw) (Diffloth 1973, in Albright 2002)

Reduplication and other processes

All of the examples above consist of only reduplication. However, reduplication often occurs with other phonological and morphological process, such as deletion, affixation of non-reduplicating material, etc.

For instance, in Tz'utujil a new '-ish' adjective form is derived from other words by suffixing the reduplicated first consonant of the base followed by the segment [oχ]. This can be written succinctly as -Coχ. Below are some examples:

  • [kaq] 'red' → [kaqkoχ] 'reddish'  (kaq-k-oχ)
  • [q’an] 'yellow' → [q’anq’oχ] 'yellowish'  (q’an-q’-oχ)
  • [jaʔ] 'water' → [jaʔjoχ] 'watery'  (jaʔ-j-oχ)   (Dayley 1985)

Somali has a similar suffix that is used in forming the plural of some nouns: -aC (where C is the last consonant of the base):

  • [tog] 'ditch' → [togag] 'ditches'  (tog-a-g)
  • [ʕad] 'lump of meat' → [ʕadad] 'lumps of meat'  (ʕad-a-d)
  • [wɪːl] 'boy' → [wɪːlal] 'boys'  (wɪːl-a-l)   (Abraham 1964)

(One linguist has used the word duplifix to refer to this combination of reduplication and affixation.)

In Tohono O'odham initial reduplication also involves gemination of the first consonant in the distributive plural and in repetitive verbs:

  • [nowiu] 'ox' → [nonnowiu] 'ox (distributive)'  (no-n-nowiu)
  • [hódai] 'rock' → [hohhodai] 'rock (distributive)'  (ho-h-hodai)
  • [kow] 'dig out of ground (unitative)' → [kokkow] 'dig out of ground (repetitive)'  (ko-k-kow)
  • [gɨw] 'hit (unitative)' → [gɨggɨw] 'hit (repetitive)'  (-g-gɨw)   (Haugen forthcoming)

Sometimes gemination can be analyzed as a type of reduplication.

Function and meaning

In the Malayo-Polynesian family, reduplication is used to form plurals (among many other functions):

  • Malay rumah "house", rumah-rumah "houses".

In pre-1972 Indonesian and Malay orthography, 2 was shorthand for the reduplication that forms plurals: orang "person", orang-orang or orang2 "people"[1].

The Nama language uses reduplication to increase the force of a verb: go, "look;", go-go "examine with attention".

Chinese also uses reduplication: 人 rén for "person", 人人 rénrén for "everybody". Japanese does it too: 時 toki "time", tokidoki 時々 "sometimes, from time to time". Both languages can use a special written iteration mark 々 to indicate reduplication, although in Chinese the iteration mark is no longer used in standard writing and is often found only in Calligraphy.

Indo-European languages formerly used reduplication to form a number of verb forms, especially in the preterite or perfect tenses. In the older Indo-European languages, many such verbs survive:

  • spondeo, spopondi (Latin, "I vow, I vowed")
  • λείπω, λέλοιπα (Greek, "I leave, I left")
  • δέρκομαι, δέδορκα (Greek, "I see, I saw"; these Greek examples exhibit ablaut as well as reduplication)
  • háitan, haíháit (Gothic, "to name, I named")

None of these sorts of forms survive in modern English, although they existed in its parent Germanic languages. A number of verbs in the Indo-European languages exhibit reduplication in the present stem rather than the perfect stem: Latin gigno, genui ("I beget, I begat") is a surviving example. Other Indo-European verbs used reduplication as a derivational process; compare Latin sto ("I stand") and sisto ("I remain"). All of these Indo-European inherited reduplicating forms are subject to reduction by other phonological laws.

Recent Finnish slang uses reduplicated nouns to indicate genuinity, completeness, originality and being uncomplicated as opposed to being fake, incomplete, complicated or fussy. It can be thought as compound word formation. E.g. Söin viisi jäätelöä, pullapitkon ja karkkia, sekä tietysti ruokaruokaa. "I ate five choc-ices, a long loaf of coffee bread and candy, and of course food-food". Here, the "food-food" is contrasted to the "junk-food" -- the principal role of food is nutrition, and "junkfood" isn't nutritious, so "food-food" is nutritious food, exclusively.

  • ruoka "food", ruokaruoka "proper food", as opposed to snacks
  • peli "game", pelipeli "complete game",as opposed to a mod
  • puhelin "phone", puhelinpuhelin "phone for talking", as opposed to a pocket computer
  • kauas "far away", kauaskauas "unquestionably far away"

These sorts of reduplicative forms, such as "food-food," are not merely literal translations of the Finnish but in fact have some frequency in contemporary English for emphasising, as in Finnish, an "authentic" form of a certain thing. "Food-food" is one of the most common, along with such a possibilities for "car-car" to describe a vehicle which is actually a car (small automobile) and not something else such as a truck, or "house-house," for a stand-alone house structure as opposed to an apartment, for instance.

In Swiss German, the verbs gah or goh "go", cho "come", la or lo "let" and aafa or aafo "begin" reduplicate when combined with other verbs.

example: Si chunt üse Chrischtboum cho schmücke.
literal translation: she comes our Christmas tree come adorn
translation She comes to adorn our Christmas tree.
example: Si lat ne nid la schlafe.
literal translation: she lets him not let sleep
translation: She doesn't let him sleep.



Common Indo-European

The Proto-Indo-European language used partial reduplication in perfect tense forms of verb roots. This is also present in Ancient Greek, e.g. λύω (I free) => λέλυκα (I have freed).

The Proto-Indo-European word qwqwlós = "wheel" (cfr. Greek Κύκλος, kyklos = "circle") has reduplication, likely for onomatopoeia.

English reduplication

English uses some kinds of reduplication, mostly for informal expressive vocabulary. There are three types:

  • Rhyming reduplications: argy-bargy, arty-farty, boogie-woogie, bow-wow, chock-a-block, claptrap, easy-peasy, eency-weency, fuddy-duddy, fuzzy-wuzzy, gang-bang, hanky-panky, harum-scarum, heebie-jeebies, helter-skelter, herky-jerky, higgledy-piggledy, hobnob, Hobson-Jobson, hocus-pocus, hodge-podge, hoity-toity, hokey-pokey, honey-bunny, hot-pot, hotch-potch, hubble-bubble, hugger-mugger, Humpty-Dumpty, hurdy-gurdy, hurly-burly, hurry-scurry, itsy-bitsy, itty-bitty, loosey-goosey, lovey-dovey, mumbo-jumbo, namby-pamby, nimbly-bimbly, nitty-gritty, nitwit, okey-dokey, pall-mall, palsy-walsy, pee-wee, pell-mell, picnic, razzle-dazzle, righty-tighty, roly-poly, rumpy-pumpy, super-duper, teenie-weenie, teeny-weeny, tidbit, willy-nilly, wingding

Although at first glance "Abracadabra" appears to be an English rhyming reduplication it in fact is not; instead, it is derived from the Aramaic formula "Abəra kaDavəra" meaning "I would create as I spoke")

  • Exact reduplications (baby-talk-like): bonbon, bye-bye, choo-choo, chop-chop, chow-chow, dum-dum, fifty-fifty, gee-gee, go-go, goody-goody, knock-knock, night-night, no-no, pee-pee, poo-poo, pooh-pooh, rah-rah, so-so, tsk-tsk, tuk-tuk, tut-tut, wakey wakey, wee-wee; and, of course, the Hawaiian term, wiki-wiki- meaning fast.

Couscous is not an English example for reduplication, since it is taken from a French word which has a maghrebi origin.

  • Ablaut reduplications: bric-a-brac, chit-chat, criss-cross, dilly-dally, ding-dong, fiddle-faddle, flimflam, flip-flop, hippety-hoppety, kitcat, kitty-cat, knick-knack, mish-mash, ping-pong, pitter-patter, riff-raff, rickrack, riprap, see-saw, shilly-shally, sing-song, snicker-snack, splish-splash, teeny-tiny, teeter-totter, tic-tac-toe, tick-tock, ticky-tacky, tip-top, tittle-tattle, wish-wash, wishy-washy, zig-zag

In the ablaut reduplications, the first vowel is almost always a high vowel and the reduplicated ablaut variant of the vowel is a low vowel. There is also a tendency for the first vowel to be front and the second vowel to be back.

None of the above types are particularly productive, meaning that the sets are fairly fixed and new forms are not easily accepted, but there is another form of reduplication that is used as a deprecative called shm-reduplication (or schm-reduplication) that can be used with most any word; e.g. baby-shmaby or car-shmar. This process comes to American English from Yiddish.

Exact reduplication can be used with contrastive focus (generally where the first noun is stressed) to indicate a literal, as opposed to figurative, example of a noun, or perhaps a sort of Platonic ideal of the noun. This is similar to the Finnish use mentioned above. An extensive list of such examples is found in [1].

More can be learned about English reduplication in Thun (1963), Cooper and Ross (1975), and Nevins and Vaux (2003).

Afrikaans reduplication

Afrikaans regularly utilizes reduplication to emphasize the meaning of the word repeated. For example, krap means "to scratch one's self," while krap-krap-krap means "to scratch one's self vigorously." [2]

Reduplication is not present in Dutch, the parent language of Afrikaans, except in cases of interjections. [citation needed]


Lingua Franca

Common in Lingua Franca, particularly but not exclusively for onomatopoeic action descriptions: "Spagnoli venir...boum boum...andar; Inglis venir...boum boum bezef...andar; Francés venir...tru tru tru...chapar." ("The Spaniards came, cannonaded, and left. The English came, cannonaded heavily, and left. The French came, trumpeted on bugles, and captured it.") [3]


A common use for reduplication in French is the creation of hypocoristics for names, thus Louise becomes Loulou, and Zinedine Zidane becomes Zizou.


In Romanian, reduplication is not uncommon and it has been used for both the creation of new words (including many from onomatopoeia), for example, mormăi, ţurţur, dârdâi, and for expressions, like talmeş-balmeş, harcea-parcea, terchea-berchea, ţac-pac, calea-valea, hodoronc-tronc, or in more recent slang, trendy-flendy.

Slavic languages

Russian language

The reduplication in Russian language serves for various kinds of intensifying of the meaning and exists in several forms: a hyphenated or repeated word (either exact or inflected reduplication), and forms similar to shm-reduplication.


In Turkish, a word can be reduplicated while replacing the initial consonants (not being m, and possibly missing) with m. The effect is that the meaning of the original word is broadened. For example, tabak means "plate(s)", and tabak mabak then means "plates, dishes and such". This can be applied not only to nouns but to all kinds of words, as in yeşil meşil meaning "green, greenish, whatever".

Reduplication in Bantu Languages

Reduplication is a common phenomenon in Bantu languages and is usually used to form a frequentive verb or for emphasis.[4],[5]

  • Example in swahili piga is to strike, "pigapiga" means to strike repeatedly.
  • In Chichewa tambalalá is to stretch ones legs, tambalalá-tambalalá is to do so repeatedly

Popular names that have reduplication include


Adjective reduplication is common in Standard Mandarin, typically denoting emphasis, less acute degree of the quality described, or an attempt at more indirect speech: xiaoxiao de 小小的 (small), chouchou de 臭臭的 (smelly). In case of adjectives composed of two characters (morphemes), each character is reduplicated separately: piaoliang 漂亮 (beautiful) reduplicates as piaopiaoliangliang 漂漂亮亮.

Verb reduplication is also common in Standard Mandarin, conveying the meaning of informal and temporary character of the action. It is often used in imperative expressions, in which it lessens the degree of imperativity: zuozuo 坐坐 (sit (for a while)), dengdeng 等等 (wait (for a while)). Compound verbs are reduplicated as a whole word: xiuxixiuxi 休息休息 (rest (for a while)).

Noun reduplication is found in the southwestern dialect of Mandarin, which is nearly absent in standard Mandarin (Guoyu). For instance, in Sichuan, baobao 包包 (handbag) is used whereas Beijing and Guoyu use bao'r 包儿. However, there are few nouns that can be reduplicated in Standard Mandarin, and reduplication denotes generalisation and uniformity: ren 人 (human being) and renren 人人 (everybody (in general, in common)), jiajiahuhu 家家户户 (every household (uniformly)) - in the latter jia and hu additionally duplicate the meaning of household, which is a common way of creating compound words in Chinese.


A small number of native Japanese nouns have collective forms produced by reduplication (possibly with rendaku). This formation is not productive and is limited to a small set of nouns. Similarly to Standard Mandarin, the meaning is not that of a true plural, but collectives that refer to a large, given set of the same object.

Japanese also contains a large number of mimetic words formed by reduplication of a syllable. These words include not only onomatopoeia, but also words intended to invoke non-auditory senses or psychological states.



Examples of reduplication increasing intensity:

  • đauđau điếng: hurt → hurt horribly
  • mạnhmạnh mẽ: strong → very strong
  • rựcrực rỡ: flaring → blazing

Examples of reduplication decreasing intensity:

  • nhẹnhè nhẹ: soft → soft (less)
  • xinhxinh xinh: pretty → cute
  • đỏđo đỏ: red → somewhat red
  • xanhxanh xanh: blue/green → somewhat blue/green


A number of Nepalese nouns are formed by reduplication. As in other languages, the meaning is not that of a true plural, but collectives that refer to a set of the same or related objects, often in a particular situation.

For example, "rangi changi"* describes an object that is extremely or vividly colorful, like a crazy mix of colors and/or patterns, perhaps dizzying to the eye. The phrase "hina mina" means "scattered," like a large collection of objects spilled (or scampering, as in small animals) in all different directions. The basic Nepalese word for food, "khana" becomes "khana sana" to refer to the broad generality of anything served at a meal. Likewise, "chiya" or tea (conventionally made with milk and sugar) becomes "chiya siya": tea and snacks (such as biscuits or cookies). *Please note, these examples of Nepalese words are spelled with a simplified Latin transliteration only, not as exact spellings.

Malay and Indonesian

In Malay and Indonesian, reduplication of a noun indicates the plural. For example, buku, meaning "book", when reduplicated as buku-buku (also written as buku²) means "books". Another example is anak for child and 'anak-anak' for children.

Reduplication of an adjective is also used to indicate plurality of the corresponding noun. For example: "Rumah di sini besar" means "The house here is big", while "Rumah di sini besar-besar" means "The houses here are big".

Sometimes, reduplication of nouns becomes adjectives in Indonesian. For examples,"om" 'uncle' as in "Gaya Ardi seperti om-om" means 'the Ardi's attitute is like an uncle', "orang-orang" 'people' means 'something like person behaviour'.

Farsi (Persian)

Reduplication is a very common practice in Farsi, to the extent that there are jokes about it. Reduplication is particularly common in the city of Shiraz (SW of the country). One can further categorize the reduplicative words into "True" and "Quasi" ones. In true reduplicative words, both words are actually real words and have meaning in the language in which it is used. In quasi-reduplicative words, at least one of the words does not have a meaning. Some examples of true reduplicative words in Farsi are (using the best my knowledge in phonetics): "Khert-o-Pert" (Odds and ends); "Chert-o-Pert" (Nonsense); "Charand-o-Parand" (animals and birds); "Aab-o-Taab" (much detail). Among the quasi-reduplicative words are "Zan-o-man" (wife); "Daava-Maava" (Argument); "Tala-mala" (jewelry); and "Dari-Vari" (none-sense talk).


Khmer uses reduplication for several purposes, including emphasis and pluralization. Khmer also uses a form of reduplication known as "synonym compounding", in which two phonologically distinct words with similar or identical meanings are combined, either to form the same term or to form a new term altogther.

Reduplicated babbling

During the period 25-50 weeks after birth, all typically developing infants go through a stage of reduplicated or canonical babbling (Stark 198, Oller, 1980). Canonical babbling is characterized by repetition of identical or nearly identical consonant vowel combinations, such as 'nanana' or 'didididi'. It appears as a progression of language development as infants experiment with their vocal apparatus and home in on the sounds used in their native language. Canonical/reduplicated babbling also appears at a time when general rhythmic behavior, such as rhythmic hand banging and rhythmic kicking, appear. Canonical babbling is distinguished from earlier syllabic and vocal play, which has less of a structure.

See also

External links

Look up Reduplication in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


  • Abraham, Roy. (1964). Somali-English dictionary. London, England: University of London Press.
  • Albright, Adam. (2002). A restricted model of UR discovery: Evidence from Lakhota. (Draft version).
  • Alderete, John; Benua, Laura; Gnanadesikan, Amalia E.; Beckman, Jill N.; McCarthy, John J.; and Urbanczyk, Suzanne. (1999). Reduplication with fixed segmentism. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 327-364. (Online version ROA 226-1097 available at
  • Broselow, Ellen; and McCarthy, John J. (1984). A theory of internal reduplication. The linguistic review, 3, 25-88.
  • Cooper, William E.; and Ross, "Háj" John R. (1975). World order. In R. E. Grossman, L. J. San, and T. J. Vance (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism (pp. 63-111). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
  • Dayley, Jon P. (1985). Tzutujil grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Diffloth, Gérald. (1973). Expressives in Semai. In P. N. Jenner, L. C. Thompson, and S. Starsota (Eds.), Austroasiatic studies part I (pp. 249-264). University Press of Hawaii.
  • Fabricius, Anne H. (2006). A comparative survey of reduplication in Australian languages. LINCOM Studies in Australian Languages (No. 03). Lincom. ISBN 3-89586-531-1.
  • Haugen, Jason D. (forthcoming). Reduplicative allomorphy and language prehistory in Uto-Aztecan. (Paper presented at Graz Reduplication Conference 2002, November 3-6).
  • Healey, Phyllis M. (1960). An Agta grammar. Manila: The Institute of National Language and The Summer Institute of Linguistics.
  • Hurch, Bernhard (Ed.). (2005). Studies on reduplication. Empirical approaches to language typology (No. 28). Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-018119-3.
  • Inkelas, Sharon; & Zoll, Cheryl. (2005). Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge studies in linguistics (No. 106). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80649-6.
  • Key, Harold. (1965). Some semantic functions of reduplication in various languages. Anthropological Linguistics, 7 (3), 88-101.
  • Marantz, Alec. (1982). Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 435-382.
  • McCarthy, John J.; and Prince, Alan S. (1986 [1996]). Prosodic morphology 1986. Technical report #32. Rutger University Center for Cognitive Science. (Unpublished revised version of the 1986 paper available online on McCarthy's website:
  • McCarthy, John J.; and Prince, Alan S. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. Beckman, S. Urbanczyk, and L. W. Dickey (Eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: Papers in optimality theory (pp. 249-384). Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Students Association. (Available online on the Rutgers Optimality Archive website:
  • McCarthy, John J.; and Prince, Alan S. (1999). Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In R. Kager, H. van der Hulst, and W. Zonneveld (Eds.), The prosody morphology interface (pp. 218-309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Available online on the Rutgers Optimality Archive website:
  • Moravcsik, Edith. (1978). Reduplicative constructions. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language: Word structure (Vol. 3, pp. 297-334). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Nevins, Andrew; and Vaux, Bert. (2003). Metalinguistic, shmetalinguistic: The phonology of shm-reduplication. (Presented at the Chicago Linguistics Society, April 2003). (Online version:
  • Oller, D. Kimbrough. 1980. The emergence of the sounds of speech in infancy, in Child Phonology Vol. I, edited by G. H. Yeni-Komshian, J. F. Kavanaugh, and C. A. Ferguson. Academic Press, New York. pp. 93–112.
  • Raimy, Eric. (2000). Remarks on backcopying. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 541-552.
  • Rehg, Kenneth L. (1981). Ponapean reference grammar. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.
  • Reichard, Gladys A. (1959). A comparison of five Salish languages. International Journal of American Linguistics, 25, 239-253.
  • Shaw, Patricia A. (1980). Theoretical Issues in Dakota Phonology and Morphology. Garland Publ: New York. pp. ix + 396.
  • Shaw, Patricia A. (2004). Reduplicant order and identity: Never trust a Salish CVC either?. In D. Gerdts and L. Matthewson (Eds.), Studies in Salish linguistics in honor of M. Dale Kinkade. University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 17). Missoula, MT: University of Montana.
  • Stark, Rachel E. (1980). Features of infant sounds: The emergence of cooing. Journal of Child Language. Vol 5(3) Oct 1978, 379-390.
  • Thun, Nils. (1963). Reduplicative words in English: A study of formations of the types tick-tock, hurly-burly, and shilly-shally. Uppsala.
  • Watters, David E. (2002). A grammar of Kham. Cambridge grammatical descriptions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-81245-3.
  • Wilbur, Ronnie B. (1973). The phonology of reduplication. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois).
  1. The Malay Spelling Reform, Asmah Haji Omar, (Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society, 1989-2 pp.9-13 later designated J11)
de:Reduplikation (Sprache)id:Reduplikasino:Reduplikasjon

oc:Redoblament (lingüistica)