Fox-etal2017
| Fox-etal2017 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Fox-etal2017 |
| Author(s) | Barbara A. Fox, Fay Wouk, Steven Fincke, Wilfredo Hernandez Flores, Makoto Hayashi, Minna Laakso, Yael Maschler, Abolghasem Mehrabi, Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Susanne Uhmann, Hyun Jung Yang |
| Title | Morphological self-repair: Self-repair within the word |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Interactional Linguistics, Typology, Repair, Self-repair |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2017 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Studies in Language |
| Volume | 41 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 638-659 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1075/sl.41.3.04fox |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this study we explore patterns of same-turn self-repair within the word, across ten typologically and areally diverse languages. We find universal processes emerging through language-specific resources, namely: recycling is used to delay a next item due, while replacement is used to replace an inappropriate item. For example, most of our languages with prefixes or proclitics recycle those elements to delay production of the root/host, while languages with suffixes tend not to recycle just suffixes without their roots/hosts, since that would not serve to delay the production of the root/host; rather, the whole word is recycled. Replacement of affixes and clitics is rare, regardless of position. We provide several possible explanations for these facts, all based on the nature of replacement.
Notes
