Reduplication in Romance

Romanica Cracoviensia 15 (2015): 30–55
doi: 10.4467/20843917RC.15.003.4000
www.ejournals.eu/Romanica-Cracoviensia
Iwona Piechnik
Jagiellonian University
in Krakow
REDUPLICATIVE SYLLABLES
IN ROMANCE LANGUAGES
ABSTRACT
The article deals with the reduplications in Latin and in Romance languages. While in Latin
there were only reduplications of monosyllables, Romance languages have a lot of polysyllabic
(mostly disyllabic) reduplications. This development could arise due to a bigger expressivity of
vulgar Latin mixed with vernacular languages and to their contacts with other languages:
Germanic (mostly English and German), Celtic, Slavic, Turkic and Hungarian, in which the
polysyllabic reduplication is the most common.
KEY WORDS: reduplication, repetition, doubling, Latin, Romance languages, monosyllables,
polysyllables, syllables.
With a special dedication to Mikołaj kollo
The repetition of sounds occurs in all languages of the world, doubling segments
of audible material: natural sounds and animal cries, but also words and clauses. Of,
course, some languages use it more intensively than the others, e.g. Afro-Asiatic,
Austronesian and Niger-Congo languages have the highest frequency of reduplication
(Štekauer et al. 2012: 323 and passim). At the onomatopoeic level, “it is interesting to
note how often reduplication serves as a common denominator even in cases when
languages disagree in the choice of phonemes” (Anderson 1998: 113). Thus reduplica-
tion is one of the most universal phenomena that we can see in everyday life, e.g. for
learning words by children or expression of diminutive meanings. Also in many
languages, “there are kin terms that are formed by a reduplicative CVCV, CVC or
VCV pattern, such as mama, papa, ata and the like. It appears that this is most com-
mon for parental terms” (Dahl & Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001: 216).
In this study, we would like to analyse the evolution of (semi-)reduplicative or
redundant polysyllabic words in Romance languages by comparison to Latin (classical
and vulgar) and their neighbouring languages. Our aim is to look at a morphonological
process in word-formation: a reduplicated word is a lexicalised unit in language, born
in a euphonious way, a kind of compound, although in general it is neither a combina-
tion of lexemes nor of real morphemes (but we agree with Inkelas and Zoll (2005) that
reduplication results from the repetition of “abstract morphemes” rather than the
phonological copying of a string of segments).
We have to emphasise that reduplication is not a simple repetition, thus we don’t
speak here about irreversible binomials, which are rather simple collocations of words,
or about fortuitous or stylistic repetition of two words or of their parts emphatically
Reduplicative syllables in Romance languages 31
1
(even in stuttering ). The question is not about rhetorical repetitions either: epizeuxis
and anadiplosis. Moreover, there is no question about grammatical patterns, that is:
pluralisation or frequency or gradation in size or intensity, as it occurs in some
languages, especially in Bantu languages in Africa or in Austronesian languages, e.g.
in Rapa Nui, language of Easter Island, in which whole words and initial or final
syllables are duplicated.
Our perspective will only be morphophonemic and prosodic. We put semantic
questions aside, because many studies are mostly focused on meanings in reduplicative
words. For us, the most important relation between such elements is the length of
2
a euphonic, repetitive construction.
Regarding the phenomenon of reduplication, Romance languages have a rather
modest tradition. In European languages, English and German are leaders in the rich
tradition of rhyming compounds (or “rhyming jingles”, according to the term of
Liberman 2009), in particular. This phenomenon is very productive in these languages.
Liberman underlines the emphasis in the creation of rhyming compounds and says, that
the “language is always at play” (ibidem: 55), but also he states: “we cannot know too
much about the origin of such words” (ibidem: 56). So, maybe some languages are at
play more that others? However, tendencies vary in languages:
culturally determined fluctuations in the frequency of allomorphs of special morphemes,
with competitors supported or hampered by secondary semantic-phonetic associations and
with conventionalization of amended reference, have played a role in the rise of redupli-
cation in the history of given languages. This suggestion can be countered with a doctrine of
multiple causation, including iconic or grammatical analogies involving normal morphemes
(Landar 1961: 246).
The reduplication can be of different types. E.g. according to André (1978: 9–10),
we can classify them as follows:
I) total reduplication (as a kind of echo), which appears to be the most common
pattern of reduplication:
1) of a word, e.g.: Fr. bonbon, cucu (written also cucul < cul [ky], Lat. iamiam,
quisquis. André reserves the term “reduplication” only for this type of redoubling.
2) of the word’s root: Fr. murmure, Lat. girgillus, Ital. mamma,
3
II) total reduplication with the variation of an element:
1) consonantal (i.e. rhyming reduplication), e.g. compounds in English (Humpty-
dumpty, hibber-gibber, hotchpotch, hodgepodge, ragbag, super-duper) or in German
(Kuddelmuddel, Schickimicki, Techtelmechtel, Heckmeck, etc.),
2) vocalic (i.e. ablaut reduplication): Lat. cicuta, tuxtax; Eng. chit-chat, mingle-
mangle; also in binomials: odds and ends, bits and bobs,
3) with addition of an initial consonantal element (echo-word): Eng. itsy-bitsy,
Germ. Alerbaler, Rom. aure-maure, Hung. irul-pirul,
1
However, Landar states that “stuttering has something to do with reduplication as a productive
process” (Landar 1961: 246).
2
For a really rich source of information and bibliography, see: http://reduplication.uni-graz.at/.
3
In this point, we do not agree with André; thus in this study, we consider this type as generally
partial reduplication.
32 Iwona Piechnik
III) partial or broken reduplication: Lat. gurges, bilbire, grex, but also in verbal
forms: sisto, pepigi,
IV) tautolological reduplication in asyndetic groups: Lat. purus putus, sanus sartus,
sanus salvus, sator sartor, siccus sobrius, etc., – their elements can exist separately as
independent words.
Reduplicative constructions are omnipresent in languages. The whole words or their
parts are redoubled in almost all languages of the world, but in different proportions
(see a cross-linguistic study by Moravcsik 1978). Some languages have a lot of
redoubled words (English or German), while others do not like such constructions very
much. Of course, because there are different types of reduplication, some languages
prefer their own way to compose new words, cf. Turkic languages (Stachowski 2014)
or North-American languages (Landar 1961).
Some reduplicated compounds became internationalisms, or at least Europeanisms,
e.g. hip-hop, tip-top, ping-pong, mish-mash, zigzag, tick-tack, tam-tam, multikulti, hocus-
pocus, abracadabra, simsalabim, etc. However they do not exist with the same popul-
arity, e.g. mish-mash is found in French as an Anglicism, in German (Mischmasch),
Polish (miszmasz), Czech (mišmaš), Hungarian (mismás), but not in Italian nor Spanish.
Here, we will take a look at reduplication in Romance languages and their Latin
mother.
LATIN
In Latin, reduplication had a few functions:

▪ 1) in grammar (inflection), it served mainly to create preterit (perfective) forms,
and this phenomenon is an archaic Indo-European feature descended from the Proto-
Indo-European perfect (see e.g. Niepokuj 1997: 97, 140). However, Ernout observes,
that Latin forms tended towards simplification by analogy:
Le parfait à redoublement était normal en indo-européen dans les verbes radicaux,
comme le prouve l’exemple du grec et du sanskrit; mais tandis que le grec a développé
cette forme au point de l’étendre aux verbes dérivés, le latin n’en a conservé que des
traces, et encore a-t-il confondu dans un même groupe d’anciens parfaits proprement
dits (type meminī, gr. µέµονα) et des aoristes à redoublement (type tetigī, gr. τεταγών),
primitivement distincts pour le sens comme pour la forme (Ernout 1935: 299).
Thus, let’s compare some verbs in present and in perfect forms with reduplication
(total or partial one): cadō : cecidī, caedō : cecīdī, canō : cecinī, currō : cucurrī, discō :
didicī, dō : dedī, fallō : fefellī, mordeō : momordī (memordī), pangō : pepigī, parcō :
pepercī, pariō : peperī, pēdō : pepēdī, pellō : pepulī, pendeō : pependī, pendō : pependī,
poscō : poposcī, pungō : pupugī, tangō : tetigī, tendō : tetendī, tondeō : totondī, tundō :
4
tutudī.
4
The same phenomenon in Greek, e.g.: λείπω : λέλοιπα, κλέπτω : κέκλοφα, etc.; in Sanskrit, e.g.:
बुध ् (budh): बुबुध ् (bubudh), (śri/çri) : श (śiśri/çiçri), etc.; or in Gothic, e.g. haitan : haihait,
laikan: lailaik, maitan : maimait, etc. For more see Juret 1937: 12–13; Meillet 1917: 138–141
passim; Meillet 1930: 31, 50 passim, Whitney 1950: 222–223, 287n. For Vedic see Hopkins 1893.
In some verbs, double consonantal stems (s + occlusive) were simplified in redupli-

cation (s disappears): scindō : scicidī (< *sci-scid-ī), spondeō : spopondī (< *spo-
spond-ī), stō : stetī (< *ste-st-ī); while sistō : stetī (stitī) is an exception, because of the
reduplication of s in present and of t (in perfect) (see Ernout 1935: 302),
Reduplicative consonants are also in some rare forms in present: bibō : bibī and
dedō : didī.
We can see that in the above forms of simple verbs, only monosyllables are re-
doubled.
Moreover, Latin preferences for simplicity and uniformity tended to reject redupli-
cated verbal forms, especially in prefixed derivatives:
Aussi la langue au cours de son évolution a-t-elle tendu à éliminer le type à redou-
blement dans ces conjugaisons (...). La tendance générale du latin est d’uniformiser les
trois conjugaisons à voyelle longue -āre, -ēre, -īre, la troisième étant conisdérée comme
le réceptacle des archaïsmes et des anomalies.
Le redoublement est réservé aux verbes simples, et tend à disparaître dans les formes
à préverbes, où se sont développés des parfaits analogiques (en -ē-, impēgī en face de
pepigī, en -uī, occinuī en face de cecinī, en -sī, compunxī en face de pupugī). Ces
formes sont issues de *im-pepigī, *oc-cecinī, *compupugī devenus par haplologie (...)
*im-pigī, *oc-cinī, *com-pugī; puis comme ces nouveaux parfaits n’étaient plus suffi-
samment caractérisés, ils ont été remplacés par des formes nouvelles qui emprunteraient
à d’autres types une caractéristique plus nette, d’où impēgī, occinuī, compunxī.
Quelques-uns de ces parfaits sont ensuite passés des composés dans le verbe simple, ce
qui a encore contribué à la disparition du redoublement (Ernout 1935: 300–301).
We can find more examples of such a simplification: spondeō : spopondī, but
5
respondeō : respondī; scindō : scicidī, but abscindō : abscidī, discindō : discidī, etc.
▪ 2) in word formation to create new words, mainly expressing onomatopoeias or
endearment, but also neutral meanings. Moreover, the similar tendency for simplicity is
seen: Latin redoubled only monosyllabic words and onomatopoeias as well as mono-
syllabic parts of words:
Total reduplication
a) whole monosyllabic stems/words: iamiam, quisquis, quoquo, quotquot, tete
(< tu), however this phenomenon occurs quite rarely,
b) onomatopoeic stems, which are often accompanied by an additional element (in
the majority of cases it is a suffix), e.g.: bubulus, cacare, cicindela, cuculus, cucumis,
cucurbita, farfara, furfur, lallo/lallare, mamma, murmur, paparium, pappa, pipio,
pipio/pipiare, pupus, susurrus, quisquiliae, tata, titina, turtur(illa), ulula(re), upupa,
etc.
There are also Latin words from Greek: burburismus < Gr. βορβορισµός, gargari-
sare < Gr. γαργαρίξειν, purpura < Gr. πορφύρα, barbarus < Gr. βάρβαρος, etc., and
have counterparts in other languages, e.g. Sansk. बब र (barbarah) ‘who mumbles, stam-
mers; stranger; barbarian’, etc.
Partial reduplication
a) simple monosyllables: aha, atta, attat, babae, dida, papae, puppa, titta, tuxtax,
5
However, there are some exceptions, e.g. prostō : prostitī.
34 Iwona Piechnik
b) monosyllables as stems with additional segments (mainly suffixes), e.g. balbus,

baubari / baudari, bilbire, buttutti, cicaro, cicuta, drindrio, gurges, gurgulio, hinnire,
6
mamilla, palpari, palpito, papilla, pipo/pipare, pullulare, pupilla, sibilare, titubo, etc.
As we can see, the reduplication occurs in the initial monosyllables that start mainly
with a consonant (except ulula and upupa). Sometimes it is total, sometimes it is partial
(i.e. broken) and contains deformations. In many words, we can find onomatopoeias
(however some of them lost their onomatopoeic character) or imitations (e.g. animals,
artificial sounds, etc.). Some of them belong to spontaneous and childish language or to
conversational interjections (Marouzeau (1946: 341, André 1978).
▪ 3) Besides the reduplication in Latin inflection or word formation, we can mention
a stylistic phenomenon that we can find in some Late Latin literary texts: total repet-
ition of whole words, e.g.: bene bene, bonis bonis, fortis fortis, malum malum, malus
7
malus in Commodianus’ (the 3th–4th c.) writings (Grandgent 1907: 32, § 55) . A similar
phenomenon is used in tautological pairs of alliterative words which, in majority of
cases are isosyllabic and seem rhyming, e.g.: plenius planius, pollens potens, ponte
ponto, purus putus, sanus sartus, siccus sobrius, etc. but there are also irregular
examples: primo postromo, probus pudicus, rex regnum, sacra sacrificia, etc. (see
a large list in Wölfflin 1933). Similar constructions appear even in juridical or
administrative language: manu mancipio, donum datum donatum dedicatumque, or in
invocations: quod felix faustum fortunatumque, in proverbs: mense maio male nubent,
and finally we can mention also the famous phrase: Veni, vidi, vici (Nespoulos 1983:
31–32). Moreover, there is a famous Latin quasi-adverbial construction nolens volens,
which has its English counterpart: willy-nilly. Finally, we have to quote a recent Latin
construction urbi et orbi (the 19th century).
But these expressions cannot be considered as reduplicative compounds. The only
example of polysyllabic repetition that we can classify as a kind of word (functioning
as interjection) is butubatta in Platus’ language and buttubatta by the poet Naevius
who lived in the 3th c., however this “word” is still of unclear origin and seems a play-
ful coinage (see Kruschwitz 2012: 33–34).
Another interesting stylistic tendency was to form parallel series of words: classical
and Late Latin writers preferred semantic, i.e. synonymic repetition, e.g. firma et
stabilis or firmi stabilisque. It mainly concerned adjectives that formed pairs and shared
a similar meaning. This phenomenon still developed in post-Latin world: Robert
Politzer says that the synonymic repetition “is generally characteristic of Late Latin and
early Romance” (Politzer 1961: 487) and that this “device seems to have mushroomed
in the early Middle Ages, where it can be traced through the medieval Latin rhetoric
and texts, as well as the early vernacular literatures” (Politzer 1961: 484). The syn-
onymic repetition occurred not only in literature (e.g. La chanson de Roland, or other
less known texts, cf. Smith 1983, Löfstedt 1976, Vallet 1977), but also in non-literary
texts, such as legal text in which the “binominal style” comes from the “desire to be
6
Marouzeau (1946: 342–343) suggests also that some other words can have onomatopoeic origin,
e.g. calculus, cicatrix, cicer, cincinnus, cucuma, cucumis, curculio, dardana, gingiua, papauter,
tutulus, ueruex, etc., but, of course, their reduplication can be fortuitous. Adams (2007: 538–540)
indicate some regional words, especially ubuppa, which can be an Africanism.
7
This type of repetition occurs mainly in modern Italian, what we will observe below.
exact, (...) even when the second word adds little to the meaning” (Politzer 1961: 486).
The author states that the explanation of the increase of this phenomenon is in
the Germanic-Romance and Latin-Romance bilingualism or quasi-bilingualism which
characterized the linguistic situation of the Romance countries in the centuries preceding
the emergence of written Romance. This bilingualism, which resulted in the acceptance
of Germanic words in Romance languages and the creation of ‘learned’ vocabulary, not
only furnished many of the synonyms used in synonymic repetition, but laid the found-
ation for the effectiveness of such repetition as a stylistic device. (...) Many of the doublets
contain one term which has no direct popular descendant in Romance and must have
been the learned or ‘prestige’ member of the binominal, while the other is continued in
Romance and must have been the popular member, the one that was more widely
understood and carried the real meaning of the phrase (Politzer 1961: 487).
Moreover, we can call Romans very conservative as far as their language form is
concerned. We know that Latin language games were very limited: they were rather
stylistic than morphological:
D’abord les jeux de langage et les manipulations verbales sont moins développés
dans la Rome antique qu’auparavant en Grèce (...) De nombreux types de jeux n’existent
pas en latin (ainsi la contrepèterie), et souvent ceux qui existent n’ont pas de dénomina-
tion propre, preuve qu’ils ne sont pas bien reconnus.
Ensuite ces jeux de langage interviennent principalement dans les vers, ce qui
s’explique, sans doute, par le fait que le rythme du vers possède pour une oreille latine,
même peu cultivée, une valeur incantatoire dont nous n’avons plus guère idée. D’autre
part, de tout temps la virtuosité formelle s’exprime de préférence dans le cadre métrique.
(Wolff 2001 : 333)
Romans were focused on aestheticism and order, even in a language. Words were
used more like vehicles for the meaning that had importance as the famous (rhyming!)
proverb stated: omen omen. Words carried a powerful meaning, and Romans seemed
very superstitious about this side of the language, which they kept with precaution: “la
valeur d’exorcisme de la répétition de sonorités allitératives et de syllabes identiques
est bien attestée dans la magie” (Wolff 2001: 330). Of course, in some texts, one can
find a few examples of the compound adjectives, constructed on the basis of the Greek
model, but generally, the world of words remained intact:
Il apparaît que les Romains sont plutôt réfractaires au ludisme verbal gratuit (...). En
revanche, ils ne répugnent pas à dépasser la fin assignée en premier lieu aux lettres et
aux mots, quand la chose se justifie ou s’explique. Ils admettent notamment qu’un
énoncé ait plusieurs niveaux de signification, et c’est même là une des bases des craintes
supersticieuses (Wolff 2001 : 334).
This attitude explains why Latin preferred to play with phrases or, better, with
verses and metrics, but not with single words or morphemes as meaningful units. As far
as Latin word-formation is concerned, only monosyllables were reduplicated. Some-
times, mainly in poetry, whole disyllabic words were occasionally redoubled, however
they did not constitute of lexicalised items. Of course, the so called “Vulgar Latin”
which existed in many versions in different social and geographical places seems less
36 Iwona Piechnik
8
restricted and “mathematical” . Now we can see different blends of Latin and local
substrates in Romance languages that show interesting tendencies on the matter.
9
ROMANCE LANGUAGES
■ FRECH
Some of the reduplicated segments are children’s words or repeated onomatopoeias
expressing iterative meanings. Here, we quote not only words, but also adverbial
idioms that have already been lexicalised.
Monosyllables
a) total reduplication: baba, barbare, bébé, bibi, blabla(bla), bobo, bonbon, boui-
10
boui, caca, cancan , chichi, chouchou, coco, coin-coin, concon, coucou, couscous,
cracra, cricri, crincrin, cucul, cui-cui, dada, dare-dare, dodo, dondon, doudou, fifi,
flafa, flonfon, foufou / fofolle, froufrou, gaga, glinglin, glouglou, gnangnan, gnognot,
gogo, grigri, hip-hip, jojo, joujou, kifkif, kiki, lolo, loulou, lulu, mémé, mimi, murmure,
nana, néné, nénette, nounou, ouah ouah, passe-passe, pin-pon, pioupiou, papa, pépé,
pépée, pipi, planplan, pompon, pousse-pousse, quinquin, ronron, sosot, sou-sou, tac-
tac-tac, tam-tam, tchin-tchin, tata, teuf-teuf, titi, tintin, toc-toc, tonton, toto, touche-
touche, toutou, train-train, tran-tran, très-très, trou-trou, tsoin-tsoin, tutu, yéyé, you-
you, zizi, zinzin, zozo, yéyé, yoyo, youyou, etc.
We can also mention a rhyming adverbial idiom: (à la) saint-glinglin, although its
monosyllables are not symmetrically set up.
In many cases, for onomatopoeic use, these redoubled segments represent iterative
sounds. Other segments have rather diminutive meanings, but also they may decrease
the strength of the full form of an adjective, e.g. foufou ‘light-headed’ < fou ‘mad’
(Morin 1972: 98), or to intensify the meaning, e.g. très-très ‘very-very’ < très ‘very’.
In the majority of these examples, syllables are open. Indeed, Pohl (1964–1965:
216) observes: “Les mots français formés d’une seule double syllabe fermée sont peu
nombreux et plusieurs d’entre eux sont d’origine étrangère”, e.g. French kifkif (kif-kif)
from Arabic (‘like-like’ or ‘as-as’).
The class of reduplicated monosyllables (“echo-words’) is open and very productive
in French, mostly in colloquial language. We have to note also, that monosyllabic total
reduplication is very productive in French childish language as well as in slang (argot),
which often uses apocope and aphaeresis, e.g.: coco < communiste, cracra < crasseux,
8
Carnoy (1917b), describing the reduplication of consonants in Vulgar Latin (a spontaneous and
emphatic phenomenon which occurred very often in this language), states: “we thus have reasons to
believe that Vulgar Latin was very creative and very emotional, as is, after all, generally the case with
popular languages” (Carnoy 1917b: 47). Similar observations are in Meillet (1928: 166–169 and
Juret 1937: 13–14). These tendencies to expressivity of Vulgar Latin flourished in early Romance
languages and are still visible in modern Romance languages, although rather in pronunciation (see
for French: Frei 2011 (1929), and for Italian: Spitzer 1922).
9
Here, we do not distinguish variants of Romance languages and their dialects.
10
In the meaning ‘danse’ it comes from Fr. canard ‘duck’. In the meaning ‘rumours, gossip’ it
comes directly from Lat. quanquam ‘although’ – almost exactly reduplicated word which became
perfectly reduplicated in French.
dicdic < indicateur de police, fanfan < enfant, gengen < argent, leurleur < contrôleur,
ziczic < musique, zonzon < prison, etc.
b) total reduplication with an additional element: bébête, bibine, béni-oui-oui,
bobonne, Bubul, cacarder, chochotte, cocotte, fifille, gnognotte, mémère, mimique,
moumoune, moumoute, mumuche, nanar, nounours, nénette, papaphar, pépère,
pépette, popote, popotin, poupoule, quéquette, raplapla, riquiqui, rococo, rototo,
11
scrogneugneu, tacatac, tête-à-tête, tétère, tralala, tuture, zézayer, zozoter, etc.
Some of the reduplications are of onomatopoeic origin, while others are one
redoubled word in order to represent a symmetrical movement or symmetrical relation.
The Latin tradition to repeat monosyllables is continued: sometimes whole words
(bonbon < bon, nounours < [un] ours), but in the majority of cases these redoubled
monosyllables (alone or with an additional element) come from initial syllables, e.g.
dodo < dormir, joujou < jouer/jouet, pipi < pisser, in childish language; rarely from
final syllables, e.g. toto < auto.
This phenomenon of the monosyllabic reduplication occurs also very often in French
culture in affectionate language among relatives and friends in order to create dimi-
nutive, hypocoristic forms. It can be the total reduplication, e.g. jojo < joli ‘pretty’, fifi
< fils ‘son’, or with an additional element and this type is very productive, e.g.: fifille
< fille ‘daughter’, etc. Scullen (2002) states that the first reduplicated syllabe is open:
C(C)V, but the second can take a consonant. The author gives also rare (hardly known)
examples: gégé < général, gnéegnée < araignée, phantphant < éléphant, soso < socia-
liste, titi < artilleur, and baballe < balle, gogomme < gomme, jujupe < jupe, popomme
12
< pomme, siesiette < assiette, tatasse < tasse, véverre < verre, etc.
The same in first names: Cri-cri/Chrichri < Christine, Jojo < Joseph, Lili < Liliane,
Lulu < Lucien, Mimi < Michel, Fifi < Philippe, etc. And it may also occur with middle
or final syllables, e.g. Bébert < Albert/Gilbert, Dédé < André, Gégène < Eugène, Lo-
lotte < Charlotte, Titine < Christine, Toto < Antoine, anard < Bernard, ini < Véro-
13
nique, etc. (for more examples, see e.g. Plénat 1984, 1991, 1999). Diez (1851: 398)
noted in French dialects such examples of diminutives mostly in the first syllables:
Babarpe < Barbara, Bébéle < Isabelle, Chachale < Charles, Dédéfe < Joseph, fréfrére
14
< frère, cocoche < cochon, boboche < bosse, etc.
c) partial reduplication (exchange of vowel or consonant): bim-bam(-boum), clic-
clac, cocu, cric-crac, cric-croc, dodu, flic-flac, flic-floc, fric-frac, maman, micmac,
nanan, pêle-mêle, pif-paf(-pouf), pique-nique, ric-rac, tic-tac, tirelire, trictrac, vau-
l’eau, zigzag, etc. Some of them exist only in derivative forms: chuchoter, roucouler,
zinzinuler, etc.
11
In the examples like bébête, mémère, pépère and véverre, the reduplication is not quite total,
because of the difference between é [e] and ê/è [ε], but here we consider them equally.
12
Scullen (2002: 184) notices also an interesting thing: fils ‘son’ > fifi, but not *fifis, although
fille ‘daughter’ > fifille. Similarly: frère ‘brother’ cannot undergo reduplication (*fréfrère).
13
The second productive way to create hypocoristic forms of first names is apocope. They are
mostly disyllabic, e.g. Domi < Dominique (see Plénat & Solares Huerta 2006). However, mono-
syllabic apocopated forms occur rarely in French, but very often in English.
14
Diez points out that such diminutive forms do not occur in Italian and Spanish. However we
can find them in Portuguese, what we will see below.
38 Iwona Piechnik
d) partial reduplication with and additional element: bric-à-brac, cancaner, hallali,

papouille, patapouf, patatras, rantanplan, ratatouille, ric-à-rac, tatine, tatouille, etc.
Polysyllables
a) total reduplication: areu areu, guili-guili, gouzi-gouzi, train-train,
15
b) partial reduplications: bredi-breda, cahin-caha, charivari, couci-couça, mamie/
mammy, méli-mélo, papi/papy, patati-patata, prêchi-prêcha, taratata, tati/tatie, tohu-
bohu, etc.
Darmesteter (1894: 236) says that dialects in France are very rich in such form-
ations and he gives examples from West-North: bari-bara, bouli-boula, bourin-boura,
bredique-bredoque, mochi-mora, rif-raf, ni rim ni ram, berdif-berdouf-berdaf, etc.
We can find a few borrowings: coco, hip-hop, papaye, patate, ping-pong, tam-tam,
tchin-tchin, tohu-bohu, tsé-tsé, yéyé, yoyo, youyou, fifty-fifty, etc.
Some reduplicative stems also occur in derivation (sometimes without original
reduplicated combination): boubouler, cocotter, susurrer (< Lat.), ululer (< Lat.),
zézayer, zozoter, etc.
Reduplicated polysyllables (mostly disyllabic) are in French quite numerous and
developed rather independently from Latin. Probably, it occurred thanks to the Germanic
influence and language games in literature in the 15th–16th centuries (especially
Rabelais whose vivid and rhyming neologisms are famous).
Let’s note that in French, like in other Romance languages, some words are
repeated in order to represent a gradation in time, e.g. grand-grand-père, arrière-
arrière-grand-père, avant-avant-hier, après-après-demain, etc. These words can not
only be redoubled, but also repeated many times.
In the partial reduplication of monosyllables and polysyllables, we can often see an
16
apophony i-a (e.g. flic-flac, patati-patata). This alternation is visible in other
Romance languages and, in general, in Indo-European languages (see Pohl 1964–1965,
17
Diez 1851, Grammont 1970, Carnoy 1917a).
Sometimes whole words are repeated, but this phenomenon is syntactical, e.g. ami
ami, joli joli, copain copain, donnant donnant, moitié moitié, vite vite, etc. These pairs
are not lexicalised, so it is simply a syntactical (or rather stylistic) repetition; hence we
don’t call it reduplication.
In French, there are also rhyming binomials, which are rather monosyllabic: comme
que comme, coûte que coûte, du tac au tac, les tops et les flops, au fur et à mesure. Or
not quite as rhyming, but still monosyllabic: ses cliques et ses claques, peu ou prou, etc.
■ SPAISH
About Spanish reduplicative words, we have an excellent study by Paul M. Lloyd
(1966) who was probably the pioneer in this subject. See also Rodríguez Guzmán (2011),
who quotes a lot of onomatopoeic combinations, some of them became lexicalized
15
It is interesting, that it comes from Latin caribaria ‘headache’, and this from Greek.
16
This alternation occurs often also in binomials, e.g.: deci delà, deçà delà, par-ci par-là, etc.
But other alternations are possible too, e.g. de bric et de broc. Sometimes, we can also observe a trio:
i-a-u, e.g. bim-bam-boum ou pif-paf-pouf.
17
Carnoy (1917a) tried to show a phonosymbolic value of such vocalic alternations still in
Vulgar Latin.
words (Rodríguez Guzmán 2011: 130), which we will also quote here. The Spanish
inventory of repetitive words is very rich.
Monosyllables
a) total reduplication: borbor, chachachá, chocho, chun-chun, cucú, guagua,
ronrón, runrún, tic-tic, tran-tran, trun-trun, trus-trus, tuntún, yuyu, zunzún, etc.
b) partial reduplication: chischás, chucho, cuco, flim flam, flin-flon, gago, lelo,
memo, pimpampum, rinrán, ris-rás, tamtan, tictac, zazo, zigzag, etc.
c) with an additional element: gárgara, pelele, retintín, telele, etc.
Here, we have to mention also hypocoristic forms of the first names that we can
classify under three types: 1) total reduplication (Coco < Socorro, Meme < Mercedes,
ana < Susana, Viví < David, etc.), 2) partial reduplication, which is the most popular
(Checho/Queco < Sergio, Lela < Adela, Memo < Guillermo, Tita < Cristina, Tuto
< Arturo/Augusto, etc.), 3) with an additional element at the end (Pipina < Josefina,
etc.). For more examples, see Plénat 2003.
Some monosyllabic repetitions of onomatopoeic origin occur mostly or only in
derived words, e.g. cacarear, cuchichear, borbotar, murmurar, ronronear, tartamudear.
They can be total or partial.
Polysyllables
a) total reduplication: bullebulle, chano chano, correcorre, gorigori, picapica,
riqui-rriqui, roco-roco, taca-taca, tampa-tampa, tapa-tapa, tepe-tepe, tucu-tucu,
zápele-zápele, zarra-zarra.
b) partial reduplication: ajilimójili, china-chana, chipa-chapa, chipichape, chipli-
chapla, chípala-chápala, chirlo-mirlo, gila-jala, pichí-pichá, recotín-recotán, regulín-
regulán, rifa-rafa, rifarrafa, rifirrafe, ringo-rango/ringorrango, riquirraque, socoquín-
sococán, tambarimba, timbirimba, tipa-tapa, tipi-tapa, típili-tápala, tiqui-taca, tiquis-
18
miquis , trica-traca, trícala-trácala, trípala-trápala, trípali-trápala, triqui-traque,
trochemoche, zímbili-zámbala, zimpi-zampa, zimpli-zampla, zipizape, zíquirri-zácarra,
19
zirri-zarra, zírripi-zárrapa, zírriqui-zárraca, zirrís-zarrás, zurdiburdi , zurdiburi,
zuriburdi, zurriburri, zurriburu.
c) with an additional element at the beginning or between two “pairs” which lose
20
their “mirror image”, according to Lloyd, e.g.: chá(n)-charas-máncharas, ciquiricata ,
erre-que-erre, rembambaramba, rongacatonga, teque-que-teque, tetelememe, tintirintín,
trícolo-traco, zagalagarda, etc.
Lloyd quotes also a few words found in Aragon and Navarre. They are based
mostly on independent morphemes and have two suffixes (diminutive + verbal): tontín-
tonteando, malín-maleando (or malimalaindo), garri-garreando, cojín-cojeando (or
coji-cojeando).
Moreover, we can find a lot of polysyllabic reduplications in Spanish riddles, e.g.
“Tínguili-tínguili, está arriba, tóngolo-tóngolo, está abajo, si tínguili-tínguili se cayera,
tóngolo-tóngolo se lo comiera” (Serna 2001: 40).
18
From Lat. tibi mihi, with a suffixoid -s.
19
This word and three others are probably related to the Basque zurruburru, „but even here an
expressive origin is possible” (Lloyd 1966: 139).
20
Lloyd assumes that it can be a mixture of cirimonia and acato.
40 Iwona Piechnik
As we can see, the commonest reduplication in Spanish is polysyllabic and contains

the i-a alternation (that occurs in other Romance and Indo-European languages). Some
reduplicative polysyllables have variants with the endings -li/-la, -pi/-pa, -qui/-ca. An
exact rhyme is not very important nor alternation of the initial consonant. Lloyd (1966:
140) points out that in Spanish reduplicative words, the “consonants favored” are the
voiceless occlusives /p, t, k/, the affricate /č/ and the vibrants /r/ (short and long variants).
In Spanish, there are also syntactic repetitions, that we can call simply reduplic-
21
ations, because they appear occasionally, e.g. guapa-guapa, café-café, días y días,
libros y libros, dale que dale, anda que te anda, or the type of verbal antepositions:
entender, entiendo o saberlo, lo sabe, etc. (see Escandell Vidal 1991: 72–78).
Moreover, in Spanish we can find a lot of binomials (also called “twins”). They
rhyme completely, e.g. oro y moro, oxte y moxte, su alma en su palma (see Morawski
1927, 1929, 1937); or partially with the frequent alternation i-a, e.g.: aquí-acá, allí-
allá, así o asá, caco y cuco, de pe a pa, del tingo al tango, del timbo al tambo, de la
Ceca a la Meca, ni fu ni fa, por aquí y por allá, etc. They are probably more numerous
than in French. Most of them are polysyllabic.
22
Finally, we also have to mention a phenomenon typical for Spanish: jitanjáfora
– a kind of nonsense utterance with word-play, where reduplications, alliterations and
assonances occur very often. The meaning is not so important (in most cases, words are
neologisms without a precise semantic background), because the main role is for
euphonious combinations of sounds. It can be compared to the poem Jabberwocky by
Lewis Carroll. For more, see Eguren Gutiérrez (1987).
■ CATALA
Monosyllables
23
a) total reduplication : bobò, boi-boi, bub-bub, bum-bum, but-but, cloc-cloc, coco
(< onclo), coc-coc, fofo, fru-fru, gloc-gloc, gluc-gluc, gug-gug, iaia (< àvia), mama,
mèu-mèu, ning-ning, nono, nonó, non-non, nyam-nyam, nyau-nyau, nyec-nyec, nyeu-
nyeu, nyic-nyic, oi-oi, papa, papà (< French papa), pipi, pipí, piu-piu, pom-pom, quic-
quic, rau-rau, rum-rum, taf-taf, tam-tam, tatà, tau-tau, toc-toc, txutxú, viu-viu, xau-
xau, xim-xim, xiuxiu, xup-xup, zing-zing, zub-zub, zum-zum, etc.
b) partial reduplication: caco, coca, clic-cloc, cric-crac, cuca, dida, flist-flast, fofo,
lelo, ning-nang, nyanyo, nyenyo, nyonya, papu, pupa, pif-paf, pim-pam, ping-pong,
popa, tic-tac, tric-trac, trip-trap, tris-tras, xip-xap, xuixo, zig-zag, zim-zam, zis-zas, etc.
Most of them are of onomatopoeic origin. However, there are also a lot of hypocoristics:
conco < onclo, tates < sabates, teta < germaneta, etc. (see Cabré Monné 2002: 912).
c) partial reduplication with an additional element: babau, cacau, cocou, cricric,
cucut, frifrit, gadagang, nonou, nyanyo, nyonya, patapam, pataplaf, pataplam, puput,
quiquic, titit, titiu, tutut, etc. Maybe, we can include in this section also: badabam,
21
Above, we could see a similar construction in French, it exists also in Portuguese, but we can
find the same phenomena abundantly in Italian (see below).
22
The word was invented by Mariano Brull (1891–1956), a Cuban poet whose main interest was
to play with words and their sounds.
23
We do not differentiate vowels: a-à, o-ò, o-ó, u-ù, i-í.
barrabum, catacrac, catacloc, catatxoc, marrameu, pataplof, patapuf, patapum, pata-

trap, patatxaf, etc. (Cabré Monné 2002: 915–916), but in these examples it’s difficult
to discern a real reduplication (except vowels in the majority of cases): they are rather
prefixed onomatopoeias (cata-, pata-, etc.).
Moreover, like in French, in Catalan there are symmetrical lexicalised adverbial
idioms: de bo de bo, a poc a poc, fet i fet, etc. Their elements are monosyllabic that
become more expressive, when they are repeated in polysyllabic combinations.
Also, first names in hypocoristic forms are reduplicated monosyllables (which have
been truncated from an original full form): ina < Caterina, oni < Jeroni, Quico
< Cisco, Toti < Jordi, etc., as some others can be only monosyllabic: Pep < Josep, Quic
< Frederic, non < son, etc.
Polysyllables
a) total reduplication: bitllo-bitllo, catxoc-catxoc, cricric-cricric, elis-elis, gara-
gara, gori-gori, leri-leri, nyigo-nyigo, passa-passa, pica-pica, poti-poti, ringo-rango,
tol·le-tol·le, xano-xano, etc.
b) partial reduplication: badabim-badabam, balandrim-balandram, banzim-ban-
zam, baliga-balaga, barliqui-barloqui, barrija-barreja, barrim-barram, barrip-barrop,
barrija-barreja, cataclic-catacroc, catacric-catacrec, catric-catrac, catric-catrec, cori-
mori, corre-corrents, farrigo-farrago, garranyiu-garranyau, nyigui-nyogui, patim-
patam, patapim-patapam, patatim-patatam, patrip-patrap, patxip-patxap, pengim-
penjam, xerric-xerrac, xino-xano, xirimiri, ziga-zaga, etc.
As far as the reduplication with an addition element is concerned, Cabré Monné
(2002: 911) says that it occurs mainly in folk tales, placing it among syntactical occur-
rences. She quotes two sentences with examples: camina que caminaràs, balla que
balla.
Finally, we have to mention that the purely syntactic repetition occurs in Catalan
too: repeated words are rather polysyllabic: treballa treballa, bonica bonica, fusta fusta
(Cabré Monné 2002: 911).
In Catalan, polysyllables are quite numerous. The frequency of the alternation i-a is
similar to Spanish, French and other languages.
■ PORTUGUESE
Monosyllables
a) total reduplication: baba, babá, bebé, bobo, bobô, bombom, bumbum, caca, cai-
cai, chacha, chachachá, chichi, chocho, coco, cocó, dada, dadá, dóidói, fifi, gogo,
gogó, iaiá, ioió/ioiô, loló, mama, miau-miau, momo, múrmur, nana, papa, papá, pépé,
pipi, piu-piu, põe-põe, pópó, rói-rói, tatá, tau-tau, teté, titi, tintim, titi, totó, tutu,
vavavá, vóvó, vuvu, xexé, xixi, zão-zão, etc. Most of them are of onomatopoeic origin
or are the initial syllables of words serving as points of departure in familiar or childish
language. For more examples of this type and others see a rich Brazilian corpus and
study by Melo de Castro et al. 2001.
Diminutive forms of first names are based on monosyllables too: Cacá < Carlos,
Cici < Cecília, Didi < Benedita/Waldir, Dudu < Eduardo, Janjão < João, Lili < Alice,
Lulu < Luís, Mimi < Emília, Vavá < Valter, Zeze/Zezinho < José, etc. They can be
initial, internal or final.
42 Iwona Piechnik
In childish language, we can find the reduplication of internal syllables: mimi

< dormir, nhanhá < sinhá, nhonhô < senhor, or final ones, e.g. vovó/vovô < avó, etc.
Also with phonetic modifications and the very popular diminutive suffix: dindinho
< padrinho.
b) total reduplication with an addition element: murmúrio, sussurro, sururu, etc.
c) partial reduplication: chinfrim, gagão, mamãe, pepa, zunzum, etc.
d) partial reduplication with an additional element: cicio, farfalha, papai, etc.
Polysyllables: only total reduplication: agarra-agarra, bate-bate, beija-beija, bole-
bole, bule-bule, canta-canta, cheira-cheira, coça-coça, corre-corre, corrói-corrói,
empurra-empurra, esconde-esconde, esfrega-esfrega, fecha-fecha, fede-fede, foge-
foge, gile-gile, gira-gira, lambe-lambe, leva-leva, lufa-lufa, luze-luze, marche-marche,
mata-mata, mela-mela, mexe-mexe, mija-mija, murre-murre, oba-oba, pega-pega,
pisca-pisca, pinga-pinga, pula-pula, puxa-puxa, quebra-quebra, range-range, raspa-
raspa, reco-reco, rela-rela, rema-rema, roça-roça, rola-rola, ruge-ruge, serra-serra,
teco-teco, tange-tange, ticotico, tiquetique, treme-treme, troca-troca, vira-vira, zirra-
zirra, etc. Many of these words are in use mostly in Brazil: they come from verbs (e.g.
empurrar, esfregar, fugir, mexer, rugir, pegar, quebrar, etc.) in the form of the 3d pers.
sing. in the indicative. Note that they are reduplicated disyllables (the 2d syllable is
24
always open) which, in this new form, become nouns (in neutral register). This
derivational process is typically Brazilian and is very lively and productive (see Couto
1999 and Araújo 2002). However one has to admit the possibility that Brazilian
Portuguese has a stronger tendency to creolization under the influence of Indian and
African languages (see e.g. Araújo 2002: 80).
There are no examples of partial reduplication with polysyllables!
Moreover, there are also reduplicative borrowings (repeated monosyllables, in the
majority of cases) that come mainly from French: cancã (< Fr. cancan), chuchu
(< Fr. chouchou), gagá (< Fr. gaga), lulu (< Fr. loulou), mamã (< Fr. maman), papá
(< Fr. papa), pingue-pongue (< Eng. ping-pong), pompom (< Fr. pompon), tiquetaque
(< Fr. tic-tac), ziguezague (< Fr. zigzag), etc.
And let’s mention a tendency to use binomials of monosyllabic verbs with the
adverb of negation: és-não-és, vai-não-vai, sai-não-sai, etc.
Finally, we can say that in general, in European Portuguese, the most common
reduplication is monosyllabic, and in Brazilian Portuguese it is polysyllabic.
■ ITALIA
In Italian, the most common reduplication is initial, but also internal:
Monosyllables, mainly with additional elements:
a) total reduplication: arzigogolare, chicchiarata, chicchiari, cicisbeo, cucuma,
cucuzza, peperone, pipistrello, riboboli, etc.
b) partial reduplication: chiacchierata, chiacchiere, torototela, torototà, etc.
Already in the so called macaronic Latin (mixing medieval and Renaissance Italian
with Vulgar Latin), we can find a lot of examples of monosyllabic reduplication: tich
24
Let’s note also that of course, in Portuguese, like in other Romance languages, the epizeuxis
(syntactic repetition) is very frequent too, e.g.: lindo lindo ‘very beautiful’, rico rico ‘very rich’, etc.
toch, buf bof, squarquarare, cicigare, tichi tich tichi toch, day day, bau bau, qua qua,
cro cro, cu cu, che che, gnao gnao, be be, mucchiacchia, bre bre, etc. (see more in
Paoli 1959).
Polysyllables: total reduplication: arraffa arraffa, battibatti, bolli bolli, cammina
cammina, ciappa ciappa, compra compra, copia copia, corricorri, firma-firma, fuggi-
fuggi, leccalecca, mangia mangia, parla-parla, piangi piangi, pigia pigia, piglia piglia,
ruba ruba, scappa scappa, scozza-scozza, serra serra, spara spara, spendi spendi,
spingi spingi, stringi stringi, tira tira, vendi vendi, etc. All these quoted words are
action nouns created on the basis of repeated verbal forms which lose their syntactic
character being lexicalized. Anna M. Thornton (2008, 2009, 2010) assumes that these
repeated forms in Italian are “descriptive imperatives” (or “narrative imperatives”) in
“metaphorical usage”. Following Spitzer’s (1951–1952) observations, Thornton states
that often “instances of descriptive imperative are commands or exhortations used to
direct sailing or battlefield maneuvers” (Thornton 2009: 237). These constructions
have been attested already in the quotations of Neapolitan speech in the 15th century.
Such words can be written as a single word or with a hyphen, but most of them have
a blank space between. These Italian lexical constructions having syntactic origins are
exceptional in Romance languages and are certainly a post-Latin invention that appears
occasionally.
Besides Italian, we can take a look at various dialects in Italy:
Diez (1851) quotes quite exactly total reduplication of monosyllables: babà, bibì,
bobò, brobrò, bubù, buba, boba, gogò, lolò, loulou, popò, etc., and only a few of
partially redoubled polysyllables, e.g. gnignóon-gnignera, lillóon-lillera, ruffa-raffa,
tippe-tappe, etc.
Pohl (1964–1965: 213–214) analysed reduplicative words in a dictionary of one of
the Italian dialect of Salentin in the Terra d’Otranto. He found there:
▪ monosyllables in total reduplication: pi-pi-pi, piu-piu, prr-prr, pućć-pućć, pus-
pus, etc.
▪ polysyllables in total reduplication: papapapa, papuddi-papuddi, pare-pare, pèri-
pèri, pèzzi-pèzzi, pinguli-pinguli, pipi-pipi, pirrudi-pirrudi, pisse-pisse, pizzica-pizzica,
prefatte-prefatte, pucia-pucia, pusa-pusa, pussi-pussi, etc.
There are no partial reduplications here! Everything is very symmetrical. The
explanation of this phenomenon is that people remaining closer to nature, use
reduplication more often and more abundantly than others, so rural dialects in the
country use generally more ludic vocabulary (Pohl 1964–1965: 214). We can see it, for
example, in many African languages and other languages, which are spoken in not yet
very industrialized societies.
Finally, as far as Italian is concerned, in this language a lot of repetitions are
emphatic occasional constructions, not lexicalized words. Besides fortuitous rhymes in
such expressions like tutti frutti, we can distinguish two types of non-morphological
repetitions in Italian: “syntactic reduplication” (juxtapositional repetition of words for
different purposes, especially for intensification or diminution, e.g. bella bella ‘very
beautiful’) and “clausal reduplication” (repetition of clausal parts or of whole clauses).
They can be ranged among syntactic-pragmatic means of expression. Their main pur-
pose is to intensify interactions. It seems that both types express Italian emotionality.
44 Iwona Piechnik
We do not take it into account in this study, but we have to emphasise that the range of
this phenomenon is the largest in the Italian communication culture, more frequent in
the South than in the North of Italy (see Rainer 1983, Wierzbicka 1986 & 1991, Dress-
ler & Merlini Barbaresi 1994).
■ ROMAIA
In Romanian, reduplication seems a weak feature. Most of the indigenous repet-
itions (words or adverbial idioms) are of onomatopoeic origin. Except well known
internationalisms ping-pong and tam-tam, there are also quite numerous reduplicative
borrowings, in the majority of cases they come from Turkic, but also Bulgarian or
Modern Greek.
Monosyllables
Total reduplication: baba, cioc-cioc, fîş-fîş, ham-ham, ham-hám, mama, papa, pîş-
pîş, tam-tam, ţîr-ţîr, ţurţur, etc.
Total reduplication with an additional element: chichineaţă, chichirez, chichiţă, cinci,
ciuciulete, cocoş, get-beget, guguş, haide-hai, lemn-nelemn, şoşon, titirez, toto-dată,
tutui, tutuială, tutuire, tutun, tutunărie, tutungerie, tutungiu, ţâţâi, ţâţâit, ţâţână, ţinţi, etc.
Sometimes these supplements are combined with nouns: chichivară, ţiţivară, ciuciucîlţ,
etc. Ciobanu and Hasan (1970) call such combinations “interjections + substantives”.
Partial reduplication: aţâţat, buba, ceac-pac (< Tc. çatpal), cîr-mîr, dârdâi, hîr-mîr,
hîrţ-scîrţ, huiduí, măr-păr, ping-pong, sus-pus, tic-tac, ţac-pac, ţarţam, ţilp-ţalp, etc.
Partial reduplication with an additional element: chiţivară, ţinţivară, etc.
Polysyllables
Total reduplication: icrî-icri, nani-nani, scîrţa-scîrţa, scîrţai-scîrţai.
Total reduplication with an additional element: aure-maure.
Partial reduplication: calea-valea, cerceii-babei, chichiri-michiri, chirchiriţă-mir-
chiriţă, cigă-migă, cinci-opinci, ciugurele-mugurele, dinum-danum, gîrâ-mîră halea-
balea, halea-malea, harababură, handra-mandra, hara-para, harcea-parcea, hurduz-
burdúz, hurduf-burdúf, icru-icrî, mărac-sărac, mierte-fierte, nitam-nisam / (ne)tam-
nesam, sărac-mărac, sărata-murata, serta-ferta, sorcova-morcova, şahăr-mahăr, tace-
face, trapa-leapa, talmeş-balmeş, ţangăr-mangăr, techer-mecher, terchea-berchea,
terică-merică, tiriş-grăpiş, treanca-fleanca, treancă-fleancă, trendy-flendy, tura-vura,
turturea-guguşea, etc.
We did not find examples of the partial reduplication with an additional element,
however in hypocoristic names of characters in fairy tales, we can see a lot of rhyming
forms which are often asymmetrical because of supplementary syllables, e.g.: Chira-
Chiralina, Kyra Kyralina / Kira Kiralina (novel by Panait Istrati and film), Iniia-Diniia,
Riţa-Veveriţa, Rujalina-Lina, Sanda-Lucsandra, Stan-Bolovan, Tic-Pitic, etc.
There are also mixed types: dafin-trandafir, hodoronc-tronc, sora-soarelui, trei-
fraţi-pătaţi, etc. Here, we can mention also a kind of diminutive-superlative: mic micuţ
‘very small’, plin plinuţ ‘all full’ (Dębowiak 2011: 93).
There are also rhyming binomials: fel de fel, cine ştie cine, ţine-de-bine, etc.
In comparison with other Romance languages, Romanian reduplication is rather faint,
especially in totally reduplicated monosyllables as well as totally reduplicated poly-
syllables.
However, it is worth noticing that in many examples above, the phonic aspect of
reduplication plays the crucial role in Romanian: there are affricate and fricative con-
sonants (maybe as an echo of Slavic onomatopoeic influence), especially in mono-
syllabic reduplications. Undoubtedly, they strengthen their expressivity.
We can conclude that Romance languages differ among themselves. The results
were very surprising: Italian reduplicative words (mono- and polysyllables) were six
25
times more numerous than the French ones.
POSSIBLES INFLUENCES OF NEIGHBOURS
Since we showed that Latin used mostly monosyllabic repetitions, while Romance
languages use very often not only monosyllabic reduplication, but also polysyllabic
one, we ought to demonstrate briefly this morphological feature in neighbouring
languages which could possibly influence them.
● Germanic
As far as Germanic languages are concerned, the tendency to reduplicate is very old
and dates back to an old Germanic habit to use alliterations and assonances in speech
and in literary texts (e.g. in Old English Beowulf or in Old Norse sagas). In West
Germanic reduplicative words, the sound symbolism and rhyme seem to be the chief
factors in their formation, and they are very common, especially in popular usage.
Wood (1911) makes a typology of classes, on the basis of examples from English,
German, East Friesian, and their dialects. We can follow his scheme:
1) repetition of the same form:
a) monosyllabic: bye-bye, choo-choo, how-how, pum-pum, Gackgack, Kappkapp,
giffgiff, etc.
b) disyllabic: kirrie-kirrie, shally-shally, talky-talky, etc.
2) repetition with ablaut – the most common series is i-a, but it can also be i-o, or
u [Λ]-a. This type is very popular not only in English, but also in German (Bzdęga
1965: 132–176), and may exist in combination of two independent words (e.g. jingle-
jangle < jingle + jangle, or only in compounds (e.g. shilly-shally). It can be:
a) monosyllabic: chim-cham, ding-dong, flip-flap, hip-hop, Fickfack, fickfackfuck,
liflaf, etc.
25
As far as the reduplication is concerned, we can mention also Creole (i.e. Neo-Romance)
languages, in which this feature is very visible in the so-called ideophones, but their origin is in
African languages (see e.g. Bartens 2000, Kabore 1993, Kouwenberg 2003, Kouwenberg & LaCha-
rité 2004). Creole reduplication expresses similarity, diminution, attenuation or intensity, augmenta-
tion and quantity, for example in such French-based languages: a) reduplication of whole words (only
adjectives, adverbs and nouns), e.g. blanch ‘white’ > blanch-blanch ‘whitish’, Fr. trop > tro-tro, Fr.
bien > byen-byen; sometimes with an additional word, e.g. Fr. vieux > vyé bon vyé ‘very old’, etc.;
b) reduplication of expressions, e.g. Fr. tout près > toupré-toupré; sometimes with an additional
words, e.g. Fr. en adoration > annadorasyon kon annadorasyon ‘en admirant’, etc.; c) repetition of
onomatopoeic ideophones, e.g. djendjen, kap-kap, kiya-kiya-kiya, klik-klak, nip-nap, bip-bap, etc.
(see e.g. Piechnik 2012; for Portuguese-based Creoles see Couto 2000; for a general perspective see
Aboh, Smith & Zribi-Hertz 2012). However, because of their heterogeneity and long prevalence of
oral communication, we have to treat Creole languages separately.
46 Iwona Piechnik
b) disyllabic: dilly-dally, niddy-noddy, muxter-maxter, teeter-totter, Bisibäsi, Bitti-

betti, balitsche-balatsche, Bungelbangel, Fibbelfubbel, lirilari, etc.
3) iterative compounds of synonymous words, which do not necessarily rhyme,
although it occurs very often:
a) monosyllabic: bam-bosh, cram-jam, flapdoodle, hoblob, Hutzbutz, etc.
b) disyllabic: creepy-crawly, howdy-towdy, humpty-dumpty, teeny-weeny, etc.
Here, we can find also asymmetrical combinations of syllables: ram-scallion, Halje-
travalje, Holtertolterig, Hoesteproesten, splatter-dash, Ukkedop, etc.
4) rhyming compounds: with the same vowel; in this type, Wood (1911: 170)
classifies those compounds which have a rhyming element that is not a word by itself
in English, but Bzdęga (1965: 70–123) gives more examples in German. This type is
very common, especially in English and in German:
a) monosyllabic: cag-mag, hobnob, etc.
b) disyllabic: churchy-wurchy, coxy-roxy, dimmy-simmy, helter-skelter, higgledy-
piggledy, hurly-burly, itsy-bitsy, piggy-wiggy, Alerbaler, Buntjeruntje, Dunkelmunkel,
konkelen-fonkelen, etc.
Here, it should be emphasized that in English the dissyllabic type is very product-
ive, and now we have already new words that Wood was unable to know, e.g. boogie-
woogie (1930s) or talkie-walkie/walkie-talkie (1940s), etc. And examples of the mono-
syllabic reduplication: black-jack (1980s), or jet-set (1960s). Moreover, they became
internationalisms.
For English, there are numerous studies on this subject, see e.g. Wheatley 1866, Thun
1963, Wang 2005, Benczes 2012, Mattiello 2013: 141–168, etc.; for German see an
excellent study by Bzdęga (1965) who distinguishes 9 types of reduplicative structures.
Let’s note also that in English, we can find “double” reduplications, i.e. synonymic
and alliterative ones with a preposition in the middle, e.g. might and main, part and
parcel, etc.
Regarding the reduplication, we have to mention also binomials, which occur in the
majority of languages (see e.g. Malkiel 1959 or Masini 2006), but West Germanic
languages have an exceptional tendency to create rhyming or alliterated constructions.
Once more, we have to underline this tendency in English: my way or the highway,
name & shame, out & about, pump & dump, or forgive & forget, friend or foe, lock
26
& load, etc. This tendency exists also in German language: Handel & Wandel, Hülle
& Fülle, Rand & Band, Rat & Tat, Saft & Kraft, Sein & Schein, or frank & frei, Haus
27
& Hof, Feuer & Flamme, Luft & Liebe, Land & Leute, etc. Or in Bavarian: Lug und
28
Trug, Saus und Braus, rank und schlank, Stock und Stoa, Brod und Budda, etc.
Moreover, in the Germanic kinship terminology, we can find a lot of words which
testify a tendency to reduplicate kin words, as we can still see in Scandinavian
languages, e.g.: farfar ‘father’s father’ = paternal grandfather’ or mormor ‘mother’s
29
mother = maternal grandmother’ in Swedish, Danish, Norwegian ; the word for grand-
26
For more see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siamese_twins_%28linguistics%29 (10.4.2015)
27
See also: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwillingsformel (10.4.2015).
28
https://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwuilingsfoame (10.4.2015).
29
This is the reduplication of short forms of fader (> far) and moder (> mor).
children is less perfectly reduplicated for flexional reasons: barnbarn (Swedish),

børnebørn (Danish), barnebarn (Norwegian), barnabarn (Faroese), barnabörn (Ice-
landic), while in Swedish the word for grandson is sonson ‘son’s son’ and for grand-
daughter is dotterdotter ‘daughter’s daughter’, which is similar to the Anglo-Saxon
sunasunu and dohotordohotor (Pfeffer 1987: 116), however in other contemporary
Scandinavian languages, we have one general word both for grandson and grand-
daughter, that is ‘child’s child’: barnebarn (Danish, Norwegian) and barnabarn (Ice-
30
landic).
Of course, in English, the syntactical or sequential repetitions of two words are
popular too (see Persson 1974).
As we can see, Germanic word-formation uses the reduplication and compounding
31
very often.
● Celtic
Celtic languages used reduplication to indicate many functions.
In his grammar of the Scottish Gaelic, Calder (1923) begins his chapter on redupli-
cation this way: „The repetition of a word (of part thereof) has always been a feature of
the Gaelic language” (1923: 16) and he gives many examples as evidence of this
statement. Among others, we can quote:
▪ grammatically conditioned reduplication of prepositions, e.g. ann an (ann am
before b, f, m, p) ‘in-in’ (an is a reduplication of ann): ann an toll ‘in a hole’, ann
am bogsa ‘in a box’ (cf. Mark 2003: 683)
▪ „to give point and elegance to prose and poetry” (Calder 1923: 16), mainly with
an additional element between the two repeated words, e.g. beag is beag ‘little and
little’ / beag air bheag ‘little on/by little’ = ‘little by little’; however it is rather a syn-
tactical repetition, not a reduplication.
In another Goidelic language, Irish, we can find examples of reduplication too:
cogar mogar ‘whisper whisper’ = ‘hugger-mugger’ (maybe the Irish form is of English
origin), an fear ceannann céanna ‘the man exact same’ = ‘the very same man’; or with
an additional element in the middle: amach is amach ‘out and out’.
Among Brittonic languages, we can first mention Breton in which, there are many
ways to intensify the meaning of adjectives, however Eugène Chalm in his grammar
emphasises: „La façon de rendre le français très se fait généralement en redoublant le
mot, surtout pour les mots d’une syllabe ou deux” (Chalm 2008: 188). He gives an
example of reduplication of skuizh ‘tired’: skuizh-skuizh ‘very tired’ and of triplication
skuizh-skuizh-skuizh ‘very very tired’. Other examples, that we can quote: kozh-kozh
‘old-old’ = very old; braz-braz ‘tall-tall’ = ‘very tall’.
However, in Breton repetition can occur with additional elements too:
30
The contemporary analytic construction with grand in English and German has been borrowed
from French (Goody 1983: 266).
31
However, as far as Germanic grammar is concerned, the formation of perfect tenses by
reduplication was still present in those languages (as continuation of this phenomenon in Indo-
European languages in early stage), what we can find still in Gothic, while in its sisters this feature
disappeared leaving only some marks (see e.g. Jasanoff 2007).
48 Iwona Piechnik
▪ with a privative prefix di ‘non-, de-, ex-, without’: chañch-dichañch / cheñch-

dicheñch ‘change-pref.-change’ = ‘(always) changing’
▪ with a conjunction ha ‘and’: berr-ha-berr ‘short-and-short’ = briefly, in short’,
etc. (see Schapansky 2012: 1264, Favereau 2000).
In Welsh we can find reduplication too, e.g. the most known is: tŷ bach bach ‘house
32
small-small’ = ‘a very small house’ .
Celtic languages reduplicated rather full words, both monosyllabic and polysyllabic
ones.
● Slavic, Turkic, Hungarian
Those languages could have contacts mainly with the Romanian language.
As far as Slavic languages are concerned, Voinov (2012) demonstrates rhyming
paired words, e.g.: гоголь-моголь, плакса-вакса and девочка-припевочка, etc. Let’s
note that they are polysyllabic echo-segments.
In Turkic languages, reduplications are well known: see Müller (2004). In one of
the newest works dedicated to this issue, Stachowski (2014) discusses the so-called
“C-type” reduplications, i.e. first syllable repetitions, e.g. in Turkish bejaz ‘white’
> bembejaz ‘snow-white’, etc.
For more Slavic and Turkic influences see, for example, the very interesting book
by Mark R.V. Southern (2005) who examines relationships between Yiddish and other
languages in contact from the perspective of the transmission of reduplicative features.
And finally, we have to mention two studies by Alf Grannes (1973 and 1996) who
examines an interesting reduplication (mostly polysyllabic one): consonant + m-, e.g. in
Turkish et-met, çocuk-mocuk, etc. He shows, how this type spreads in different
languages and states, that its origin could be Turkish. Indeed, Plähn (1987) who
describes items such as хуйня муйня in Russian, and Graur (1963) quotes a lot of such
examples in Romanian: aure-maure, chichiri-michiri, chirchiriţă-mirchiriţă, cigă-
migă, ciugurele-mugurele, cîr-mîr, hîr-mîr, gîrâ-mîră, handra-mandra, sărac-mărac,
sărata-murata, sorcova-morcova, şahăr-mahăr, techer-mecher, terică-merică, ţangăr-
mangăr (Graur 1963: 19–20) and Aromanian: bacal-macal, hangi-mangi, kemurgi-
memurgi, mumgi-memgi, sare-mare, zahăre-mahăre (Graur 1963: 22).
Here we can see mostly polysyllabic items. Let’s note they often are very similar to
their Turkish cognates, e.g. Rom. techer-mecher (< Tc. teker-meker), as other Turkish
reduplicative items in Romanian are, e.g. Rom. harcea-parcea (< Tc. parça-parça).
And in Romanian, we can find also Bulgarian and Greek reduplicative words, e.g.
Rom. nitam-nisam / (ne)tam-nesam (< Bg. ни там, ни сам), or Rom. serta-ferta
(< MGr. σύρτα-φέρτα), etc.
Finally, let’s take a look at Hungarian. It seems that this language prefers poly-
syllabic reduplications too. At least, the are fewer monosyllables: some monosyllabic
words’ repetitions are lexicalized: egy-egy ‘each; few’ (< egy ‘one’), már-már ‘almost
(< már ‘already, yet’) and más-más ‘different’ (< más ‘other, another, different’), or
truncated: iafia ‘sonny’ (< fia ‘son’), or with an additional element: haddelhadd ‘rumpus,
32
But note that to tell ‘a small house’ in Welsh it is better to use the adjective bychan ‘small,
little; slight’, hence tŷ bychan, because tŷ bach is the standard euphemism for ‘toilet’, as dictionaries
caution (e.g. King 2007: 30, 224, 490).
free-for-all’ (< hadd ‘let’), but all other combinations are partially reduplicated: cseng-
bong, csip-csup, dúl-fúl, gizgaz, locspocs, nyimnyám, óg-móg, ripsz-ropsz, súg-búg.
However there are a lot of disyllables: lexicalized word’s repetitions: addig-addig ‘so
far’ (< addig ‘until, till; this/that far’) and, above all, partial reduplications: ákom-
bákom, ámul-bámul, bicebóca, bűvös-bájos, ciróka-maróka, csecsebecse, csihi-puhi,
csillog-villog, csireg-csörög, csiribiri, csonkabonka, csúszómászó, dínomdánom, dirib-
darab, dirmeg-dörmög, fidres-fodros, gidres-gödrös, giling-galang, girbegörbe, girbe-
görbén, girbe-gurba, hébe-hóba, hetet-havat, hímez-hámoz, hórihorgas, ímmel-ámmal,
ingóbingó, irgum-burgum, irul-pirul, izeg-mozog, ízzé-porrá, lárifári, mendemonda,
mézesmázos, retyerutya, sebbel-lobbal, sürög-forog, szuszimuszi, tarkabarka, tutyi-
mutyi, úszómászó, zanabana, zenebona, zireg-zörög; and rare examples of trisyllables:
ágozik-bogazik, diriblés-darablás (see Kiss & Pusztai 2003: 183, 379, 622–623, 730).
CONCLUSIONS
Starting from Latin, Romance languages had internal conditions to develop redupl-
ication in word-formation, but mainly in repetition of monosyllables (as well as in
syntactical repetition of whole words). As far as polysyllabic reduplication is con-
cerned, it is mainly disyllabic and this is a rather post-Latin phenomenon. Romance
languages have been probably influenced mainly by Germanic languages. This very old
feature is very common still in English and German.
Such a situation concerns mainly the French language, in which the influence from
neighbours can be the strongest. In comparison to its sisters, French have more types of
redoubled compound words than other Romance languages. Moreover, the tendency to
reduplicate occurred in Celtic languages, but mainly in repetition of words. Indeed,
Stankiewicz, analyzing emotiveness in different languages tells:
Expressive “Sprachbünde” are not coterminous with boundaries circumscribed by
genetic relationship. French and English have more similarities in their emotive sub-
systems than French and Italian (Stankiewicz 1972: 260).
The polysyllabic reduplication is not very common in other Romance languages as
they did not have strong contacts with the Germanic languages. We see this less in
Italian and in Portuguese: these languages prefer monosyllables.
In Romanian Slavic, Turkic and Hungarian influences are possible too. In those
languages, reduplication concerns mainly polysyllables.
In neo-Romance languages, i.e. in Creole languages, the tendency to redouble
audible segments or words came from African languages, in which the use of ideo-
phones and onomatopoeic elements is very common.
And finally we have to note, that in Romance languages only reduplicated mono-
syllabic words can be derived and inflected, e.g. French bonbon > bonbonnière,
cancan > cancaner/cancanier, chouchou > chouchouter, froufrou > froufrouter/frou-
froutement, glouglou > glouglouter, pompon > pomponner, ronron > ronronner, zig-
zag > zigzaguer; Spanish xiuxiu > xiuxiuejar, or Port. chacha > chachada, zunzum
> zunzunar, etc. This fact can prove the old tendency to monosyllabic reduplication in
50 Iwona Piechnik
neo-Latin languages and shows that polysyllabic reduplication is still a kind of foreign
feature in these languages.
Besides the lexical reduplication, in all Romance languages, there is a tendency
to repeat whole words (polysyllabic in the majority of cases) in an emphatic way to
intensify the meaning. Probably such a tendency is the commonest and strongest in
Italian (presto presto, lungo lungo, etc.). However, two repeated words remain inde-
pendent, so this practice is syntactical; hence we do not call it reduplication.
On the other hand, all Romance languages have binomials whose elements, in the
majority of cases, are monosyllabic too.
Of course, our deliberations are only hypothetical, but our aim was to show some
tendencies in Latin and Romance languages, and finally in their neighbours.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES OF EXAMPLES
ABOH ENOCH Oladé, SMITH Norval, ZRIBI-HERTZ Anne, 2012, The Morphosyntax of Reiteration
in Creole and on-Creole Languages, Amsterdam-Philadephia: John Benjamins.
ADAMS James Noel, 2007, The regional diversification of Latin 200 BC–AD 600, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
ALLEN Andrew S., 1984, French reduplication limits the arbitrariness of the sign, (in:) Papers
from the XIIth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
John Benjamins, 3–13
ANDERSON Earl R., 1998, A grammar of iconism, Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University
Press; London: Associated University Presses.
ANSCOMBRE Jean-Claude, 1985, Onomatopées, délocutivité et autres blablas, Revue Romane
20/2: 169–204.
ANTOINE Gérald, 1985, Usage de la “(ré)duplication” dans le français, surtout parlé, contempo-
rain, (in:) Mélanges de langue et de littérature françaises offerts à Pierre Larthomas, Paris:
École normale supérieure de Jeunes filles, Coll. de l’ENSJF 26: 1–14.
ARAÚJO Gabriel, 2002, Truncamento e reduplicação no português brasileiro, Revista de Estudos
Linguisticos (Belo Horizonte), 10/1: 61–90.
ANDRÉ Jacques, 1978, Les mots à redoublement en latin, Paris: Klicksieck.
BARTENS Angela, 2000, Ideophones and sound symbolism in Atlantic Creoles, Helsinki: Acade-
mia Scientiarum Fennica.
BENCZES Réka, 2012, Just a load of hibber-gibber? Making sense of English rhyming com-
pounds, Australian Journal of Linguistics, 32/3: 299–326.
BZDĘGA Andrzej Zdzisław, 1965, Reduplizierte Wortbildung im Deutschen, Poznań: PTPN.
CABRÉ MONNÉ Teresa, 2002, Altres sistemes de formació de mots, (in:) Gramàtica del català
contemporani, vol. 1: Introducció, fonètica, morfologia, Joan Solà et al. (eds.), Barcelona:
Empúries, 889–932.
CALDER George, 1923, A Gaelic Grammar containing the parts of speech and the general
priciples of phonology and etymology, Glasgow : MacLaren.
CARNOY Albert, 1917a, Apophony and rhyme words in Vulgar Latin onomatopoeias, The
American Journal of Philology 38/3: 265–284.
CARNOY Albert, 1917b, The reduplication of consonants in Vulgar Latin, Modern Philology
15/3: 31–52.
CHALM Eugène, 2008, La grammaire bretonne pour tous, Lannuon: An Alarc’h Embannadurioù.
CIOBANU Fulvia, HASAN Finuţa, 1970, Formarea cuvintelor în limba română, vol. I, Bucureşti:
Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.
COUTO Hildo Honório do, 1999, A reduplicação em português, Lusorama 40: 29–40.
COUTO Hildo Honório do, 2000, A reduplicação nos crioulos portugueses, (in:) Crioulos de
base lexical portuguesa, Ernesto D’Andrade, Maria A. Mota, Dulce Pereira (org.), Lisboa:
Associação Portuguesa de Lingüística, 61–80.
DAHL Östen, KOPTJEVSKAJA-TAMM Maria, 2001, Kinship in grammar, (in:) Dimensions of
Possession, Irène Baron, Michael Herslund and Finn Sørensen (eds.), Amsterdam-Phila-
delphia, John Benjamins, 201–225.
DARMESTETER Arsène, 1894, Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue fran-
çaise comparée aux autres langues romanes et au latin, 2. éd., vue corr., et en partie refon-
due, avec une préf. par Gaston Paris, Paris: Émile Bouillon.
DĘBOWIAK Przemysław, 2011, Quelques remarques sur les diminutifs en portugais et en rou-
main, Romanica Cracoviensia 11: 90–98.
DEVOTO Giacomo, OLI Gian Carlo, 2004, Dizionario della lingua italiana, a cura di Luca
Serianni e Maurizio Trifone, Firenze: Le Monnier.
Diccionari de la llengua catalana, 2007, Institut d’Estudis Catalans, Barcelona: Institut d’Estu-
dis Catalans.
Diccionario de la lengua española, 1997, Real Academia Española, Madrid: Espasa Calpe, t. 1–2.
Dicionário da língua portuguesa, 2008, Porto: Porto Editora.
Dicionário universal: lingua portuguesa, 1999, Lisboa: Texto Editora.
DICKEY Eleanor, CHAHOUD Anna (eds.), 2010, Colloquial and literary Latin, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Dicţionarul explicativ al limbii române: DEX, 1996, Academia Română, Institutul de Lingvis-
tică “Iorgu Iordan”, Bucureşti: Univers Enciclopedic.
DIEZ Friedrich, 1851, Gemination und Ablaut im Romanischen, Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft
der Sprache 3/3: 397–405 (reprinted in idem, Kleinere Arbeiten und Recensionen, Hermann
Breymann (Hrsg.), München: Oldenbourg, 1883, 178–183).
DOSTIE Gaétane, 2007, La réduplication pragmatique des marqueurs discursifs. De là à là là,
Langue Française, 154: 45–60.
DRESSLER Wolfgang U., MERLINI BARBARESI Lavinia, 1994, Italian word reduplication, (in:)
eidem, Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German and other
languages, Berlin – New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 510–528.
EGUREN GUTIÉRREZ Luis Javier, 1987, Aspectos lúdicos del lenguaje: la jitanjáfora, problema
lingüístico, Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.
ERNOUT Alfred, 1935, Morphologie historique du latin, Paris: Klincksieck.
ESCANDELL-VIDAL Mictoria V., 1991, Sobre las reduplicaciones léxicas, Lingüística Española
Actual 13/1: 71–84.
FAVEREAU Francis, 2000, Geriadur ar brezhoneg a-vremañ: brezhoneg/galleg galleg/brezhoneg.
Dictionnaire du breton contemporain: bilingue, Montroules-Morlaix : Skol Vreizh.
FRÉDÉRIC Madeleine, 1985, La répétition: étude linguistique et rhétorique, Tübingen: Niemeyer.
FREI Henri, 2011 (1929), La grammaire des fautes, Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Garzanti Italiano, 2010, Milano: Garzanti Linguistica.
GEORGE Kenneth, 1983, Redoublement lexical, procédé intensif, Le français dans le monde
180: 63–65.
GHOMESHI Jila, JACKENDOFF Ray, ROSEN Nicole, RUSSELL Kevin, 2004, Contrastive focus redu-
plication in English (The salad-salad paper), atural Language and Linguistic Theory 22/2:
307–357.
GIRAULT Hervé, 2006, Entre créativité lexicale et connivence culturelle: le traitement des pré-
noms en argot, Revue d’Études Françaises 11: “L’argot: un universel du langage?”: 69–83.
52 Iwona Piechnik
GOODY Jack, 1983, The development of the family and marriage in Europe, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
GRAMMONT Maurice, 1970, Onomatopées et mots expressifs, Revue des langues romanes XLIV:
97–158.
Gran diccionario de la lengua española: diccionario de uso, 1995, Madrid: Sociedad General
Española de Libreria.
GRANDGENT Charles H., 1907, An introduction to Vulgar Latin, Boston: D.C. Heath & Co.
GRANNES Alf, 1973, Zajciki-majciki; turki-murki: an example of linguistic interference between
the Turkic language Karachai (Northern Caucasus) and Russian, in the spoken Russian of
a Karachai woman, Orbis: Bulletin International de Documentation Linguistique 22: 526–534.
GRANNES Alf, 1996, Le redoublement de type turc à m- initial dans les langues des Balkans et
du Caucase, (in:) idem, Turco-Bulgarica: articles in English and French concerning Turkish
influence on Bulgarian, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
GRAUR Alexandru, 1963, Etimologii Romîneşti, Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Republicii Popu-
lare Romîne.
HAMMER Françoise, 1997, Iconicité et réduplication en français, Folia linguistica 31: 285–300.
HLADKÝ Josef, 1998, Notes on reduplicative words in English, Brno Studies in English 24: 33–78.
HOPKINS Edward Washburn, 1893, Vedic reduplication of nouns and adjectives, The American
Journal of Philology 14/1: 1–40.
HURCH Bernhard (ed.), 2005, Studies on Reduplication, Berlin-Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
INKELAS Sharon, ZOLL Cheryl, 2005, Reduplication: doubling in morphology, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
JASANOFF Jay H., 2007, From reduplication to ablaut: the class VII strong verbs of Northwest
Germanic. Historische Sprachforschung 120: 241–284.
JURAFSKY Daniel, 1996. Tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive, Language 72: 533–578.
JURET Étienne-Abel, 1937, Formation des noms et des verbes en latin et en grec, Paris: Les
Belles Lettres.
KABORE Raphaël, 1993, Contribution à l’étude de l’idéophonie, Paris: INALCO.
KABORE Raphaël, 1998, La réduplication, Faits de langues 11–12: 359–376.
KING Gareth (ed.), 2007, Modern Welsh dictionary: A guide to the living language, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
KISS Jenő, PUSZTAI Ferenc (szerk.), 2003, Magyar nyelvtörtenét, Budapest: Osiris.
KOUWENBERG Silvia (ed.), 2003, Twice as meaningful: reduplication in pidgins, creoles and
other contact varieties, London: Battlebridge.
KOUWENBERG Silvia, LACHARITÉ Darlene, 2004, Echoes of Africa: reduplication in Caribbean
Creole and Niger-Congo languages, Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 19/2: 285–331.
KRÖLL Heinz, 1990–1991, Beitrag zu den Reduplikationen im Portugiesischen, Lusorama 11:
31−39 & 15: 25–44.
KRUSCHWITZ Peter, 2012, How to avoid profanity in Latin: An exploratory study, Materiali
e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 68: 9–38.
LANDAR Herbert, 1961, Reduplication and morphology, Language 37/2: 239–246.
LIBERMAN Anatoly, 2009, Word origins... and how we know them: etymology for everyone,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LIPSKI John M., 1995, Spanish hypocoristics: Towards a unified prosodic analysis, Hispanic
Linguistics 6: 387–434.
LLOYD Paul M., 1966, Some reduplicative words in colloquial Spanish, Hispanic Review 34:
133–142.
LÖFSTEDT Leena, 1976, La Reduplication synonymique de Jean de Meun dans sa traduction de
Vegece, euphilologische Mitteilungen 77: 449–470.
MALKIEL Yakov, 1959, Studies in irreversible binomials, Lingua 8: 113–160.
MARANTZ Alec, 1982, Re reduplication, Linguistic Inquiry 13/3: 435–482.
MARK Colin B.D., 2003, The Gaelic-English dictionary, London: Routledge.

MAROUZEAU Jacques, 1946, Le redoublement expressif en latin, Latomus 5/1–2: 341–343.
MASINI Francesca, 2006, Binomial constructions: inheritance, specification and subregularities,
Lingue e Linguaggio 5/2: 207–227.
MATTIELLO Elisa, 2013, Extra-grammatical morphology in English: abbreviations, blends,
reduplicatives, and related phenomena, Berlin-Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
MAYERTHALER Willi, 1977, Studien zur theoretischen und zur französischen Morphologie: Re-
duplikation, Echowörter, morphologische atürlichkeit, Haplologie, Produktivität, Regel-
telescoping, paradigmatischer Ausgleich, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
MEILLET Antoine, 1917, Caractères généraux des langues germaniques, Paris: Hachette.
MEILLET Antoine 1928, Esquisse d’une histoire de la langue latine, Paris: Hachette.
MEILLET Antoine, 1930, Aperçu d’une histoire de la langue grecque, Paris: Hachette.
MELO DE CASTRO Anne Glaucy, DE OLIVEIRA Maria Lourdes A., DE AZEVEDO Neila da C.B.C.,
DE ALENCAR TEIXEIRA Sulema, DA SILVA PINTO Wandilma, 2001, Reduplicação silábica das
palavras, Monografia do curso de Pós-Graduação em Língua Portuguesa, departamento de
Letras da Universidade Federal do Acre in Rio Branco: www.filologia.org.br/monografias/ca
derno_de_pos_graduacao_ufac/republicacao_silabica_das_palavras.htm (summer 2015).
MORAVCSIK Edith, 1978, Reduplicative constructions, (in:) Universals of human language, Joseph
Greenberg (ed.), vol. 3: Word structure, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 297–334.
MORAWSKI Joseph, 1927, Les formules rimées de la langue espagnole, Revista de Filología
Española XIV: 113–133.
MORAWSKI Joseph, 1929, Les formules apophoniques en espagnol et en roman, Revista de Filo-
logía Española XVI: 337–365.
MORAWSKI Joseph, 1937, Les formules allitérées de la langue espagnole, Revista de Filología
Española XXIV: 121–161.
MORIN Yves Charles, 1972, The phonology of echo-words in French, Language 48/1: 97–108.
MÜLLER Hans-Georg, 2004, Reduplikationen im Türkischen: Morphophonologische Unter-
suchungen, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.
NESPOULOS Pierre, 1983, Giovanni Pontano, théoricien de l’art de plaisanter, le De sermone,
(in:) Influences latines en Europe, Georges Soubeille (réd.), Toulouse-LeMirail: Université
de Toulouse-LeMirail, 5–39.
NIEPOKUJ Mary, 1997, The development of verbal reduplication in Indo-European, Washington:
Institute for the Study of Man.
PAOLI Ugo Enrico, 1959, Il latino maccheronico, Firenze: Le Monnier.
PERSSON Gunnar, 1974, Repetition in English, part I: Sequential repetitions, Uppsala: Uppsala
University.
PFEFFER Georg, 1987, The vocabulary of Anglo-Saxon kinship, L’Homme 27/103: 113–128.
PIECHNIK Iwona, 2012, Le Petit Prince et ses cousins créoles (Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyane
française, Réunion), (in :) Le Petit Prince et les amis au pays des traductions. Études dédiées
à Urszula Dąmbska-Prokop, Joanna Górnikiewicz, Iwona Piechnik, Marcela Świątkowska
(éds), Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2012, 239–273.
PLÄHN Jürgen, 1987, ХУЙНЯ-МУЙНЯ и тому подобное, Russian Linguistics 11/1: 37–41.
PLÉNAT Marc, 1982a, Toto, Guiguitte, Fanfa et toute la famille, Cahiers de grammaire 4: 95–166.
PLÉNAT Marc, 1982b, Quatre notes sur la morphologie des hypocoristiques à redoublement,
Cahiers de grammaire 5: 79–134.
PLÉNAT Marc, 1984, Toto, Fanfa, Totor et même Guiguitte sont des ANARs, (in :) Forme
sonore du langage. Structure des représentations en phonologie, François Dell, Daniel Hirst,
Jean-Roger Vergnaud (dir.), Paris: Hermann, 161–181.
PLÉNAT Marc, 1991, Remarques sur la structure de la rime en français standard, Linx 3 (hors-
série: Études de linguistique française à la mémoire d’Alain Lerond. Les «français»: fran-
çais dialectaux, français techniques, états de langue, français standard), 261–288.
54 Iwona Piechnik
PLÉNAT Marc, 1999, Prolégomènes à une étude variationniste des hypocoristiques à redouble-
ment en français, Cahiers de Grammaire 24: 183–219.
PLÉNAT Marc, 2003, L’optimisation des attaques dans les hypocoristiques espagnols, Langages
152: 78–101.
PLÉNAT Marc, SOLARES HUERTA Pancho, 2006, Domi, Seb, Flo et toute la famille (Lettre à Jean-
Pierre Maurel sur les hypocoristiques français formés par apocope), Cahiers de grammaire
30: 339–357.
POHL Jacques, 1964–1965, Hocus pocus, hurluberlu, tutu, Tutur et tic tac. Contribution à une
étude de morphologie expressive, Revue de l’Université de Bruxelles, XVII: 206–238.
POLITZER Robert L., 1961, Synonymic repetition in Late Latin and Romance, Language 37/4:
484–487.
PONS I GRIERA Lídia, 1987, Xinxinxina, trap-trap. Aspectos de a motivació fonètica en català,
(in:) Studia in honorem prof. M. de Riquer, Carlos Alvar et al. (eds.), Barcelona: Quaderns
Crema, t. II: 165–77.
RAIMY Eric, 2000, The phonology and morphology of reduplication, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
RAINER Franz, 1983, Intensivierung im Italienischen, Salzburg: Institut für Romanistik der
Universität Salzburg.
RAINER Franz, 1988, La réduplication française du type fifille d’un point de vue diachronique,
(in:) Atti del XXI Congresso Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Romanza, vol. 1: Gram-
matica storica delle lingue romanze, Giovanni Ruffino (éd.), Tübingen: Niemeyer, 279–289.
RIO-TORTO Graça Maria, 1998, Mecanismos de produção lexical no português europeu. Alfa:
revista de linguística (São Paulo) 42 (nº especial): 15–32.
RODRÍGUEZ GUZMÁN Jorge, 2011, Morfología de la onomatopeya. ¿Subclase de palabra sub-
ordinada a la interjección?, Moenia 17: 125–178.
SANDMANN Antônio José, 1989, Formação de palavras no português brasileiro contemporâneo,
Curitiba: Scientia et Labor.
SCHAPANSKY Nathalie, 2012, Part I: Compounding in Breton grammatical and logical head,
Lingua 122: 1253–1267.
SCHAPIRA Charlotte, 1988, Le redoublement expressif dans la création lexicale, Cahiers de Lexi-
cologie 52: 51–63.
SCHLÖMER Anne, 2002, Phraseologische Wortpaare im Französischen: »sitôt dit, sitôt fait« und
Vergleichbares, Berlin-Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
SCHWAIGER Thomas, 2015, Reduplication, (in:) Word-formation: An international handbook of
the languages of Europe, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen, Franz Rainer
(eds.), Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, vol. 1: 467–484.
SCULLEN Mary Ellen, 2002, New insights into French reduplication, (in:) Romance Phonology
and Variation: Selected papers from the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages,
Gainesville, Florida, February 2000, Caroline R. Wiltshire & Joaquim Camps (eds.),
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, 177–189.
SERNA Marcos de la, 2001, Libros de las advinanzas y acertijos. La más completa antología de
adivinanzas de todos los temas y todas las épocas, para aprender y divertirse solo o en
compañía, Barcelona: Robinbook.
SKODA Françoise, 1982, Le redoublement expressif: un universal linguistique. Analyse du pro-
cédé en grec ancien et en d’autres langues, Paris: Société d’études linguistiques et anthropo-
logiques de France, no spécial 15.
SMITH Pauline, 1983, Le redoublement de termes et les emprunts linguistiques dans la traduc-
tion en France au 16ème siècle: Henri Estienne et François de Belleforest, Revue de Linguis-
tique Romane, 47/185–186: 37–58.
SOUTHERN Mark R. V., 2005, Contagious couplings: transmission of expressives in Yiddish
echo phrases, Westport: Praeger.
SPITZER Leo, 1922, Italienische Umgangssprache, Bonn & Lepzig: Schroeder.
SPITZER Leo, 1951–1952, Sur quelques emplois métaphoriques de l’impératif. Un chapitre de

syntaxe comparative, Romania LXXII: 433–478 & LXXIII: 16–63.
STACHOWSKI Kamil, 2014, Standard Turkic C-type reduplications, Kraków: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
STANKIEWICZ Edward, 1972, Problems of emotive language, (in:) Approaches to semiotics, The
Hague-Paris: Mouton, 239–264.
ŠTEKAUER Pavol, VALERA Salvador, KÖRTVÉLYESSY Lívia, 2012, Word-formation in the world’s
languages: a typological survey, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
STERIADE Donca, 1988, Reduplication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere, Phono-
logy 5: 73–155.
STIVERS Tanya, 2004, o no no and others types of multiple sayings in social interaction,
Human Communication Research 30/2: 260–293.
STOLZ Thomas, STROH Cornelia, URDZE Aina (eds.), 2011, Total reduplication: the areal lin-
guistics of a potential universal, Berlin-Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
THORNTON Anna M., 2008, Italian verb-verb reduplicative action nouns, Lingue e Linguaggio 7:
209–232.
THORNTON Anna M., 2009, Italian verb reduplication between syntax and the lexicon, Rivista di
Linguistica 21/1: 235–261.
THORNTON Anna M., 2010, Il tipo fuggifuggi, (in:) Actes du XXVe Congrès International de
Linguistique et Philologie Romanes, Maria Iliescu, Heidi Siller & Paul Danler (eds.), Tübin-
gen: Niemeyer, 527–536.
THUN Nils, 1963, Reduplicative words in English: a study of formations of the types tick-tack,
hurly-burly and shilly-shally, Uppsala: Carl Bloms Boktryckeri.
VALLET Robert, 1977, A propos des redoublements d’expression dans la prose de Jean Lemaire
de Belges, Revue de Linguistique Romane, 41/163–164: 383–398.
VOINOV Vitaly, 2012, Rhyming reduplication in Russian paired words, Russian Linguistics
36/2: 175–191.
WANG Shih-ping, 2005, Corpus-based approaches and discourse analysis in relation to redupli-
cation and repetition, Journal of Pragmatics 37: 505–540.
WHEATLEY Henry Benjamin, 1866, A Dictionary of reduplicated words in the English Language,
London-Berlin: Asher.
WHITNEY William Dwight, 1950, A Sanskrit grammar, including both the classical language,
and the older dialects, of Veda and Brahmana, London: G. Cumberlege.
WIERZBICKA Anna, 1986, Italian reduplication: cross-cultural pragmatics and illocutionary
semantics, Linguistics 24/2: 287–315, reprinted in 1991 in eadem, Cross-cultural pragma-
tics. The semantics of human interaction, Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
WOLFF Étienne, 2001, Les jeux de langage dans l’Antiquité romaine, Bulletin de l’Association
Guillaume Budé 3: 317–334.
WÖLFFLIN Eduard von, 1933, Ausgewählte Schriften, Leipzig: Georg Olms Verlag.
WOOD Francis A., 1911, Iteratives, blends, and “Streckformen”, Modern Philology IX/2: 157–194.
ZERLING Jean-Pierre, 2000, Structure syllabique et morphologique des mots à caractère onoma-
topéique et répétitif en français : étude phonétique, Travaux de l’Institut de phonétique de
Strasbourg 30: 115–162.

Reduplication in Romance

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reduplication in Romance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reduplication in Romance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Romanica Cracoviensia 15 (2015): 30–55

With a special dedication to Mikołaj kollo

In Latin, reduplication had a few functions:

In some verbs, double consonantal stems (s + occlusive) were simplified in redupli-

b) monosyllables as stems with additional segments (mainly suffixes), e.g. balbus,

d) partial reduplication with and additional element: bric-à-brac, cancaner, hallali,

As we can see, the commonest reduplication in Spanish is polysyllabic and contains

barrabum, catacrac, catacloc, catatxoc, marrameu, pataplof, patapuf, patapum, pata-

In childish language, we can find the reduplication of internal syllables: mimi

POSSIBLES INFLUENCES OF NEIGHBOURS

b) disyllabic: dilly-dally, niddy-noddy, muxter-maxter, teeter-totter, Bisibäsi, Bitti-

children is less perfectly reduplicated for flexional reasons: barnbarn (Swedish),

▪ with a privative prefix di ‘non-, de-, ex-, without’: chañch-dichañch / cheñch-

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES OF EXAMPLES

MARK Colin B.D., 2003, The Gaelic-English dictionary, London: Routledge.

SPITZER Leo, 1951–1952, Sur quelques emplois métaphoriques de l’impératif. Un chapitre de

You might also like

Reduplication in Romance

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reduplication in Romance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reduplication in Romance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Romanica Cracoviensia 15 (2015): 30–55

With a special dedication to Mikołaj kollo

In Latin, reduplication had a few functions:

In some verbs, double consonantal stems (s + occlusive) were simplified in redupli-

b) monosyllables as stems with additional segments (mainly suffixes), e.g. balbus,

d) partial reduplication with and additional element: bric-à-brac, cancaner, hallali,

As we can see, the commonest reduplication in Spanish is polysyllabic and contains

barrabum, catacrac, catacloc, catatxoc, marrameu, pataplof, patapuf, patapum, pata-

In childish language, we can find the reduplication of internal syllables: mimi

POSSIBLES INFLUENCES OF NEIGHBOURS

b) disyllabic: dilly-dally, niddy-noddy, muxter-maxter, teeter-totter, Bisibäsi, Bitti-

children is less perfectly reduplicated for flexional reasons: barnbarn (Swedish),

▪ with a privative prefix di ‘non-, de-, ex-, without’: chañch-dichañch / cheñch-

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES OF EXAMPLES

MARK Colin B.D., 2003, The Gaelic-English dictionary, London: Routledge.

SPITZER Leo, 1951–1952, Sur quelques emplois métaphoriques de l’impératif. Un chapitre de

You might also like

With a special dedication to Mikołaj kollo