Those analyses which propose that prefixes are PWs in Germanic, or where maximally bisyllabic reduplicants
are PWs in Bantu are examples.
By contrast, in cases of partial reduplication in morphological doubling, it is not the case that the phonologically similar elements in "base" and "reduplicant" need be close to each other.
The purpose of reduplication is strictly morphological; the size of the reduplicant is larger than the typical phonological target; there is no segmental reduction or simplification.
An advantage to making the needed distinction via the Dual Theory rather than by classifying one reduplicant as a Root and another as an Affix is that, as Inkelas and Zoll (2005) have observed, the Root-Affix distinction may be needed for an independent, purely morphological purpose, not for the purpose of predicting phonological size or susceptibility to reduction.
(18.) Yu (2007: Chapter 4) does discuss three cases of foot reduplication seemingly, because of reduplicant size, all cases of morphological duplication--in Kamaiura, Amis, and Thao, which are classified as internal reduplication inasmuch as the reduplicant appears to be infixed before the final consonant.
MDT draws heavily on the observations of Steriade (1988) and McCarthy and Prince (1999) to the effect that the kinds of phonological effects observed in reduplicants are parallel to those observed outside of reduplication.
In each case this corresponds to a lexical item which could occur on its own, whereas the second half or reduplicant is not independently meaningful, and occurs only in conjunction with its base.
The first and most common pattern involves a single consonant attaching to the left periphery of the reduplicant, and can be represented as ([C.sub.1])X-[C.sub.2]X, where [C.sub.2] is a fixed consonant distinct from [C.sub.1], and X represents the rest of the phonological string.
Thus in example (6) the reduplicant is vaad, even though *vyaad is phonotactically unobjectionable.
Examples (7) and (8) are from Tamil and illustrate how the length of the vowel in the reduplicant is determined by that in the base.
Thus once again, identity per se does not seem to be the driving force behind the maintenance of velars in reduplicants, Instead, it is the static nature of the phonotactic itself that is responsible for their presence here.
Summing up McCarthy and Prince's take on the matter, the posited constraints will take care of the surface pattern, whether nasal and oral vowels are in lexical complementary distribution or active alternation; the presence of nasality in Madurese reduplicants, then, "...