What is the term for repeating the same word twice or more to create a new meaning altogether?
For example, "rabbit rabbit" is a phrase to be uttered first thing in the morning on the first day of the month for good luck all month long. The origin of the phrase has to do with rabbits bringing good luck. Directors on set instruct extras to say "rhubarb rhubarb" to one another during a party scene because of its lack of distracting, sharp phonemes. The repetition of the same word creates a new, unexpected, and unrelated meaning.
Would it be related to the term used to describe repeating the same word twice to create a new word? Dancing the can-can (or cancan) has nothing to do with cans though it might be an abbreviated version of scandal-scandal.
Epizeuxis is more like repeating the same word over again for emphasis or vehemence, like 'location location location!' to imply that the success of a business depends on where the shop is located.
Are the above examples different enough to merit distinction and a term of their own or would they be considered examples of epizeuxis?
(Not interested in grammatical repetition of words although the sentence "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo," is really fascinating both grammatically and sensically.)
single-word-requests terminology linguistics repetition obscure-terms
edited Aug 4 '17 at 18:39
NVZ
20.9k1460110
asked Aug 1 '17 at 23:10
Rachel HRachel H
2112
|
show 4 more comments
For example, "rabbit rabbit" is a phrase to be uttered first thing in the morning on the first day of the month for good luck all month long. The origin of the phrase has to do with rabbits bringing good luck. Directors on set instruct extras to say "rhubarb rhubarb" to one another during a party scene because of its lack of distracting, sharp phonemes. The repetition of the same word creates a new, unexpected, and unrelated meaning.
Would it be related to the term used to describe repeating the same word twice to create a new word? Dancing the can-can (or cancan) has nothing to do with cans though it might be an abbreviated version of scandal-scandal.
Epizeuxis is more like repeating the same word over again for emphasis or vehemence, like 'location location location!' to imply that the success of a business depends on where the shop is located.
Are the above examples different enough to merit distinction and a term of their own or would they be considered examples of epizeuxis?
(Not interested in grammatical repetition of words although the sentence "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo," is really fascinating both grammatically and sensically.)
single-word-requests terminology linguistics repetition obscure-terms
edited Aug 4 '17 at 18:39
NVZ
20.9k1460110
asked Aug 1 '17 at 23:10
Rachel HRachel H
2112
3
Repeating 'rhubarb' is merely producing a desired sound, rather like using thunder drums, not forming a new lexeme. It has no meaning. Saying 'Rabbit rabbit!' (I remember it as 'White rabbit!') is a meaningless incantation, rather like touching wood. No new lexemes are being created.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 1 '17 at 23:45
3
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because there is a misconception that new meanings are being created by repetition, whereas words are just being used as dramatic fillers or in a talismanic way.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 1 '17 at 23:47
You say the double words 'create a new meaning', but I can't decide if that is really true. The double words you describe certainly have a purpose, but does that equal meaning? eg with 'rhubarb', it is employed purely as a sound in a situation where sound must be devoid of meaning. "Rabbit rabbit" is a ritualised utterance used to assure luck, but essentially meaningless. So, I guess I'm just asking if the Q should say purpose rather than meaning; on the strength of your examples?
– Spagirl
Aug 1 '17 at 23:58
@EdwinAshworth Ha! It took me so long to work out how to phrase mine that you snuck in with a much more concise version in the meantime!
– Spagirl
Aug 2 '17 at 0:01
Besides, it's not "rhubarb, rhubarb", it's "rhubarb pie".
– Hot Licks
Aug 2 '17 at 0:44
|
show 4 more comments
For example, "rabbit rabbit" is a phrase to be uttered first thing in the morning on the first day of the month for good luck all month long. The origin of the phrase has to do with rabbits bringing good luck. Directors on set instruct extras to say "rhubarb rhubarb" to one another during a party scene because of its lack of distracting, sharp phonemes. The repetition of the same word creates a new, unexpected, and unrelated meaning.
Would it be related to the term used to describe repeating the same word twice to create a new word? Dancing the can-can (or cancan) has nothing to do with cans though it might be an abbreviated version of scandal-scandal.
Epizeuxis is more like repeating the same word over again for emphasis or vehemence, like 'location location location!' to imply that the success of a business depends on where the shop is located.
Are the above examples different enough to merit distinction and a term of their own or would they be considered examples of epizeuxis?
(Not interested in grammatical repetition of words although the sentence "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo," is really fascinating both grammatically and sensically.)
single-word-requests terminology linguistics repetition obscure-terms
edited Aug 4 '17 at 18:39
NVZ
20.9k1460110
asked Aug 1 '17 at 23:10
Rachel HRachel H
2112
For example, "rabbit rabbit" is a phrase to be uttered first thing in the morning on the first day of the month for good luck all month long. The origin of the phrase has to do with rabbits bringing good luck. Directors on set instruct extras to say "rhubarb rhubarb" to one another during a party scene because of its lack of distracting, sharp phonemes. The repetition of the same word creates a new, unexpected, and unrelated meaning.
Would it be related to the term used to describe repeating the same word twice to create a new word? Dancing the can-can (or cancan) has nothing to do with cans though it might be an abbreviated version of scandal-scandal.
Epizeuxis is more like repeating the same word over again for emphasis or vehemence, like 'location location location!' to imply that the success of a business depends on where the shop is located.
Are the above examples different enough to merit distinction and a term of their own or would they be considered examples of epizeuxis?
(Not interested in grammatical repetition of words although the sentence "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo," is really fascinating both grammatically and sensically.)
single-word-requests terminology linguistics repetition obscure-terms
single-word-requests terminology linguistics repetition obscure-terms
edited Aug 4 '17 at 18:39
NVZ
20.9k1460110
asked Aug 1 '17 at 23:10
Rachel HRachel H
2112
edited Aug 4 '17 at 18:39
NVZ
20.9k1460110
asked Aug 1 '17 at 23:10
Rachel HRachel H
2112
edited Aug 4 '17 at 18:39
NVZ
20.9k1460110
edited Aug 4 '17 at 18:39
NVZ
20.9k1460110
edited Aug 4 '17 at 18:39
NVZ
20.9k1460110
20.9k1460110
asked Aug 1 '17 at 23:10
Rachel HRachel H
2112
asked Aug 1 '17 at 23:10
Rachel HRachel H
2112
asked Aug 1 '17 at 23:10
Rachel HRachel H
2112
2112
3
Repeating 'rhubarb' is merely producing a desired sound, rather like using thunder drums, not forming a new lexeme. It has no meaning. Saying 'Rabbit rabbit!' (I remember it as 'White rabbit!') is a meaningless incantation, rather like touching wood. No new lexemes are being created.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 1 '17 at 23:45
3
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because there is a misconception that new meanings are being created by repetition, whereas words are just being used as dramatic fillers or in a talismanic way.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 1 '17 at 23:47
You say the double words 'create a new meaning', but I can't decide if that is really true. The double words you describe certainly have a purpose, but does that equal meaning? eg with 'rhubarb', it is employed purely as a sound in a situation where sound must be devoid of meaning. "Rabbit rabbit" is a ritualised utterance used to assure luck, but essentially meaningless. So, I guess I'm just asking if the Q should say purpose rather than meaning; on the strength of your examples?
– Spagirl
Aug 1 '17 at 23:58
@EdwinAshworth Ha! It took me so long to work out how to phrase mine that you snuck in with a much more concise version in the meantime!
– Spagirl
Aug 2 '17 at 0:01
Besides, it's not "rhubarb, rhubarb", it's "rhubarb pie".
– Hot Licks
Aug 2 '17 at 0:44
|
show 4 more comments
3
Repeating 'rhubarb' is merely producing a desired sound, rather like using thunder drums, not forming a new lexeme. It has no meaning. Saying 'Rabbit rabbit!' (I remember it as 'White rabbit!') is a meaningless incantation, rather like touching wood. No new lexemes are being created.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 1 '17 at 23:45
3
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because there is a misconception that new meanings are being created by repetition, whereas words are just being used as dramatic fillers or in a talismanic way.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 1 '17 at 23:47
You say the double words 'create a new meaning', but I can't decide if that is really true. The double words you describe certainly have a purpose, but does that equal meaning? eg with 'rhubarb', it is employed purely as a sound in a situation where sound must be devoid of meaning. "Rabbit rabbit" is a ritualised utterance used to assure luck, but essentially meaningless. So, I guess I'm just asking if the Q should say purpose rather than meaning; on the strength of your examples?
– Spagirl
Aug 1 '17 at 23:58
@EdwinAshworth Ha! It took me so long to work out how to phrase mine that you snuck in with a much more concise version in the meantime!
– Spagirl
Aug 2 '17 at 0:01
Besides, it's not "rhubarb, rhubarb", it's "rhubarb pie".
– Hot Licks
Aug 2 '17 at 0:44
3
3
Repeating 'rhubarb' is merely producing a desired sound, rather like using thunder drums, not forming a new lexeme. It has no meaning. Saying 'Rabbit rabbit!' (I remember it as 'White rabbit!') is a meaningless incantation, rather like touching wood. No new lexemes are being created.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 1 '17 at 23:45
Repeating 'rhubarb' is merely producing a desired sound, rather like using thunder drums, not forming a new lexeme. It has no meaning. Saying 'Rabbit rabbit!' (I remember it as 'White rabbit!') is a meaningless incantation, rather like touching wood. No new lexemes are being created.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 1 '17 at 23:45
3
3
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because there is a misconception that new meanings are being created by repetition, whereas words are just being used as dramatic fillers or in a talismanic way.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 1 '17 at 23:47
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because there is a misconception that new meanings are being created by repetition, whereas words are just being used as dramatic fillers or in a talismanic way.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 1 '17 at 23:47
You say the double words 'create a new meaning', but I can't decide if that is really true. The double words you describe certainly have a purpose, but does that equal meaning? eg with 'rhubarb', it is employed purely as a sound in a situation where sound must be devoid of meaning. "Rabbit rabbit" is a ritualised utterance used to assure luck, but essentially meaningless. So, I guess I'm just asking if the Q should say purpose rather than meaning; on the strength of your examples?
– Spagirl
Aug 1 '17 at 23:58
You say the double words 'create a new meaning', but I can't decide if that is really true. The double words you describe certainly have a purpose, but does that equal meaning? eg with 'rhubarb', it is employed purely as a sound in a situation where sound must be devoid of meaning. "Rabbit rabbit" is a ritualised utterance used to assure luck, but essentially meaningless. So, I guess I'm just asking if the Q should say purpose rather than meaning; on the strength of your examples?
– Spagirl
Aug 1 '17 at 23:58
@EdwinAshworth Ha! It took me so long to work out how to phrase mine that you snuck in with a much more concise version in the meantime!
– Spagirl
Aug 2 '17 at 0:01
@EdwinAshworth Ha! It took me so long to work out how to phrase mine that you snuck in with a much more concise version in the meantime!
– Spagirl
Aug 2 '17 at 0:01
Besides, it's not "rhubarb, rhubarb", it's "rhubarb pie".
– Hot Licks
Aug 2 '17 at 0:44
Besides, it's not "rhubarb, rhubarb", it's "rhubarb pie".
– Hot Licks
Aug 2 '17 at 0:44
|
show 4 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
A type of Reduplication
This linguistic term for saying the same word twice in succession is "reduplication". (Alternative terms less commonly encountered include "duplication" or "doubling".)
You are correct that the term "epizeuxis" is used only for cases where repetition is used for emphasis or to intensify meaning ("Never never never give up!")
For the case where reduplication is used to form a new meaning, I am not aware of a specific word. We could describe it as neologistic reduplication.
Reduplication has many functions depending on which language you are speaking. In English, it is very often epizeuxis. Interestingly, in Malay, for example, it is how plurals are formed (orang = man, orang-orang = men).
In English it can be used to to cute effect in creating words that might be considered kidspeak: mama, dada, nana, boo-boo, wee-wee, tum-tum, etc.
It is also quite common in English to form reduplicatives where one vowel changes: riff-raff, sing-song, ding-dong, tip-top, wishy-washy, dilly-dally, chit-chat, mumbo-jumbo, namby-pamby, roly-poly, and so on. These are usually considered to be a type of reduplication.
answered Aug 1 '17 at 23:35
Daniel AustinDaniel Austin
844212
2
See also: What does “small small” mean in Indian English?
– NVZ
Aug 4 '17 at 18:31
'Reduplication' is a far broader term; I've never seen a definition like 'repeating the same word twice or more to create a new meaning altogether', and you fail to provide one. None of your examples seems to meet the requirements of this definition. Yes, 'reduplication' is a hypernym, but this has been covered here before.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 4 '17 at 22:09
1
@EdwinAshworth Fair point. I have edited my answer to make it clearer that what the OP describes is a type of reduplication.
– Daniel Austin
Aug 4 '17 at 23:12
add a comment |
What about usage like 'promises promises' to express doubt? or "surprise surprise" conveying irony? are there more of these in the English language? and surely they convey a 'new meaning' in that the 'original' meaning of the word has changed?
answered 24 mins ago
PhilbertPhilbert
1
New contributor
Philbert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f403847%2fwhat-is-the-term-for-repeating-the-same-word-twice-or-more-to-create-a-new-meani%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
A type of Reduplication
This linguistic term for saying the same word twice in succession is "reduplication". (Alternative terms less commonly encountered include "duplication" or "doubling".)
You are correct that the term "epizeuxis" is used only for cases where repetition is used for emphasis or to intensify meaning ("Never never never give up!")
For the case where reduplication is used to form a new meaning, I am not aware of a specific word. We could describe it as neologistic reduplication.
Reduplication has many functions depending on which language you are speaking. In English, it is very often epizeuxis. Interestingly, in Malay, for example, it is how plurals are formed (orang = man, orang-orang = men).
In English it can be used to to cute effect in creating words that might be considered kidspeak: mama, dada, nana, boo-boo, wee-wee, tum-tum, etc.
It is also quite common in English to form reduplicatives where one vowel changes: riff-raff, sing-song, ding-dong, tip-top, wishy-washy, dilly-dally, chit-chat, mumbo-jumbo, namby-pamby, roly-poly, and so on. These are usually considered to be a type of reduplication.
answered Aug 1 '17 at 23:35
Daniel AustinDaniel Austin
844212
2
See also: What does “small small” mean in Indian English?
– NVZ
Aug 4 '17 at 18:31
'Reduplication' is a far broader term; I've never seen a definition like 'repeating the same word twice or more to create a new meaning altogether', and you fail to provide one. None of your examples seems to meet the requirements of this definition. Yes, 'reduplication' is a hypernym, but this has been covered here before.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 4 '17 at 22:09
1
@EdwinAshworth Fair point. I have edited my answer to make it clearer that what the OP describes is a type of reduplication.
– Daniel Austin
Aug 4 '17 at 23:12
add a comment |
A type of Reduplication
This linguistic term for saying the same word twice in succession is "reduplication". (Alternative terms less commonly encountered include "duplication" or "doubling".)
You are correct that the term "epizeuxis" is used only for cases where repetition is used for emphasis or to intensify meaning ("Never never never give up!")
For the case where reduplication is used to form a new meaning, I am not aware of a specific word. We could describe it as neologistic reduplication.
Reduplication has many functions depending on which language you are speaking. In English, it is very often epizeuxis. Interestingly, in Malay, for example, it is how plurals are formed (orang = man, orang-orang = men).
In English it can be used to to cute effect in creating words that might be considered kidspeak: mama, dada, nana, boo-boo, wee-wee, tum-tum, etc.
It is also quite common in English to form reduplicatives where one vowel changes: riff-raff, sing-song, ding-dong, tip-top, wishy-washy, dilly-dally, chit-chat, mumbo-jumbo, namby-pamby, roly-poly, and so on. These are usually considered to be a type of reduplication.
answered Aug 1 '17 at 23:35
Daniel AustinDaniel Austin
844212
2
See also: What does “small small” mean in Indian English?
– NVZ
Aug 4 '17 at 18:31
'Reduplication' is a far broader term; I've never seen a definition like 'repeating the same word twice or more to create a new meaning altogether', and you fail to provide one. None of your examples seems to meet the requirements of this definition. Yes, 'reduplication' is a hypernym, but this has been covered here before.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 4 '17 at 22:09
1
@EdwinAshworth Fair point. I have edited my answer to make it clearer that what the OP describes is a type of reduplication.
– Daniel Austin
Aug 4 '17 at 23:12
add a comment |
A type of Reduplication
This linguistic term for saying the same word twice in succession is "reduplication". (Alternative terms less commonly encountered include "duplication" or "doubling".)
You are correct that the term "epizeuxis" is used only for cases where repetition is used for emphasis or to intensify meaning ("Never never never give up!")
For the case where reduplication is used to form a new meaning, I am not aware of a specific word. We could describe it as neologistic reduplication.
Reduplication has many functions depending on which language you are speaking. In English, it is very often epizeuxis. Interestingly, in Malay, for example, it is how plurals are formed (orang = man, orang-orang = men).
In English it can be used to to cute effect in creating words that might be considered kidspeak: mama, dada, nana, boo-boo, wee-wee, tum-tum, etc.
It is also quite common in English to form reduplicatives where one vowel changes: riff-raff, sing-song, ding-dong, tip-top, wishy-washy, dilly-dally, chit-chat, mumbo-jumbo, namby-pamby, roly-poly, and so on. These are usually considered to be a type of reduplication.
answered Aug 1 '17 at 23:35
Daniel AustinDaniel Austin
844212
A type of Reduplication
This linguistic term for saying the same word twice in succession is "reduplication". (Alternative terms less commonly encountered include "duplication" or "doubling".)
You are correct that the term "epizeuxis" is used only for cases where repetition is used for emphasis or to intensify meaning ("Never never never give up!")
For the case where reduplication is used to form a new meaning, I am not aware of a specific word. We could describe it as neologistic reduplication.
Reduplication has many functions depending on which language you are speaking. In English, it is very often epizeuxis. Interestingly, in Malay, for example, it is how plurals are formed (orang = man, orang-orang = men).
In English it can be used to to cute effect in creating words that might be considered kidspeak: mama, dada, nana, boo-boo, wee-wee, tum-tum, etc.
It is also quite common in English to form reduplicatives where one vowel changes: riff-raff, sing-song, ding-dong, tip-top, wishy-washy, dilly-dally, chit-chat, mumbo-jumbo, namby-pamby, roly-poly, and so on. These are usually considered to be a type of reduplication.
answered Aug 1 '17 at 23:35
Daniel AustinDaniel Austin
844212
edited Aug 5 '17 at 2:34
answered Aug 1 '17 at 23:35
Daniel AustinDaniel Austin
844212
answered Aug 1 '17 at 23:35
Daniel AustinDaniel Austin
844212
answered Aug 1 '17 at 23:35
Daniel AustinDaniel Austin
844212
844212
2
See also: What does “small small” mean in Indian English?
– NVZ
Aug 4 '17 at 18:31
'Reduplication' is a far broader term; I've never seen a definition like 'repeating the same word twice or more to create a new meaning altogether', and you fail to provide one. None of your examples seems to meet the requirements of this definition. Yes, 'reduplication' is a hypernym, but this has been covered here before.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 4 '17 at 22:09
1
@EdwinAshworth Fair point. I have edited my answer to make it clearer that what the OP describes is a type of reduplication.
– Daniel Austin
Aug 4 '17 at 23:12
add a comment |
2
See also: What does “small small” mean in Indian English?
– NVZ
Aug 4 '17 at 18:31
'Reduplication' is a far broader term; I've never seen a definition like 'repeating the same word twice or more to create a new meaning altogether', and you fail to provide one. None of your examples seems to meet the requirements of this definition. Yes, 'reduplication' is a hypernym, but this has been covered here before.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 4 '17 at 22:09
1
@EdwinAshworth Fair point. I have edited my answer to make it clearer that what the OP describes is a type of reduplication.
– Daniel Austin
Aug 4 '17 at 23:12
2
2
See also: What does “small small” mean in Indian English?
– NVZ
Aug 4 '17 at 18:31
See also: What does “small small” mean in Indian English?
– NVZ
Aug 4 '17 at 18:31
'Reduplication' is a far broader term; I've never seen a definition like 'repeating the same word twice or more to create a new meaning altogether', and you fail to provide one. None of your examples seems to meet the requirements of this definition. Yes, 'reduplication' is a hypernym, but this has been covered here before.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 4 '17 at 22:09
'Reduplication' is a far broader term; I've never seen a definition like 'repeating the same word twice or more to create a new meaning altogether', and you fail to provide one. None of your examples seems to meet the requirements of this definition. Yes, 'reduplication' is a hypernym, but this has been covered here before.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 4 '17 at 22:09
1
1
@EdwinAshworth Fair point. I have edited my answer to make it clearer that what the OP describes is a type of reduplication.
– Daniel Austin
Aug 4 '17 at 23:12
@EdwinAshworth Fair point. I have edited my answer to make it clearer that what the OP describes is a type of reduplication.
– Daniel Austin
Aug 4 '17 at 23:12
add a comment |
What about usage like 'promises promises' to express doubt? or "surprise surprise" conveying irony? are there more of these in the English language? and surely they convey a 'new meaning' in that the 'original' meaning of the word has changed?
answered 24 mins ago
PhilbertPhilbert
1
New contributor
Philbert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
What about usage like 'promises promises' to express doubt? or "surprise surprise" conveying irony? are there more of these in the English language? and surely they convey a 'new meaning' in that the 'original' meaning of the word has changed?
answered 24 mins ago
PhilbertPhilbert
1
New contributor
Philbert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
What about usage like 'promises promises' to express doubt? or "surprise surprise" conveying irony? are there more of these in the English language? and surely they convey a 'new meaning' in that the 'original' meaning of the word has changed?
answered 24 mins ago
PhilbertPhilbert
1
New contributor
Philbert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
What about usage like 'promises promises' to express doubt? or "surprise surprise" conveying irony? are there more of these in the English language? and surely they convey a 'new meaning' in that the 'original' meaning of the word has changed?
answered 24 mins ago
PhilbertPhilbert
1
New contributor
Philbert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 24 mins ago
PhilbertPhilbert
1
New contributor
Philbert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 24 mins ago
PhilbertPhilbert
1
answered 24 mins ago
PhilbertPhilbert
1
1
New contributor
Philbert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Philbert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Philbert is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f403847%2fwhat-is-the-term-for-repeating-the-same-word-twice-or-more-to-create-a-new-meani%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Repeating 'rhubarb' is merely producing a desired sound, rather like using thunder drums, not forming a new lexeme. It has no meaning. Saying 'Rabbit rabbit!' (I remember it as 'White rabbit!') is a meaningless incantation, rather like touching wood. No new lexemes are being created.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 1 '17 at 23:45
3
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because there is a misconception that new meanings are being created by repetition, whereas words are just being used as dramatic fillers or in a talismanic way.
– Edwin Ashworth
Aug 1 '17 at 23:47
You say the double words 'create a new meaning', but I can't decide if that is really true. The double words you describe certainly have a purpose, but does that equal meaning? eg with 'rhubarb', it is employed purely as a sound in a situation where sound must be devoid of meaning. "Rabbit rabbit" is a ritualised utterance used to assure luck, but essentially meaningless. So, I guess I'm just asking if the Q should say purpose rather than meaning; on the strength of your examples?
– Spagirl
Aug 1 '17 at 23:58
@EdwinAshworth Ha! It took me so long to work out how to phrase mine that you snuck in with a much more concise version in the meantime!
– Spagirl
Aug 2 '17 at 0:01
Besides, it's not "rhubarb, rhubarb", it's "rhubarb pie".
– Hot Licks
Aug 2 '17 at 0:44