Are there any rules governing voicing in words formed via reduplication?


Consider the following words:

  * 燦々 `sansan`
  * 散々 `sanzan`

Both of them are formed via the reduplication of `san`, but the latter word
has the second instance voiced, while the former doesn't.

Was there some sort of historical phonological rule that governed whether or
not the second syllable would be voiced, or is this property of reduplicated
words unpredictable _a priori_?




Sequential voicing (called 連濁【れんだく】 in Japanese) isn't predictable, but there
are rules that describe when it's "blocked"--in other words, when it's much
less likely to occur. None of these rules are absolutes, though, and we can
find some exceptions.

Reduplication commonly results in sequential voicing:

  * 黒々 （くろ **ぐろ** ）
  * 人々 （ひと **びと** ）
  * 華々しい （はな **ばな** しい）
  * それぞれ （それ **ぞれ** ）
  * 口々 （くち **ぐち** ）

This process is blocked in reduplicated onomatopoeia, which has its own rules.
Basically, both halves should sound the same, regardless of whether a sound is
voiced or not:

  * とんとん
  * どんどん
  * ぴくぴく
  * ひくひく
  * びくびく

And it's blocked when the reduplicated portion already contains a voiced
obstruent. (This is just a restatement of Lyman's Law as applied to
reduplication.) So:

  * 度々 （たびたび）
  * 飛び飛び （とびとび）
  * 数々 （かずかず）
  * 繁々 （しげしげ）

This process is also usually blocked with Sino-Japanese compounds, which is to
say, those compounds that use _on_ readings:

  * 空々 （くうくう）
  * 個々 （ここ）
  * 半々 （はんはん）
  * 少々 （しょうしょう）
  * 戦々恐々 （せんせんきょうきょう）
  * 燦々 （さんさん）

There are exceptions, though, where reduplicated Sino-Japanese compounds are
voiced, so it's not an absolute rule. These are all the exceptions I'm aware
of, although there are undoubtedly more:

  * 甲斐甲斐しい （かい **がい** しい） _[but this may not be S-J at all, see comments]_
  * 散々 （さん **ざん** ）
  * 種々 （しゅ **じゅ** ）
  * 精々 （せい **ぜい** ）
  * 騒々しい （そう **ぞう** しい）
  * 猩々 （しょう **じょう** ）

In certain cases this can be explained as a property of the word being
reduplicated. For example, 甲斐【かい】 voices very readily in compounds:

  * 不甲斐ない （ふ **がい** ない）
  * 生き甲斐 （いき **がい** ）
  * 甲斐甲斐しい （かい **がい** しい）

So it's no surprise that it voices in our reduplicated example. Why does this
word voice when others do not? It may be that this word is treated as a
_nativized_ part of the Japanese vocabulary, rather than as a Sino-Japanese
compound, making it subject to the phonetic rules that normally apply to
native words. And the same explanation can be used for other Sino-Japanese
compounds that readily undergo voicing, such as 会社:

  * 株式会社 （かぶしき **がいしゃ** ）
  * 信販会社 （しんぱん **がいしゃ** ）
  * 親会社 （おや **がいしゃ** ）

So we can see that in some cases, our exceptions are because of a _lexical
property_ of the word that undergoes voicing.

In other cases, though, I have no explanation. Why is 猩々 voiced while 少々 is
not? Why is 散々 voiced while 燦々 is not? It's possible that the same explanation
applies, but I find it much harder to support. After all, 種 never voices to じゅ
in compounds other than 種々.

So I think the best explanation is that the rules "blocking" sequential
voicing are merely _strong tendencies_ rather than actual rules. What's more,
in cases where it's **not** blocked, whether or not it occurs isn't
predictable. And as a result, we can make some generalizations about when
sequential voicing occurs, but we can't predict it with certainty. I'm afraid
you'll just have to memorize cases like 燦々 and 散々.




Sequential voicing (called 連濁【れんだく】 in Japanese) isn't predictable, but there
are rules that describe when it's "blocked"--in other words, when it's much
less likely to occur. None of these rules are absolutes, though, and we can
find some exceptions.

Reduplication commonly results in sequential voicing:

  * 黒々 （くろ **ぐろ** ）
  * 人々 （ひと **びと** ）
  * 華々しい （はな **ばな** しい）
  * それぞれ （それ **ぞれ** ）
  * 口々 （くち **ぐち** ）

This process is blocked in reduplicated onomatopoeia, which has its own rules.
Basically, both halves should sound the same, regardless of whether a sound is
voiced or not:

  * とんとん
  * どんどん
  * ぴくぴく
  * ひくひく
  * びくびく

And it's blocked when the reduplicated portion already contains a voiced
obstruent. (This is just a restatement of Lyman's Law as applied to
reduplication.) So:

  * 度々 （たびたび）
  * 飛び飛び （とびとび）
  * 数々 （かずかず）
  * 繁々 （しげしげ）

This process is also usually blocked with Sino-Japanese compounds, which is to
say, those compounds that use _on_ readings:

  * 空々 （くうくう）
  * 個々 （ここ）
  * 半々 （はんはん）
  * 少々 （しょうしょう）
  * 戦々恐々 （せんせんきょうきょう）
  * 燦々 （さんさん）

There are exceptions, though, where reduplicated Sino-Japanese compounds are
voiced, so it's not an absolute rule. These are all the exceptions I'm aware
of, although there are undoubtedly more:

  * 甲斐甲斐しい （かい **がい** しい） _[but this may not be S-J at all, see comments]_
  * 散々 （さん **ざん** ）
  * 種々 （しゅ **じゅ** ）
  * 精々 （せい **ぜい** ）
  * 騒々しい （そう **ぞう** しい）
  * 猩々 （しょう **じょう** ）

In certain cases this can be explained as a property of the word being
reduplicated. For example, 甲斐【かい】 voices very readily in compounds:

  * 不甲斐ない （ふ **がい** ない）
  * 生き甲斐 （いき **がい** ）
  * 甲斐甲斐しい （かい **がい** しい）

So it's no surprise that it voices in our reduplicated example. Why does this
word voice when others do not? It may be that this word is treated as a
_nativized_ part of the Japanese vocabulary, rather than as a Sino-Japanese
compound, making it subject to the phonetic rules that normally apply to
native words. And the same explanation can be used for other Sino-Japanese
compounds that readily undergo voicing, such as 会社:

  * 株式会社 （かぶしき **がいしゃ** ）
  * 信販会社 （しんぱん **がいしゃ** ）
  * 親会社 （おや **がいしゃ** ）

So we can see that in some cases, our exceptions are because of a _lexical
property_ of the word that undergoes voicing.

In other cases, though, I have no explanation. Why is 猩々 voiced while 少々 is
not? Why is 散々 voiced while 燦々 is not? It's possible that the same explanation
applies, but I find it much harder to support. After all, 種 never voices to じゅ
in compounds other than 種々.

So I think the best explanation is that the rules "blocking" sequential
voicing are merely _strong tendencies_ rather than actual rules. What's more,
in cases where it's **not** blocked, whether or not it occurs isn't
predictable. And as a result, we can make some generalizations about when
sequential voicing occurs, but we can't predict it with certainty. I'm afraid
you'll just have to memorize cases like 燦々 and 散々.

