PDF Diminutives in English Schneider Download

Full download ebook at ebookgate.

com

Diminutives in English Schneider

https://ebookgate.com/product/diminutives-in-
english-schneider/
Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Varieties of English Volume 2 The Americas and the

Carribean 1st Edition Edgar W. Schneider
https://ebookgate.com/product/varieties-of-english-volume-2-the-
americas-and-the-carribean-1st-edition-edgar-w-schneider/
Gangs 1st Edition Jacqueline Schneider
https://ebookgate.com/product/gangs-1st-edition-jacqueline-
schneider/
Continuous Casting 1st Edition Wolfgang Schneider
https://ebookgate.com/product/continuous-casting-1st-edition-
wolfgang-schneider/
Energy Leadership 2nd Edition Bruce D Schneider
https://ebookgate.com/product/energy-leadership-2nd-edition-
bruce-d-schneider/
The Cleveland Indians 1st Edition Russell Schneider
https://ebookgate.com/product/the-cleveland-indians-1st-edition-
russell-schneider/
Chaperonin Protocols 1st Edition. Edition Christine

Schneider
https://ebookgate.com/product/chaperonin-protocols-1st-edition-
edition-christine-schneider/
Electronic Commerce 12th Edition Gary P. Schneider
https://ebookgate.com/product/electronic-commerce-12th-edition-
gary-p-schneider/
The Psychology of Stereotyping Distinguished

Contributions In Psychology 1st Edition David J.
Schneider
https://ebookgate.com/product/the-psychology-of-stereotyping-
distinguished-contributions-in-psychology-1st-edition-david-j-
schneider/
Introduction to public health 4th edition Edition

Schneider
https://ebookgate.com/product/introduction-to-public-health-4th-
edition-edition-schneider/
Linguistische
Arbeiten 479
Herausgegeben von Hans Altmann, Peter Blumenthal,
Hans Jürgen Heringer, Ingo Plag, Beatrice Primus und Richard Wiese
Klaus P. Schneider
Diminutives in English
Max Niemeyer Verlag

Tübingen 2003
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Bibliothek
Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte
bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.
ISBN 3-484-30479-0 ISSN 0344-6727
© Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH, Tübingen 2003

Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der
engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das
gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und
Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany.
Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.
Druck und Einband: Digital PS Druck AG, Birkach
Acknowledgements
This book is a radically shortened, updated English version of my postdoctoral thesis

('Habilitationsschrift'), 'Size and Attitude': Expressive Wortbildung und diminutivische
Ausdrücke in der englischen Alltagskommunikation, originally written in German and sub-
mitted to the Faculty of Foreign Language Philology of the University of Marburg in the
summer of 1996.
Far from diminutive is my gratitude to the many people who have contributed by their
support and discussions to the writing of this book. First and foremost, a very warm thanks
goes to Rüdiger Zimmermann for the many years of help and encouragement, and
especially for taking an interest in the original project from beginning to end.
Also I am very grateful to Ingo Plag, editor, colleague and friend, for his numerous
stimulating comments on the manuscript and his substantial support in the final stages of
this book project. Other people whose contributions I would like to acknowledge are Willis
Edmondson, Jürgen Handke, Michael Job, and Theo Harden, the audiences of several
conferences, and also my students in Marburg, Hamburg, Rostock, and Dublin. Many
thanks to all of these.
Further, I am greatly indebted to Anne Barron for her many comments and her invalu-
able help with style and language, and to Britta Bücher for taking me through the whole
process of preparing the manuscript with her incredible speed and efficiency. Needless to
say, only I remain responsible for any errors or shortcomings.
And finally, I would like to thank Judith, Niels, Leo and most particularly Iris for
bearing with me through the hardships caused by bringing this book into existence, and for
constantly showing me what life is really all about. Without you, I would never have
succeeded.
Bonn, March 2003 KPS

Contents
Abbreviations XI
0. Aims, claims and structure of the present study 1
1. Introduction 4
1.1. What are diminutives? 4
1.1.1. Word class of input 5
1.1.2. Word class of output 6
1.1.3. Formation processes 7
1.1.4. Diminutive meaning 10
1.1.5. Summary 15
1.2. Related terms and concepts 16
1.2.1. Augmentatives 16
1.2.1.1. Prototypical augmentatives 16
1.2.1.2. Augmentative formation 17
1.2.1.3. Augmentative meaning 18
1.2.2. Other related terms and concepts 20
1.3. Conclusion 21
2. Researching diminutives: the state of the art 23

2.1. Overview 23
2.1.1. Historical and quantitative dimension 23
2.1.2. Languages covered 25
2.1.3. Topics 27
2.2. Grammatical approaches to diminutives 29
2.2.1. Diminutives in traditional grammar 29
2.2.2. Diminutives in structuralism 31
2.2.3. Diminutives in generative grammar 32
2.2.4. Recent post-generativist approaches 35
2.2.4.1. Diminutives in optimality theory 35
2.2.4.2. Pre- and protomorphological approaches 36
2.3. Pragmatic approaches to diminutives 37
2.3.1. Diminutives as emotive signs 37
2.3.2. Diminutives across cultures 39
2.3.3. Diminutives as speech act modifiers 47
2.3.4. The morphopragmatics of diminutives 49
2.3.5. Diminutives in discourse 53
2.4. Summary and perspectives 55
3. Researching diminutives: integrating grammatical and pragmatic perspectives... 57

3.1. The object of analysis 57
3.2. General outline of the research programme 58
Vili
3.3. The grammatical perspective: diminutive formation 60

3.3.1. The morphonological perspective: diminutive form 60
3.3.2. The semantic perspective: diminutive meaning 61
3.4. The pragmatic perspective: diminutive use 63
3.4.1. The micropragmatic perspective: diminutive function 64
3.4.2. The macropragmatic perspective: diminutive distribution 66
3.5. Method 68
3.5.1. Units of analysis 68
3.5.2. Data types and data quality 69
3.5.3. The corpus of the present study 72
4. Grammatical aspects of English diminutives 74

4.1. Some controversial issues 74
4.1.1. The status of diminutives in English 75
4.1.2. The inventory of diminutive suffixes 76
4.1.3. Subclasses of diminutive suffixes 78
4.1.4. Historical variation 80
4.1.5. Productivity 82
4.1.6. Non-suffixal formation 84
4.1.7. Summary 85
4.2. Synthetic diminutive formation 85
4.2.1. {IE} 86
4.2.2. {ETTE} 92
4.2.3. {LET} 96
4.2.4. {LING}, {KIN}, and {EEN} 103
4.2.4.1. {LING} 103
4.2.4.2. {KIN} 105
4.2.4.3. {EEN} 106
4.2.5. {S}, {ER}, {O}, {A}, and {LE} 108
4.2.5.1. {S} 108
4.2.5.2. {ER} 110
4.2.5.3. {0} Ill
4.2.5.4. {A} 112
4.2.5.5. {LE} 112
4.2.6. {POO}, {POP}, and {PEG} 113
4.2.6.1. {POO} 113
4.2.6.2. {POP} 114
4.2.6.3. {PEG} 115
4.2.7. Multiple and competing diminutives 117
4.2.7.1. Multiple diminutivisation 117
4.2.7.2. Competing diminutives 119
4.2.8. Summary 119
4.3. Analytic diminutive formation 122
4.3.1. Status 123
4.3.2. The word field SMALL 124
4.3.3. The competing adjectives small and little 126
IX
4.3.4. The specific nature of little 127

4.3.5. Analytic diminutive forms 129
4.3.5.1. The position of little in noun phrases 129
4.3.5.2. Semantic classes of base words 131
4.3.5.3. Co-occurrence of modifiers 134
4.3.6. Summary: analytic diminutive formation in English 135
4.4. The relationship between synthetic and analytic diminutive
formation in English 136
5. Diminutive use in English conversation 138

5.1. Vocative acts 140
5.1.1. Interactional characterisation and specification 140
5.1.2. Realisation strategies 140
5.1.3. Social norms 141
5.1.4. Diminutives as modifiers 143
5.1.4.1. Titles 144
5.1.4.2. Names 144
5.1.4.2.1. First names 144
5.1.4.2.2. Last names 148
5.1.4.3. Kinship terms 149
5.1.4.4. Descriptors 152
5.1.5. Summary: diminutive use in vocative acts 157
5.2. Directive acts 160
5.2.1. Interactional characterisation and specification 160
5.2.2. Realisation strategies, directness levels and politeness values 162
5.2.3. Diminutives as modifiers 164
5.2.3.1. General functions, forms, and positions 164
5.2.3.2. Interaction between diminutives and realisation strategies. 165
5.2.3.3. Interaction between diminutives and communicative
goals 167
5.2.3.3.1. Asking for action 167
5.2.3.3.2. Asking for material goods 168
5.2.3.3.3. Asking for permission 172
5.2.3.3.4. Asking for patience 172
5.2.3.3.5. Asking for information 174
5.2.4. Sequential aspects 176
5.2.5. Summary: diminutive use in directive acts 177
5.3. Commissive acts 178
5.3.1. Offers 181
5.3.1.1. Specification 181
5.3.1.2. Realisation strategies and diminutives 183
5.3.1.3. Offer responses 186
5.3.1.4. Discourse positions of offers 189
5.3.1.5. Summary: diminutive use in offers 190
5.3.2. Announcements 191
5.3.3. Suggestions 193
χ
5.3.3.1. Interactional characterisation 193

5.3.3.2. Realisation strategies 193
5.3.3.3. Diminutives as internal modifiers 194
5.3.3.4. Sequential aspects 196
5.3.3.5. Summary: diminutive use in suggestions 199
5.3.4. Summary: diminutive use in commissive acts 199
5.4. Expressive acts 200
5.4.1. Compliments 201
5.4.1.3. Diminutives as modifiers 203
5.4.1.4. Sociopragmatic aspects 205
5.4.1.5. Variation across varieties of English 206
5.4.1.7. Summary: diminutive use in complimenting behaviour.... 208
5.4.2. Insults 209
5.4.2.3. Diminutives as modifiers 210
5.4.2.4. Sociopragmatic aspects 211
5.4.2.6. Summary: diminutive use in insults 213
5.4.3. Summary: diminutive use in expressive acts 214
5.5. Assertive acts 215
5.5.1. Interactional characterisation 215
5.5.2. Specification 215
5.5.3. Realisation strategies 216
5.5.4. Reference to persons 216
5.5.4.1. Speaker reference 217
5.5.4.2. Reference to addressee 218
5.5.4.3. Reference to bystander 218
5.5.4.4. Reference to non-participant 220
5.5.5. Reference to objects 221
5.5.5.1. Reference to body parts 221
5.5.5.2. Reference to possessions 223
5.5.5.3. Reference to locations 224
5.5.5.4. Reference to'dangerous pastimes' 224
5.5.6. Sequential aspects 225
5.5.7. Summary: diminutive use in assertive acts 227
5.6. Summary: diminutive use in English conversation 229
6. Summary and perspectives 236
References 239
Abbreviations
ALB Albee, Edward (1965): Who 's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1962).
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
ALB-G Albee, Edward (1963): Wer hai Angst vor Virginia Woolf...? Translated
by Pinkas Braun. Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer.
AMI Amis, Kingsley (1962): Take a Girl Like You. (1960). Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
BAR Barnes, Julian (1992): Talking It Over. New York: Vintage.
BEC Beckett, Samuel (1965): Waitingfor Godot. (1956). London: Faber.
BIR Pinter, Harold (1965): The Birthday Party. (1957). London: Methuen.
BLU Blundell, Jon/Higgens, Jonathan/Middlemiss, Nigel (1982): Functions in
English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BON Bond, Edward (1969): Saved. (1965). London: Methuen.
BRO Brown, Rita Mae (1989): Bingo. (1988). New York: Bantam.
BRO-G Brown, Rita Mae (1990): Bingo. Translated by Margarete Längsfeld.
Reinbek: Rowohlt.
BYA Byatt, Antonia S. (1986): Still Life. (1985). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
CID Irving, John (1986): The Cider House Rules. (1985). London: Black
Swan.
COBI Sinclair, John (ed.) (1987): Collins COBUILD English Language
Dictionary. London/Glasgow/Stuttgart: Collins/Klett.
COB2 Sinclair, John (ed.) (1999): Collins COBUILD English Dictionary.
London: Harper Collins.
COD6 Sykes, J.B. (ed.) (1976): The Concise Oxford English Dictionary of
Current English. 6th ed. Oxford: Clarendon.
CRY Crystal, David/Davy, Derek (1975): Advanced Conversational English.
London: Longman.
DCE2 Summers, Della (ed.) ( 1987): Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English. London: Longman.
DCE3 Summers, Della (ed.) (2000): Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English. 3rd ed. London: Longman.
DOY Doyle, Roddy (1992): The Van. London: Mandarin.
DWA Pinter, Harold ( 1966): The Dwarfs. In: A Slight Ache and Other Plays.
London: Methuen, 89-117.
EDM Edmondson, Willis (1988-1990): Unpublished Corpus ofParent-Child-
Interactions. Hamburg: University of Hamburg.
KMS Willmann, Helmut/Messinger, Heinz: "Der Kleine Muret-Sanders". Vol.
1: Deutsch-Englisch (1982); Vol. 2: Englisch-Deutsch (1985). Berlin etc.:
Langenscheidt.
KUR Kureishi, Hanif (1990): The Buddha of Suburbia. London: Faber & Faber.
LEI Leigh, Mike (1983): Abigail's Party./Goose Pimples. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
XII
LLC Svartvik, Jan/Quirk, Randolph (eds.) (1980): A Corpus of English

Conversation. Lund: Gleerup.
MCE McEwan, Ian (1991): The Innocent. London: Picador.
MEA Irving, John (1989): A Prayerfor Owen Meany. London: Corgi.
NED Murray, James (ed.) (1897): A New English Dictionary on Historical
Principles. Oxford: Clarendon.
NOD Pearsall, Judy ( 1998): The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
OED1 Murray, James et al. (eds.) (1933): The Oxford English Dictionary.
Oxford: Clarendon.
OED2 Simpson, John/Weiner, Edmund ( 1989): The Oxford English Dictionary.
2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon.
OMA O'Malley, Mary ( 1978): Once a Catholic. New York/London: Faber.
OSB Osborne, John (I960): Look Back in Anger. (1956). London: Faber.
RUS Rushdie, Salman (1990): Haroun and the Sea of Stories. London: Granta.
SHA Shaffer, Peter (1968): Black Comedy. London: Methuen.
WAT Irving, John (1980): The Water Method Man. (1972). London: Corgi.
WEL Weldon, Fay (1984): The Life and Loves of a She Devil. London:
Coronet.
WEL-G Weldon, Fay ( 1989): Die Teufelin. Translated by Werner Waldhoff.
München: DTV.
0. Aims, claims and structure of the present study
Diminutives are funny animals. Even though they have been studied extensively during the
past 150 years or so, they are still considered "a puzzle" (cf. Carstairs-McCarthy 1992:
261). Among the problems they pose are at least the following three: 1) 'Diminutive' is
generally regarded as a universal category, found in all languages. At the same time, some
languages, for instance, English, are said to have no diminutives. 2) Many researchers
maintain that diminutives denote smallness, others argue that they denote smallness and
have affective or evaluative connotations, while yet others claim that diminutives express
affective or evaluative meaning alone. 3) It is considered paradoxical that diminutives -
even one and the same diminutive form - can express appreciative or depreciative connota-
tions.
I suggest that these problems exist because a) 'diminutive* is a term of traditional gram-
mar and as such taken for granted, i.e. it is usually not clearly defined and is often used in a
sense relevant only to Latin and related languages, but not to other languages, such as Eng-
lish; b) the focus of analysis has been on formal aspects of diminutives, while diminution,
the concept expressed, has largely been neglected; c) diminutives have not, as a rule, been
studied from a pragmatic perspective.
The present book addresses these issues and aims at solving some of these puzzles. The
focus is on functional as well as formal aspects, and in particular on English diminutives
and how they are used in everyday conversation. For this purpose, an approach is adopted
which allows diminutives to be studied in communication. It has been pointed out repeat-
edly (e.g. by Würstle 1992: 50) that diminutives can only be adequately interpreted in con-
text, relative to the situation in which they occur. For instance, a diminutive form does not
express appreciation and depreciation at the same time - rather, the relevant reading de-
pends on the given context. However, systematic studies of diminutive use are rare, proba-
bly due to the absence of a coherent pragmatic framework. In 1990, Volek (1990: 343)
observed: "The pragmatic factors have been so far completely ignored in studies of diminu-
tives." The situation has not changed much since.
However, functional aspects should not be analysed independent of form either. There-
fore, a plea is made for studying diminutives in a 'formal-functional paradigm', postulated
programmatically by Leech (1983:4) as follows:
In essence, the claim will be that grammar (the abstract formal system of language) and pragmatics
(the principles of language use) are complementary domains within linguistics. We cannot under-
stand the nature of language without studying both these domains, and the interaction between
them.
Against this background, the present approach to the study of diminutives integrates
grammatical and pragmatic perspectives. It rests on the fundamental assumption that 'di-
minutive' is not a morphological category in the first instance, but a term which refers to all
expressions of diminution. As diminution is a universal concept, it is expressed in all lan-
guages. However, the particular linguistic devices used to express diminution depend on the
2
general structural make-up of a language. Thus, suffixation, traditionally viewed as the only
way of diminutive formation, is just one option.
Concerning the English language, central claims made in the present study include the
following:
- That English has no diminutives is a common myth. The truth is that English does have
diminutives. Yet, due to the general structure of the English language, English diminu-
tives are primarily formed analytically by using little. Additionally, however, English
possesses an inventory of diminutive suffixes, such as, e.g., -ie, -ette, -let, -kin, -een, -s,
-er, -poo and -pegs, for forming synthetic diminutives.
- It is generally maintained that diminutives express an invariant semantic feature 'small'.
In the light of the results of the present investigation, however, diminutives seem to con-
vey 'littleness' rather than 'smallness'. Furthermore, this meaning component seems to
interact with the meaning of (the semantic class of) the base word.
- Whether a diminutive conveys a positive or a negative attitude depends on the interaction
between 'littleness' and the meaning of the base form on the one hand, and the interac-
tion between diminutives and contextual variables on the other hand. For instance, wife-
let always conveys an evaluation, whereas cubelet is neutral. Referring to an adult (i.e. a
real king), kinglet expresses a negative attitude (i.e. contempt), but referring to a child
(e.g. a boy acting as a king in a nativity), the same diminutive expresses a positive atti-
tude (i.e. endearment).
- It will be demonstrated that there is a division of labour between analytic and synthetic
forms in English everyday communication. The choice of formal device depends primar-
ily on pragmatic factors, not least on the illocution of the speech act in which the diminu-
tive is used. For example, synthetic forms are preferred in vocative acts and particular
types of assertive acts (with personal reference), while analytic forms are preferred in di-
rectives, commissives, and expressives. However, choice is also influenced by situational
parameters, notably by characteristics of the speech act participants and the relationship
between them.
- Macropragmatic aspects such as interactional status, sequential features, and discourse
position also play a role as diminutives are socially motivated, e.g. by politeness maxims.
For instance, the discourse functions of diminutives in offer sequences can be derived
from the facework specific to negotiating polite offers. In general, diminutives function
primarily as benefit minimisers in such sequences. Their employment, however, becomes
increasingly necessary in the course of a sequence or across sequences in the same con-
versation. Relevant parameters are offer versus offer acceptance, initiating offer versus
offer renewal, and first versus subsequent offer sequence.
These and related issues are addressed in the present book. The aim of chapter 1 is to de-
fine the term 'diminutive' beyond its traditional understanding and to determine the theo-
retical status of diminutives and diminution relative to related terms and concepts. Chapter
2 provides a survey of the state of the art in diminutive research focussing in particular on
studies of the hitherto neglected pragmatic aspects. In chapter 3, a formal-functional ap-
proach is developed which serves as a framework for the integrative study of diminutives.
While the grammatical component of this framework combines morphonological and se-
mantic perspectives, the pragmatic component combines micro- and macropragmatic per-
3
spectives. This integrative approach is applied to English diminutives in chapters 4 and 5.

Chapter 4 examines the structural properties of synthetic and analytic diminutive markers,
i.e. diminutive suffixes and adjectives belonging to the word field SMALL. By contrast,
chapter 5 examines the communicative functions of English diminutives in everyday con-
versation. In this chapter, the emphasis is on the interplay between diminutives and illocu-
tions, and especially between diminutive forms and speech act realisation strategies. Inter-
actional and sequential aspects are also analysed. In chapter 6, which concludes this book,
the major findings are summarised and perspectives for future research are outlined.
1. Introduction
1.1. What are diminutives?
Traditionally, the term 'diminutive' has been used to refer to words which denote smallness
and possibly also expressing an attitude. The expressed attitude can be either positive or
negative, i.e. either affectionate or derogatory, depending on the specific interplay of lin-
guistic and situational factors in a given context.
Prototypical diminutives are complex nouns derived from nouns by suffixation (e.g.,
house + -ie > housie, German Haus + -chen > Häuschen, Spanish casa + -ita > casita, and
Russian dom + -ik > domik 'little house'). Sometimes the term 'diminutive' is used to refer
only to the suffix, which adds the diminutive meaning to the meaning of the base word,
leaving the meaning of the base word intact. A housie is still a house, albeit a small and
nice one. Thus, the meaning of a diminutive form seems to be a purely additive one, con-
sisting of the meaning of the base word plus the component(s) [+'smalP (+attitude)], ex-
pressed through the suffix. As word class is also retained in the process of diminutive for-
mation, it has been suggested that this process should be classified as modification rather
than derivation proper (cf., e.g., Erben 1983: 66).
Whereas the meaning of the base word is modified, but remains essentially unchanged,
the graphological and/or phonological shape of the base word may undergo changes; cf.,
e.g., dog > doggie, and Elizabeth > Betty. Some of these formal changes are idiosyncratic
and governed by rules not found elsewhere in the respective language - a fact regarded as
yet another puzzle posed by this category.
In order to distinguish between the different levels of analysis, it is necessary to differen-
tiate between diminutive form and diminutive meaning, and between the processes of di-
minutive formation and diminutivisation, a formal and a semantic process respectively.
So far, research on diminutives has dealt almost exclusively with formal aspects of
diminutives (cf. 2.1.), but not with the concept expressed by these forms. The beginning of
a paper by Stump (1993) is symptomatic: "Many languages possess morphological rules
which serve to express diminution ..." What follows in Stump's article is an interesting and
substantial discussion of those morphological rules. 'Diminution', however, the concept
expressed by those rules, is not explained or defined, but tacitly presupposed.
I suggest that 'diminution', also referred to as 'diminutivity', is a concept related to such
concepts as quantification, qualification, modification, gradation, intensification, and
evaluation, and of the same theoretical status.1 Diminution can be considered the interface
between concepts of quantification and qualification, in that it combines aspects of size and
attitude, and more particularly of smallness and appreciation or depreciation (cf. also Juraf-
sky 1996). This complex concept is expressed through diminutives.
1
Cf. van Os (1989: 219), who establishes strong links between concepts of quantification and con-
cepts of intensification, and between their verbalisations (cf. also 1.2.1.3.). Cf. also Monge (1988).
5
As 'diminutive' is a term developed in traditional grammar, it is not surprising that pro-

totypical diminutives are found especially in Latin and languages evolved from Latin or of
similar morphological complexity, i.e. in particular in Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and
Romanian among Romance languages, and also in Slavic languages such as Russian and
Polish. At the same time, 'diminution' is a universal concept, which can be expressed in all
languages, including languages which do not have suffixes, as, for example, Swahili (cf.
2.1.2.). Therefore, a more general definition of diminutives is needed, i.e. a definition
which does not only cover prototypical cases.
The description of prototypical diminutives involves the following parameters: word
class of input (base word) and output (diminutive), formation process, and denotative and
connotative meaning components of the output. The default values are: noun > noun, suf-
fixation, [+small], and [+positive] or [+negative] attitude. Each of these parameters will be
discussed briefly to establish which other values occur across languages for expressing the
concept of diminution.
1.1.1. Word class of input
While the bases of prototypical diminutives are nouns, diminutives can also be formed from
lexemes belonging to other word classes. Generally speaking, all word classes are eligible,
but there seem to be differences in productivity and frequency of occurrence.
In many languages, diminutives are also formed from adjectival bases. Consider, for in-
stance, Italian A giallo 'yellow' > A giallino 'yellow+DIM'.2 The suffix which is added in
this case, -ino, is also used to derive diminutive nouns from nouns; cf., e.g., Ν tavola 'table'
> Ν tavolino. The same pattern is commonly found, e.g., in Romanian or Breton, but not, as
a rule, in English or German. However, the approximative suffixes may be considered an
exception; cf., e.g., A yellow > A yellowish, and German A gelb 'yellow' > A gelblich
'yellowish' (or, arguably, 'yellow+DIM').
Adverbs constitute another input category; cf., e.g., Italian bene 'well' > benino
'well+DIM' or Dutch schoont 'cleanly' > schoontjes 'cleanly+DIM'. The suffixes em-
ployed in these cases are also used to derive diminutives from nouns and adjectives. Fur-
thermore, diminutives can be formed from verbs; cf., e.g., Italian V giocare 'play' > V
giocherellare 'play+DIM', or German V denken 'think' > V denkeln 'think+DIM'. Some of
the German deverbal diminutives are lexicalized, e.g., lächeln 'smile' < lachen 'laugh'.
Apart from content words, function words may also serve as input, e.g., pronouns, inter-
jections and prepositions; cf., e.g., German PRO du 'you' (sg.) > PRO duchen, German INJ
hallo 'hello' > INJ hallöchen, and Breton PREP e-kichen 'at, near' > PREP e-kichenig. The
suffixes which are used here are again those used to derive diminutives from nouns, adjec-
tives and adverbs, but not, as a rule, from verbs, for which different suffixes exist.
It seems that diminutives derived from function words are formed much less frequently
than diminutives derived from content words. Differences in frequency also occur among
2
In this chapter, the following abbreviations are used: A = adjective, ADV = adverb, DIM = di-
minutive, INJ = inteijection, Ν = noun, PREP = preposition, PRO = pronoun, and V = verb; X and
Y are used as word class variables.
6
content word classes. Ν is the prototypical input category. Across languages, denominal
diminutives seem to occur much more frequently than diminutives derived from other word
classes. Arguably, the dominance of nouns as an input category can be explained by the
salience of this word class in the acquisition of the first language (cf. Clark 1993: 38ff. and
143ff.) as diminutive formation is acquired at an early age (cf., e.g., Olmsted 1994, Gillis
1997, and Ravid 1998).3
In sum, concerning the word class of the input, the following hierarchy can be observed
(cf. Bratus 1969: 3 and Nieuwenhuis 1985: 64 and 216):
i.) content words > function words,

ii.) nominal word classes (N, A) > verbal word classes (V, ADV),
iii.) Ν > A.
1.1.2. Word class of output
In all cases considered in the preceding section, the word class of the base word was re-
tained in diminutive formation. In other words, the diminutives typically belong to the same
word class as their respective bases. This also applies to classes of function words such as
PRO, INJ, and PREP.
In English and German, however, there is an exception to this rule which concerns dead-
jectival diminutives. When added to adjectives, some diminutive suffixes effect a word
class change; cf., e.g., A short > Ν shorty, A sweet > Ν sweetie, A fat > Ν fats, A weird > Ν
weirdo.4 Consider also German A dumm 'stupid' > Ν Dummchen 'stupid+DIM' (i.e. 'stupid
little one'), A sensibel 'sensitive' > Ν Sensibelchen 'sensitive+DIM'. The underlying pat-
tern is A > N, i.e. in all of these cases the output is a noun.5
All diminutives formed in this fashion are used to refer to animates, most notably to hu-
man beings. The A > Ν pattern correlates with a specific semantic pattern, in which the
base adjective expresses a characteristic feature and the output form refers to an individual
regarded as a bearer of this feature. At the same time, this process is a diminutivisation
process, as the output form conveys an attitude towards the feature bearer.
In general terms, word class membership of the output in diminutive formation can be
summarised as follows:
i.) As a rule, word class is retained: X > X.

ii.) If word class is not retained, the output is a noun: X > Υ, Υ = Ν.
3
For an alternative position, cf. Plag (1999:143-145).
4
When used as nicknames, such forms are sometimes capitalized, e.g. Shorty or Fats.
5
However, in German it is also possible to employ the same suffix -chen to derive deadjectival
diminutive adjectives; cf., e.g., A müde 'tired' > A müdchen 'tired+DIM' (which sometimes trans-
late as 'a little tired').
7
1.1.3. Formation processes
The prototypical process of diminutive formation is derivational suffixation. However,

other processes are also available, inside and outside morphology, and not only for non-
Indo-European languages.
Mayerthaler (1981: 98) distinguishes between 'morphological diminution' and 'syntactic
diminution'. For the morphological type, Mayerthaler mentions two processes, viz. affixa-
tion and partial reduplication. For affixation, he discusses prototypical cases of suffixed
nouns exclusively, while providing a French example for partial reduplication: A folle
'mad' > A fofolle 'a little mad' (Mayerthaler 1981: 181; cf. Mayerthaler 1977). The term
'syntactic diminution' is used to refer to A+N constructions such as little house, in which
the adjectival modifier stems from the word field SMALL (e.g. small, little, tiny, wee). For
this formation type, I use the term 'analytic diminutive formation'6, while for Mayerthaler's
morphological type, I prefer the broader term 'synthetic diminutive formation'. As well as
suffixation and partial reduplication, synthetic diminutive formation also includes deriva-
tional prefixation, inflectional affixation, repetitive and rhyming reduplication, compound-
ing, and truncation. These latter processes will be briefly discussed in turn.
Diminutives can be formed by attaching the derivational prefix mini- to nouns; cf., e.g.,
mini-cruise, mini-team, mini-submarine (cf. Sinclair et al. 1991: s.v. mini-). Diminutives of
this type are also found in contemporary German (cf. Fleischer/Barz 1995: 120ff.),7 proba-
bly modelled on English forms. Such formations are commonly used in colloquial speech
and in advertising. Formations with micro- (cf. German Mikro-), such as micro-processor
or micro-cosmos, can also be considered diminutives. However, such formations seem to be
restricted to technical terminology.
In some languages, inflectional affixation is employed to form diminutives, e.g. in Fula
(cf. Anderson 1982) and Swahili (cf. Herms 1989). In Swahili and other Bantu languages,
the central word class is the noun. All nouns belong to semantic classes, of which Modern
Swahili possesses some fifteen (the exact number is controversial). These classes include
e.g. personal nouns, object nouns, material nouns, and abstract nouns. Some of these
classes come in pairs, as singular and plural forms of the same lexeme belong to two differ-
ent classes. Class membership is indicated by word-initial morphemes traditionally known
as 'concordance prefixes' (cf., e.g., Herms 1975, Schneider 1991a: 237ff.). Today, these
morphemes are referred to as 'gender markers' (cf. Corbett 1991:43ff.). Historically, Bantu
languages had distinct classes for diminutives and augmentatives (cf., e.g., Perrot 1975).
Diminutives were formed by substituting the diminutive prefix for the original class prefix
(or gender marker) of the respective noun. In Modern Swahili, however, prefixes of other
classes fulfill this function, since diminutive and augmentative classes no longer exist. As a
rule, diminutive forms take the prefix of the object class (traditionally class 7 for singular,
and class 8 for plural forms). For instance, the lexeme -dege 'bird' belongs to the animal
class and thus carries the prefix η-, i.e. ndege. In the diminutive form, this prefix is replaced
by ki-, the prefix of the object class, yielding kidege 'little bird'. This process has an inter-
6
Elsewhere, I have used 'analytical' (cf. Schneider 2000; cf. also Fischer 1962).
7
Fleischer/Barz classify Gemían Mini- as a 'confix' ('Konfix'), and formations with Mini- as 'con-
fix compounds' ('Konfixkomposita').
8
esting parallel in German. In German prototypical diminutive formation, the suffixes -chen
and -lein also effect a change in gender. Irrespective of the original gender of the base
noun, all diminutives, without exception, are neuter, which, arguably, is the natural cate-
gory for objects (cf. Schneider 1991a, and Schneider/Schneider 1991 for a sociolinguistic
interpretation, cf. also Mladenova 2001).
Across languages, diminutive' formation by inflectional affixation seems to be rare. Ac-
cording to Bybee (1985), diminution is one of those concepts predominantly realized by
derivation rather than inflection, at least as far as synthetic diminutive formation is con-
cerned.
Diminutives can also be formed not only by partial, but also complete, reduplication.
Two types of complete reduplication can be used for this purpose, viz. the repetitive and the
rhyming type. The ablaut type, however, e.g. shilly-shally, does not seem to be relevant to
diminutive formation. In the repetitive type, the base word is repeated without any changes;
cf., e.g., John-John. Such forms, traditionally referred to as hypocoristics or endearment
forms (cf. 1.2.2.), are commonly used as address terms (cf. 5.1.). In Motu, a language spo-
ken in Papua New Guinea, all diminutives are formed by repetitive reduplication, while
partial reduplication indicates number. Consider the following example quoted in Bauer
(1988): mero 'boy'/memero 'boys' > meromero 'little boy'/memeromemero 'little boys'.8
In English, repetitive reduplication can also be employed for adjectival diminutive forma-
tion; cf., e.g., goody-goody (cf. Marchand 1969: 83).
As a rule, rhyming reduplication is also used to form hypocoristic diminutives; cf., e.g.,
Annie-Pannie and Brinnie-Winnie (< Brindsley). Mostly, the right-hand component is se-
mantically empty; consider, however, lovey-dovey. This process can be classified as a sec-
ondary process in that it operates on suffixal diminutives in -iel-y only (cf. 4.2.1.).
In some Germanic languages, compounding is also available for diminutive formation;
cf., e.g., German compounds with Klein- 'small' as their left-hand component, as in the
nouns Kleinstadt 'small town', Kleinvieh 'small domestic animals' and Kleinbürger 'petty
bourgeois', and in the adjectives kleinkörnig 'small-grained', kleingemustert 'small-
patterned' and kleinkariert (literally) 'small-checkedV(nietaphorically) 'narrow-minded'.
Similar forms exist, for instance, in Danish; cf., e.g., the nouns lillemor 'little woman' and
smaablomster 'little flowers',9 the adjectives smaakornet 'small-grained' and smaaternet
'small-patterned', and also the verbs smaasove 'sleep lightly' and smaahoste 'cough
slightly' (cf. German hüsteln 'cough slightly' < husten 'cough'). As is apparent from the
glosses, some of these formations are lexicalized and may not be considered as diminutives
proper, but as historical diminutives.
Formations with baby or dwarf as left-hand components can also be classified as com-
pound diminutives; cf., e.g., (colloquial) baby tree or (more technical) dwarf tree. In Ger-
man linguistics, however, equivalent formations with Zwerg- 'dwarf-' (e.g. Zwergstaat
'miniature state'), and more particularly augmentative formations with Riesen- 'giant-' (e.g.
Riesenhunger 'enormous appetite') are described as prefixoid formations, rather than as
compounds on account of the degree of desemantisation of the left-hand components (cf.
1.3.2., Hansen/Hartmann 1991: 38ff., Fleischer/Barz 1995: ch. 2.2.2.3.3).
0
Cf., e.g., Coelho (1999) on reduplication in diminutive formation in Thompson River Salish.
9
Lille- (cf. little) is used in diminutive nouns in the singular, smaa- (cf. small) in plural forms.
9
All processes discussed so far are additive processes. However, truncation, a subtractive
process, is also employed to form diminutives; consider, for instance, Mike < Michael or
Pat < Patricia (cf., e.g., Lappe 2002). While the terms 'truncation' and 'clipping' are some-
times used interchangeably in the literature (cf., e.g., Plag fc: ch. S, section 2.1.), I consider
truncation a subtype of clipping which is more predictable than other types, as will be dem-
onstrated below.
Truncation and other types of clipping are sometimes considered extra-grammatical and
thus excluded from word-formation or morphology (cf., e.g., Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi
1994). Other researchers classify clipping as a secondary or unpredictable word-formation
process (cf., e.g., Bauer 1983). These classifications are based on three arguments: i.) Clip-
ping does not observe morpheme boundaries, ii.) Where and how much is clipped cannot be
predicted, iii.) The products of clipping are not new words, but merely colloquial variants
of existing words.
These arguments can be countered as follows: i.) Clipping may not observe the morpho-
logical structure of base words, it does, however, observe the syllabic structure. It is rule-
governed and thus grammatical in that it follows rules of prosodie morphology, and this
applies to truncation in particular, ii.) While it may not be possible to predict all clipped
forms, truncation is governed by rather unambiguous rules: All truncated forms are mono-
syllabic. The syllable which is retained is either the first syllable of the base word or an-
other syllable carrying primary or secondary stress. Furthermore, all truncations end in a
consonant. If the retained syllable ends in a vowel, a consonant is added in the truncated
form (usually the consonant following the retained syllable in the base) (for further details
cf. Poynton 1989: 62). This pattern seems to occur consistently in truncations of names (cf.
Lappe 2002). In other types of clipping, more than one syllable may be retained, and clip-
pings ending in vowels are common; cf., e.g., condo < condomium, demo < demonstration,
disco < discotheque, and photo < photograph, interestingly all ending in -o (cf. also
4.2.5.3.). iii.) Arguably, not only truncated forms but all diminutives are merely variants of
existing words. This does not apply, of course, to lexicalized forms such as pinkie, booklet
or German Schneeglöckchen 'snowdrop*. But non-lexicalized diminutives are, at least, not
new words in, e.g., Olsen's sense (Olsen 1986). This view is supported by the traditional
classification of prototypical diminutive formation as modification, rather than derivation
proper (cf., e.g., Erben 1983; Lipka 1990), which seeks to capture e.g. the fact that as a rule
diminutives can be replaced by their base forms in many contexts.
Truncation is crucially involved in the process of suffixation with -ie/-y (cf. 4.2.1.). In
this process, truncation always occurs whenever the base word consists of more than one
syllable. This applies to names as well as to other categories; cf., e.g., Elizabeth > Lizzie,
Andrew > Andy, but also bottom > bottie, football > footie. It is worth noting that some of
the truncated forms to which -ie/-y is attached are not in use without the suffix; cf., e.g.
Lizzie < Liz, but Andy < lAnd, and bottie < *bott. Furthermore, some truncations do not
seem to take -ie/-y; cf., e.g., IGaily < Gail < Abigail, and Welley < Belle < Arabella. An
obvious explanation for some, but not all cases would be homonymy blocking; cf. And,
Gaily, Belley versus and, gayly, belly. In recent research on productivity, however, ho-
monymy blocking has been rejected as an explanation (cf., e.g., Plank 1981: 165ff., and
Plag 1999:50f.).
In all processes discussed in this section, word class is retained. In most cases, diminu-
tives are nouns formed from nouns. Despite all similarities, however, the processes consid-
10
ered seem to differ in status. There seem to be preferences across languages, which can be
generalized as follows:
1) synthetic formation > analytic formation,

2) word-formation > inflection,
3) additive processes > subtractive processes,
4) morpheme combination > morpheme repetition,
5) affixation > (affixoid formation >) compounding
6) suffixation > prefixation.
For some of these processes, Mayerthaler (1981: 98) postulates the following implicational
relationship: All languages possessing reduplicative diminutive formation also possess the
affixational type, and all languages possessing the affixational type also possess the syntac-
tic (or analytic) type. It is an empirical question how these three processes relate to the
other processes discussed in this section. It seems that word-formation and inflection are
mutually exclusive processes of diminutive formation in any one language. However, this
claim must be substantiated by examining more non-Indo-European languages (cf., e.g.,
Bauer 1997: 538ff.).
The preference of suffixation over prefixation may be explained by mechanisms of lan-
guage processing in both reception and production. In general, suffixation occurs more
often across languages than prefixation (cf. Bauer 1988). Furthermore, in English, for in-
stance, complex words may contain more suffixes than prefixes (cf. Lipka 1990: 81). More
specifically, diminution is expressed by suffixation even in languages possessing more
prefixes than suffixes (cf. Mayerthaler 1981 on Gaelic). Finally, multiple diminutive forma-
tion occurs only in suffixation, but not in prefixation (cf. 4.2.7.1.).
Apart from these general trends, the preferences listed above are modified for each lan-
guage by the overall morphological make-up of the language. Thus, English, for example,
as an analytic language, seems to prefer the analytic type of diminutive formation even
though this type is considered less "subjective" than the prototypical synthetic type (cf.,
e.g., Wierzbicka 1980: 53ff; Szymanek 1988: 106ff.). However, there is a choice between
small or the more "subjective" little for the analytic type in English (cf. 4.3.), a choice not
available in less analytic languages such as German, in which both little and small translate
as klein.
It must be emphasised that agreement has not yet been reached on the status of the proc-
esses discussed in this section in diminutive formation. Even though suffixation, as the
prototypical case, seems to be uncontroversial, the status of individual suffixes is still con-
troversial. Which of the suffixes count as diminutive suffixes, and which of the formation
processes are considered processes of diminutive formation depends crucially on the notion
of diminution and the definition of diminutive meaning, the topic of the following section.
1.1.4. Diminutive meaning
Prototypically, diminutives express smallness. Adding a diminutive suffix to a noun corre-

lates with adding the semantic feature [+small] to the meaning of this noun. Correspond-
ingly, the meaning of synthetic diminutive forms is standardly paraphrased by using 'small
11
X ' constructions, i.e. an analytic diminutive; cf., e.g. houseen = 'small house', cubelet =
'small cube'. 10
Thus, entities referred to by using a diminutive are categorised as members of the class
designated by the base word, but at the same time marked as small items of the respective
categoiy. For example, a building referred to as houseen is represented as a small specimen
of the category 'house'.
It is assumed that categories are mentally represented by prototypes, i.e. by class mem-
bers displaying a range of features considered typical for the respective category, including
prototypical size (cf. Rosch 1975). For instance, the category 'bird' is best represented by
the (American) robin. Thus, small birds are birds which are smaller than a robin. Categories
for which ordinary speakers do not distinguish subspecies, as, e.g., 'mouse' or 'elephant',
àlso comprise notions of prototypical size. Using a diminutive, e.g. mousie, implicitly refers
to this norm. 11 The referent of this diminutive form is compared to a class member of proto-
typical size and represented as smaller than average, as undersized, or as falling short of
this norm. In such cases, normal size is represented by average adult animals of the respec-
tive category. In this context, it must be emphasised that smallness is not absolute, but de-
pends entirely on the category in question. A small elephant, for instance, is still considera-
bly larger than a large mouse (cf., e.g., Kamp 1975, Siegel 1980, Stefanescu 1992).
Commonly, diminutives are used to refer to non-adult members of a given category. This
applies to animals and humans alike, and also to plants; cf., e.g., baby (a historical diminu-
tive: babe + -y), baby skunk, and baby tree, also manling, duckling, and seedling. German
diminutives such as Näschen 'little nose' or Ärmchen 'little arm' are, by default, interpreted
as referring to the body parts of young children.
Prototypical size for man-made objects as, for instance, pieces of furniture or tools is de-
termined by their function, i.e. depends on the needs of adult users (cf., e.g., Labov 1973
and Wierzbicka 1985a: 343ff.). Diminutives such as German Stühlchen 'little chair' or
Gäbelchen 'little fork' are, as a rule, employed to refer to objects made for children, i.e.
objects which are, in fact, objectively smaller than the respective objects intended for
adults.
However, it is important to note that the referents of diminutive forms do not have to be
small by any standards. Even the speaker who uses the diminutive may not perceive the
respective referent as small of its kind. The crucial point is that this speaker chooses to
represent the referent as small for a particular communicative purpose (cf. ch. 5). In other
words, smallness is not necessarily perceived, but in fact ascribed.
Traditionally, synthetic diminutives have been considered more subjective than analytic
forms. In addition to expressing smallness, synthetic forms also express an attitude. The
attitudinal meaning, which is sometimes also referred to as affective, emotional, emotive,
expressive or evaluative, is regarded as optional, whereas [+small] is considered as the
obligatory invariant meaning component of all diminutives (cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi
1994). In other words, [+small] is part of the denotation, while the attitudinal meaning is
part of the connotation or 'associative meaning', the relevant subtype of which, 'affective
10
For a dicussion of'small X' ('petit X') constructions, cf. Delhay (1996).
11
At this point, the discussion is restricted to mousie used to refer to an animal. Mousie can also be
used as a nickname or as a term of endearment (cf. 1.2.2.).
12
meaning', Leech defines as: "What is communicated of the feelings and attitudes of the
speaker/writer" (Leech 1981: 23). Thus, since synthetic diminutives express both smallness
and an attitude, their meaning should be glossed as 'nice + small X' or 'sweet + small X',
etc. Alternatively, the gloss 'little X' could be used, since little is considered more affective
than small (cf. 4.3.3.). Thus, English analytic diminutives with little count as better diminu-
tives (in a prototype theoretic sense) than constructions with small·, cf., e.g., little house
versus small house, little dog versus small dog.
Two further approaches to diminutive meaning exist, according to which either small-
ness or attitude are expressed, but not both. Bybee (1985: 110), for instance, claims that
only such forms count as diminutives which express the feature [+small], but do not convey
an attitudinal meaning. Correspondingly, Bybee rejects Anderson's (1982) Fula examples,
as they may express pejoration.
By contrast, Strang (1968: 138) maintains that real diminutives communicate an attitude
exclusively. She concedes, however, that there is a historical connection between smallness
and attitude. She writes:
Diminutives are usually forms that have begun by meaning 'a small one of its kind' but have un-
dergone a development whereby they come to express not merely an assessment of size, but also,
or even exclusively, the speaker's response to small things, a response ranging from affection
through condescension to contempt; we might say that a diminutive is mature when it carries only
this 'response'-meaning.
Thus, Strang's notion of diminutive meaning is much closer to a prototypical under-

standing than Bybee's. More importantly, Strang postulates a natural link between small-
ness and attitude. It is thought that such a link is created in the early stages of native lan-
guage acquisition (cf. Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: 407f.) as diminutives occur in the
earliest linguistic input and output of young children (cf. Clark 1993) being used in parent-
child interaction, i.e. a maximally close emotional relationship (cf. 5.6.).
In the above quote, Strang also exemplifies possible values of the attitudinal meaning
component. Her examples show that they can be either positive or negative, a paradox only
on superficial inspection (cf. McArthur 1992: 314). There is no invariant connotation. The
intended evaluation evolves from the interplay of a number of different factors, including
the semantics of the base word, the communicative purpose of the utterance in which the
diminutive is used and the social situation in which it occurs. Therefore, from a system
perspective of diminutive meaning, the attitudinal component must be defined as a variable,
the value of which is determined relative to the context in which the diminutive form ap-
pears (cf. Schneider 1991a; Schneider/Schneider 1991). This demonstrates the necessity of
a pragmatic module in the analysis of diminutives. Generalizations which are not sensitive
to contextual factors must remain vague and unsatisfactory.
Following Strang, we can say that the respective value of the attitudinal component de-
pends on the speaker's response to the given referent. More specifically, it depends on what
the speaker wishes to communicate. Irrespective of how speakers react to or perceive the
referent, it is their intention in representing the referent which is important.
On closer inspection, it seems equally inadequate to postulate an invariant denotative
component [+small]. In many cases, the paraphrase format 'small X' cannot be employed
to explicate the meaning. For instance, Ulrich (1975), in his German terminological dic-
tionary, includes three prototypical examples in his entry for diminutives. These are the
13
synthetic forms Vöglein, Häschen and Väterchen, of which the first two are glossed as
"kleiner Vogel" ('small bird') and "kleiner Hase" ('small hare') respectively. For the third
form, however, the author does not provide any paraphrase. An analogous gloss, "kleiner
Vater" ('small father') does not make sense, even if we interpret 'small' metaphorically, or
replace it by 'little', or, indeed, add an attitudinal modifier, as e.g. 'nice + small father' or
'sweet little father'. By contrast, 'dear father' (but not 'dear little father') seems more ap-
propriate. This reading is supported by the following passage from John Irving's novel The
Cider House Rules, in which the narrator tries to establish what the German diminutive
Miitterlein in a lied by Gustav Mahler means (CID 76):12
(1) In the front room, Wilbur Larch heard them singing about someone's 'dear mother' -
wasn't that what 'miitterlein' meant?
As the standard paraphrase is not applicable to the meaning of forms such as Väterchen,
Miitterlein, etc., a more adequate description is to assume that no feature is added to the
denotation of the base, but that a connotation is added, which expresses the speaker's atti-
tude towards the referent, in this case familiarity and a close affectionate relationship. In
other cases, the attitude may be motivated by the referent's perceived or ascribed smallness.
This description largely corresponds to Strang's account of diminutive meaning with the
caveat that a speaker's response is not necessarily a response to "small things".
Forms such as Väterchen or Miitterlein are traditionally referred to as 'hypocoristics' or
'terms of endearment'. Distinguishing these from "diminutives proper", i.e. forms which
express (also) smallness, is not an easy task, since the same formal devices, e.g. suffixes,
may be used for expressing smallness or dearness or both. Therefore, often no distinction is
made (cf. 1.2.2.). Mayerthaler (1981), however, suggests distinguishing between 'morpho-
logical diminutives' on the one hand and 'semantic diminutives' on the other hand. The
latter term is used exclusively to refer to those forms which express smallness. Thus, ac-
cording to Mayerthaler, Väterchen, for instance, would be a morphological, but not a se-
mantic diminutive.13 Alternatively, polysemous suffixes could be assumed for languages
such as German, as other languages, such as Spanish or Russian, possess different suffixes
for expressing smallness and dearness respectively. However, given the early acquisition of
a cognitive and emotional link between size and attitude in native language development, I
assume a variable unified concept of diminution. In any given situation, the value of this
concept is determined by the semantics of the base word and contextual factors (cf. ch. S).
In the case of Väterchen, for example, paraphrases such as 'small father' or 'little father'
are ruled out as Vater 'father' as well as Mutter 'mother' and other kinship terms are rela-
tional terms. For relational terms, there is no prototypical size. Typically, diminutives de-
rived from kinship terms are employed by the respective partner in the relationship. Father
is defined as a male human who has a child. Likewise, grandmother is defined as a female
who has a grandchild, and aunt as a female who has a niece or nephew. Thus, diminutives
12
Combinations of three letters are used to indicate the data source (cf. list of Abbreviations). The
number which follows is the respective page number.
13
Semantic diminutives which are not morphological diminutives have been referred to as 'inherent
diminutives' (cf. 1.2.1.3. and 4.1.6.).
14
such as daddy, granny, or auntie are, as a rule, used by the child, grandchild, niece or
nephew respectively (cf. 5.1.). These forms express affection and indicate a close relation-
ship. Other family members sometimes also address the same referents by such forms, but
this use may be frowned upon.
Using diminutives such as Mütterchen or Muttchen, both derived from German Mutter
'mother', to refer to females who are not discernibly mothers, let alone the speaker's
mother, expresses a negative attitude towards the referent, mostly condescension. These
forms are commonly used to address or refer to elderly or old women by younger (male)
speakers who do not know these women (cf. Müller 1982: 121). This usage can be consid-
ered sexist as Väterchen seems to occur less frequently and as no male counterpart to Mutt-
chen exists (cf. Schneider 1991a, Schneider/Schneider 1991). Speakers who use such di-
minutives unjustifiedly claim familiarity by selecting a word otherwise used between chil-
dren and parents, and at the same time belittle the referent by using the selected word in its
diminutive form.
The semantic feature communicated by diminutives derived from non-relational personal
nouns and from animal nouns and plant nouns can be determined as [+ young]; cf., e.g.,
girleen 'young girl', little fellow 'young boy', skunklet 'young skunk', gosletlgosling
'young goose', also (lexicalized) sapling and (ad hoc) baby tree, both meaning 'young
tree'. Needless to say, youngness correlates with smallness. Young humans, animals, and
plants are smaller than grown-up specimen of the respective species. Smallness caused by
youngness evokes positive attitudes. In this case, smallness is biologically conditioned and
thus normal. Smallness in adulthood, however, is considered unnormal, unnatural and defi-
cient, and consitutes the marked case, which evokes negative attitudes. In this context, it is
worth noting that expressions used to refer to disabled persons in Swahili are morphologi-
cal diminutives; cf., e.g., kipofu 'blind person'.
On the other hand, children may also be considered as "unfinished adults" or deficient
humans, which explains negative attitudes conveyed by diminutives referring to children
and their sphere (i.e. toys, tools, items of clothing, and pieces of furniture). Youngness and
smallness are not characteristics which as such are positively rated. Evaluations seem to
depend on contemporary values and social norms, rather than on individual assessement.
These views are shared by Pinsker (1974), who also does not subscribe to the traditional
analysis of diminutive meaning. Pinsker does not assume an invariant feature [+small], but
postulates a general relational meaning of diminutives, which he glosses as "nicht ganz so"
('not quite as'). Thus, Pinsker relates the characteristics of a referent of a diminutive to the
characteristics of prototypical members of the base word category, and conceptualises the
former as 'sub-normal' by comparison to the norm represented by the prototype. He claims
that the relevant parameter for objects is size, in which case the specific meaning compo-
nent of diminutives is 'small'. In the case of animals and humans, however, he assumes that
the relevant component is 'young', which correlates with notions such as 'tender' and 'deli-
cate' ("zart", "fein"). Thus, and especially in the relationship of an adult to a child, diminu-
tives may assume an affective value ("Gefühlswert") and become terms of endearment. On
the other hand, Pinsker continues, being small and young may be perceived as feeble or not
fully adequate, in which case diminutives may assume a derogatory meaning.14
14
Cf. Jurafsky (1996) for a more recent account of the complex nature of diminutive meaning.
15
Meaning components such as 'small', 'young, or 'dear' are relevant only to nouns, but
not to other word classes. Therefore, in a narrow understanding, the term 'diminution' is
not applied to adjectives and verbs. In cases as, for instance, Κ yellowish < yellow or Ger-
man V tänzeln 'mince' < tanzen 'dance', terms such as 'adjective mitigation' and 'verb
mitigation' are sometimes used instead (cf. Mayerthaler 1981: 102). Arguably, however,
Pinsker's concept of diminutive meaning can also be applied to such cases. While the base
words express features or actions of prototypical intensity, the derived adjectives or verbs
express features or actions of sub-normal intensity. In a similar vein, Pei and Gaynor (1960:
s.v. 'diminutive') describe the semantics of deadjectival and deadverbial diminutives as
'downward comparison'. They maintain that such forms "denote a lesser quantity or inten-
sity of the characteristic or quality expressed" by the base word.
Traditionally, the mitigation of verbal action is referred to as an aktionsart, often termed
'diminutive aktionsart' or 'diminutive aspect' (cf., e.g. Bussmann 1996: s.v. 'durative vs
non-durative'). This verbal aspect is rarely related to diminutives derived from other word
classes, even though there are obvious parallels beyond terminology. This verbal aspect not
only expresses sub-normal intensity, it may also convey an evaluation, as Pei and Gaynor
(1960: s.v. 'diminutive aspect') imply in their definition: "A verbal aspect, expressing that
the action or state denoted by the verb is of a minor degree, intensity or importance." It
seems that in the case of verbal diminutives negative evaluations prevail.
1.1.5. Summary
The purpose of section 1.1. was to explicate and discuss the traditional understanding of the
term 'diminutive' and the characteristics of prototypical diminutives in order to arrrive at a
more general definition of the term which can be adopted in the analysis of languages
whose make-up is less similar to that of Latin than the structure of those languages so far
predominantly considered in the study of diminutives, i.e. in the analysis of languages other
than Italian, Spanish, or Russian. In other words, a more general definition enhances com-
parability and makes it possible to relate the findings from (typologically) different lan-
guages to each other in a systematic way.
Central to this wider definition is the concept of diminution, which is a semantic rather
than a morphological category. Therefore, the starting point for any analysis of diminutives
in any given language should not be individual formal devices such as suffixes, but the
expressed meaning, i.e. smallness in all of its literal and metaphorical meanings (including
closeness as 'small social distance') and the positive or negative attitudes connected to it.
Diminutive research should aim at identifying the formal devices available in any given
language for expressing this concept and at establishing how these devices are used in
communication.
16
1.2. Related terms and concepts
The present section discusses a number of terms and concepts related to diminutives. These
are, in particular, augmentatives, hypocoristics, pejoratives, appréciatives, depreciatives, pet
names and terms of endearment. While some of these terms are used synonymously by
some authors, they are clearly distinguished by others.
1.2.1. Augmentatives
1.2.1.1. Prototypical augmentatives
'Augmentative' is the opposite of 'diminutive'. 15 Traditionally, the term 'augmentative' has

been used to refer to words denoting largeness and possibly also expressing an attitude. As
in the case of diminutives, the expressed attitude can be either positive or negative, depend-
ing on the specific interplay of linguistic and contextual factors. In fact, most of what has
been said about diminutives in 1.1. also holds for augmentatives.
Prototypical augmentatives are complex nouns derived from nouns by suffixation (e.g.
Spanish casón < casa, Italian casone < casa, Russian domisce < dom 'house'). As is appar-
ent from these examples, prototypical augmentatives are found in Southern Romance lan-
guages such as Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, and in Slavic languages such as Russian
and Polish. Augmentatives also exist in languages which do not have suffixes as, for in-
stance, in Swahili. English has no prototypical, i.e. synthetic, augmentatives. However,
augmentative meaning can be expressed by other formal devices, as will be demonstrated
below. Traditionally, it is assumed that, unlike diminutives, augmentatives do not exist in
all languages. Thus, there is a unidirectional implication between diminutives and augmen-
tatives. That is, all languages which possess augmentatives also possess diminutives, while
the opposite is not true. Whether this observation holds for prototypical augmentatives only
is an empirical question.
Sometimes, the term 'augmentative' is used to refer only to the suffix which adds the
augmentative meaning to the meaning of the base word while leaving the meaning of the
base word intact. A casone is still a casa 'house', albeit a large and overwhelming one.
Thus, the meaning of an augmentative form seems to be a purely additive one, consisting of
the meaning of the base word plus the component(s) [+'large' (+attitude)], expressed
through the suffix. Word class is retained in the process of augmentative formation.
As is the case for 'diminution', 'augmentation' is a concept related to such concepts as
quantification, qualification, modification, gradation, intensification, and evaluation, and of
the same theoretical status. Augmentation can also be considered the interface between
concepts of quantification and qualification, in that it combines aspects of size and affect.
This complex concept is expressed through augmentatives.
15 Many studies examine augmentatives along with diminutives; cf., e.g., Alexopoulos (1994), Crow-
hurst (1992), Frankl/Omar (1994), Matisoff (1992), and Dressler/Merlini Barbares: (2001).
17
The description of prototypical augmentatives involves the same parameters used in the
description of prototypical diminutives, viz. word class of input and output (i.e. base word
and augmentative), formation process, and denotation and connotations of the output. Also,
the default values are the same, with the exception of the denotative component which in
this case is [+large].
1.2.1.2. Augmentative formation
Apart from nouns, augmentatives can be formed from adjectives; cf., e.g., Italian bello
'beautiful' > bellone 'very beautiful', Russian bol'ioj 'large' > bol'suscij 'huge'. In lan-
guages which posses augementative suffixes, the same suffixes can, as a rule, be used to
form substantival and adjectival augmentatives. It seems that suffixal augmentative forma-
tion is restricted to nouns and adjectives. Word class is retained in both cases.
Augmentatives can also be formed analytically. Analytic augmentatives are A+N con-
structions. The adjectival modifiers belong to the word field LARGE (e.g. large, big, huge).
Arguably, big + Ν constructions are better augmentatives (in a prototype theoretic sense)
than large + Ν constructions, just as little + Ν constructions are better diminutives than
small + Ν constructions, as the latter seem to lack an attitudinal component. Thus, augmen-
tatives and diminutives express bigness and littleness rather than largeness and smallness
(cf. 4.3.). However, this distinction cannot be made in all languages. For instance in Ger-
man, both large and big, and both small and little normally translate as groß and klein re-
spectively. Similar cases of convergence can be observed in other languages; cf., e.g.,
French petit for both small and little.
In Swahili, augmentatives are formed using grammatical prefixes traditionally known as
'concordance prefixes', more recently termed 'gender markers' (cf. 1.1.3.). Instead of the
original prefix of the augmentative class, which is no longer available in Modern Swahili,
augmentatives take the singular or plural prefix of the so-called MA-class (traditionally
class 5/6; cf. Corbett 1991: 47). For instance, the lexeme -dege 'bird', which belongs to the
animal class and thus carries the prefix n- in the singular, takes the zero prefix of the MA-
class in its augmentative form, yielding dege 'big bird'. Monosyllabic lexemes, however,
take the prefix ji- in the singular; cf. mtu 'man' > jitu 'giant'.
Analogous to diminutive formations with mini- and micro·, augmentatives can be
formed by prefixing maxi- and macro-·, cf., e.g., maxi-skirt, maxi yacht, maxi-farm, and
macrocosm, macro economy, macro-structure. Macro- can also be attached to adjectival
bases; cf., e.g., macrobiotic and macromolecular. As formations with micro·, formations
with macro- seem to be restricted to the domain of technical terminology and lacking in an
attitudinal component. While formations with maxi- may convey such a component, it is
more expressively communicated by formations with mega-; cf., e.g., megabucks, mega-
loss, and megabureaucracy. Super- and hyper- may also be considered augmentative pre-
fixes. Alternatively, formations with these prefixes can be regarded as excessives.
In German, combinations with Riesen- 'giant' are highly productive, but the status of
this element is controversial. Mostly, however, it is classified as a prefixoid (cf. Han-
sen/Hartmann 1991: 38ff.). Such German forms are rendered in English by using the adjec-
tive giant; cf., e.g., Riesenschritte - giant steps, Riesenlady - giant lady. Such German
formations are standardly employed to translate prototypical augmentatives from languages
18
such as Italian or Russian; cf., e.g., Italian casone - Riesenhaus 'giant house'. Other Ger-
man prefixoids include Spitzen-, Bomben-, and Mords- (literally 'peak', 'bomb', and 'mur-
der') which combine with nouns, and sau-, tod-, and stock- (literally 'sow', 'death', and
'stick') which combine with adjectives (cf. Wellmann 1975). All of these prefixoids are
originally nouns, and these nouns continue to exist and are commonly used. As prefixoids,
however, they are desemanticised and serve as intensifiers. Adjectival intensifies of this
type also exist in English; cf., e.g., stock-still, stone-deaf, and bone-idle (cf., e.g., Marchand
1966: 143, Sachs 1963). Such formations are sometimes referred to as elatives.
In German, true compounds with Groß- 'large' can also be formed in a similar way to
compounds with Klein- 'small'; cf., e.g., Großstadt - Kleinstadt 'big city' - 'small town',
Großbürger - Kleinbürger 'member of the upper classes' - 'petty bourgeois'. Although
formations with prefixoids are more expressive than these compounds, these compounds
can also communicate an attitude. For instance, Großstadt may be associated with glamour
and opportunity and, thus, positively connotated, or associated with danger and, thus, nega-
tively conntated, while Kleinstadt, which can also be translated as 'provincial town', seems
to only bear negative connotations, if any.
1.2.1.3. Augmentative meaning
Prototypically, augmentatives express largeness (or bigness). Adding an augmentative

suffix to a noun correlates with adding the semantic feature [+large] (or [+big]) to the
meaning of this noun. Correspondingly, the meaning of synthetic augmentative forms can
be paraphrased by using 'large/big X' constructions. Thus, entities referred to by using an
augmentative are categorised as members of the class designated by the base word, but at
the same time marked as large items of the respective category.
If the referents of diminutive forms are perceived or represented as undersized, then ref-
erents of augmentative forms are perceived or represented as oversized, by comparison to
prototypical size for the respective category to which the base word belongs. However,
there is a significant difference between diminutives and augmentatives. While in the case
of young children, animals, or plants, and also artefacts made for children, smallness has a
biological explanation, there is no equivalent explanation for largeness. Average adult size
constitutes the norm. Children, by comparison to this norm are undersized, but there is no
corresponding category for oversized humans. Accordingly, oversized humans are consid-
ered as deviant or unnatural and also as threatening (e.g. giants). The Spanish augmentative
hombrote, for instance, derived from hombre 'man', is best translated as 'awkward' or
'hulking man'. Oversized objects, on the other hand, appear to be dysfunctional and use-
less. In short, the attitudes and evaluations expressed by augmentatives are negative rather
than positive, as Crystal (1991) points out in his definition of 'augmentative': "with the
general meaning of 'large', used literally or metaphorically (often implying awkwardness
or ugliness)". This may explain why augmentatives (at least prototypical synthetic ones) do
not exist in all languages.
However, large possessions such as big houses, big cars and big boats indicate wealth
and are thus (usually, but not unambiguously) positively connotated. Augmentatives de-
rived from relational personal nouns as, for instance, Italian (lexicalized) padrone < padre
'father' are used to refer to superiors with positive respect (cf. also grandparents, German
19
Großeltern, in which grand-IGroß- correlates with old age). Yet such persons may also be
awe-inspiring and thus evoke negative attitudes. While such augmentatives express defer-
ence and distance, the respective diminutive forms express closeness and camaraderie, as,
e.g., in Mütterlein 'dear mother' (cf. 1.1.4.).16
In sum, the preferences for expressing positive or negative attitudes seem to be comple-
mentary for augmentatives and diminutives. These preferences are summarized in the fol-
lowing diagram, termed 'affect hierarchy' elsewhere (cf. Schneider 1991a):
DIM: POS > NEG,

AUG: NEG > POS.
If 'oversized' can be interpreted more generally as 'excessive of the prototypical norm',

then this gloss also captures the meaning of adjectival augmentatives, such as Italian bel-
lone 'very/extremely beautiful' or stone-deaf and other 'intensive compounds' (Pei/Gaynor
1960). The term 'intensive' is also used for a verbal aspect (or aktionsart) denoting actions
or "events characterized by a high degree of intensity", as, for instance, scream in relation
to cry (Bussmann 1996: s.v. 'intensive'). In some languages, such verbal augmentatives are
formally related to the base verb; cf., e.g., German horchen 'listen' < hören 'hear',
schnitzen 'carve' < schneiden 'cut'. More convincing than these (historical) augmentatives,
which have assumed a more specific meaning, are formally unrelated examples such as
roar, guzzle, and swig, which may be regarded as augmentatives of shout, eat, and drink.
Such semantic relations hold between neutral and expressive members of the same word
field.
For morphologically unrelated augmentatives, I suggest the term 'inherent augmenta-
tives*. Elsewhere, I have used the analogous term 'inherent diminutives' for a third type of
diminutives, in addition to the synthetic and analytic types (cf. Schneider 1991b and
1993b). Examples of inherent diminutives include town in relation to city, and hill in rela-
tion to mountain. In this context, it is worth noting that in Swahili the equivalents of hill
and mountain are morphologically related; the word for 'hill', kilima, is, in fact, the syn-
thetic diminutive of the word for 'mountain', mlima. Thus, to use Mayerthaler's (1981)
distinction, kilima is a morphological and a semantic diminutive, whereas hill is only a
semantic diminutive (cf. 1.1.4.). Ternary relations can also be identified as, for instance, in
sip, draught, and gulp, where sip and gulp can be regarded as the diminutive and augmenta-
tive of draught. Carstairs-McCarthy (1992: ch. 2.7.), who discusses piglet and shoat as
competing diminutives of pig, considers it a deficit of morphological theories, and genera-
tive theories in particular, that they ignore this type of semantic relations in the lexicon.17
While 'diminutive' and 'augmentative' are opposite terms, they imply a trichotomous
conceptual structure. These two terms refer to the marked cases, which depend on the un-
marked case, the neutral concept. Diminutives and augmentatives can be defined as
[+small] and [+large], but not as [-large] and [-small]. The neutral concept, however, could
16
Cf. also Stump (1993: 1), who uses Italian examples to demonstrate that both morphological di-
minutives and augmentatives may express appreciative as well as depreciative meaning.
17
Cf. also Lyons' (1977: 275) discussion of 'morphological relatedness', where happy versus un-
happy/sad is used as an example.
20
be characterized as both [-large] and [-small]. It constitutes the norm. By contrast, diminu-
tives and augmentatives express concepts falling short of or exceeding this norm respec-
tively. In the prototypical case, the norm is the average size of prototypical category mem-
bers. This trichotomy seems to be a universial cognitive structure for perception and proc-
essing (cf. Croft 1992: 92). In some languages, this trichotomy can be expressed by mor-
phologically related words; in other languages, other linguistic devices are used for the
same purpose.
1.2.2. Other related terms and concepts
Other terms associated with diminutives include, in particular, 'hypocoristic' and 'pejora-
tive'. These are also traditional terms, defined in a number of different ways, and some-
times used interchangeably with the term 'diminutive'.
The original Greek term hypokoristikón means 'pet name' (cf. Bussmann 1996: s.v. 'hy-
pocoristic'). In Modern Greek, 'ypocoristika' is the term used for diminutives. While some
authors use 'hypocoristic' as a synonym of the term 'diminutive' (cf., e.g., Hofmann/
Rubenbauer 1963: s.v. 'Diminutivum'), others consider it a supernym of diminutives, terms
of endearment, and euphemisms (cf., e.g., Conrad 1988: s.v. 'Hypokoristikum').
In other accounts, diminutives and hypocoristics are formally distinguished. In one view,
suffixes such as English -let and German -cheti are considered diminutive suffixes, whereas
English -iel-y and German -i are classified as hypocoristic suffixes. It is argued that the
former express only smallness, and the latter only affection. In another view, diminutives
and hypocoristics may be formed by attaching the same suffixes to different classes of base
words. In this view, hypocoristics are typically formed from proper names and kinship
terms, while diminutives are formed from other types of nouns. Even though formal dis-
tinctions are possible, they are not made consistently in actual descriptions (cf., e.g., Ste-
fanescu 1992: 350, Quirk et al. 1985: 1584).
According to a further position, diminutives can be employed as hypocoristics (cf., e.g.,
Günther 1990: s.v. 'Diminutiv'). For instance, German Mäuschen 'mousie', indisputably a
morphological diminutive, can be used either to refer to a small rodent or to address a cher-
ished person. In the latter case, the diminutive is, it is claimed, used as a hypocoristic, i.e. as
a pet name and a term of address, rendering hypocoristics a pragmatic category. Conse-
quently, in the former case, the diminutive is used as a diminutive - which is not exactly an
elegant solution. What is meant, however, is that morphological diminutives can be used
either as semantic diminutives, i.e. to express smallness, or as something else, for example
as hypocoristics, i.e. to express not smallness, but affection. This account may make it
easier to deal with cases such as Väterchen (cf. 1.1.4.), but it does not explain why diminu-
tives can be employed as hypocoristics, in other words, why the same suffixes, or even the
same derivatives, can be used to express either smallness or affection. Also, this seems to
imply that semantic diminutives do not express affection, which is doubtful at least in cases
such as Mäuschen referring to animals.
Finally, according to yet another position, hypocoristics are those diminutives which ex-
press smallness and positive attitudinal connotations. By contrast, diminutives expressing
smallness and negative attitudinal connotations are referred to as pejoratives. It is worth
noting in this context that some languages, for instance, Spanish, seem to have specific
21
pejorative suffixes, which are different from diminutive suffixes. This might indicate a
higher affinity between smallness and positive attitudes than between smallness and nega-
tive attitudes, as suggested in the affect hierarchy proposed in 1.2.1.3.
Strictly speaking, 'hypocoristic' and 'pejorative' are not opposite terms. The opposite
term of 'pejorative' is 'ameliorative' (or 'meliorative'), a traditional term rarely used today
(and therefore often not listed in recent terminological dictionaries; cf., e.g., Bussmann
1996). However, originally, the terms 'pejoration' and 'amelioration' were used in histori-
cal linguistics to classify types of semantic change. While pejoration (also known as 'dete-
rioration' or 'degeneration') refers to the acquisition of negative meaning components in
lexical items, amelioration refers to the loss of such meaning. In this sense, 'pejorative' and
'ameliorative' are strictly semantic terms.
In order to avoid confusion, the traditional terms 'hypocoristic' and 'pejorative' should
be avoided in the study of diminutives. Instead the opposites, 'appreciative' and 'deprecia-
tive', should be used, for positive and negative connotations. Thus, diminutive forms con-
veying a positive attitude can be referred to as appréciatives, those conveying a negative
attitude as depreciatives (cf., e.g., Hummel 1995 and 1997, and Gracia/Turon 2000).
1.3. Conclusion
That the same diminutive form may be used with either an appreciative or a depreciative
meaning results from the ambiguous nature of smallness. 'Small' meaning 'young' or 'deli-
cate' seems to be valued positively, when referring to children and when 'small' is read
literally. On the other hand, 'small' may also mean 'of minor value or importance'. This
negative assessment appears to be relevant when 'small' is used to refer to adults and when
'small' is understood metaphorically; cf. also expressions such as to make someone feel
small and to belittle someone or something.
Augmentatives can also be used with either appreciative or depreciative meaning, but
depreciation seems to dominate (cf. 1.2.1.3.). In either case, it must be borne in mind that
the expressed attitudes are often affective and emotional, and also that the use of diminu-
tives and augmentatives does not necessarily correspond to any observable property, e.g.
objective smallness or largeness, of the referent. Stump (1993: 1) summarizes the situation
as follows (cf. also Wierzbicka 1980: 53ff., Szymanek 1988: 106ff.):
Because of the possibility of interpreting diminution and augmentation in affective rather than
purely objective terms (...), morphological expressions of diminution or augmentation are not al-
ways discrete from those of endearment and contempt.
The terminological chaos connected with diminutives and augmentatives results pre-
dominantly from three sources: 1) confusing formal and semantic aspects; 2) sweeping
generalizations across classes of base words; and 3) ignoring referents, contexts and situa-
tions. While such a reductionist approach can never be successful, it may work compara-
tively well with a range of morphological phenomena which express less complex concepts
and which are less dependent on context. However, such an approach seems totally inade-
22
quate in the case of diminutives, the phenomenon under inspection. As demonstrated

above, the concept expressed by diminutives - which, at least for English, has rarely be
analysed in detail - is complex and ambivalent. The intended meaning of a given diminu-
tive form derives from the interaction between a number of different factors. These include,
in particular, the semantics of the base word, the attitude of the speaker towards the refer-
ent, the illocution of the utterance in which the diminutive occurs, and the constellation in
which the utterance is produced. It seems that these factors have not been properly ad-
dressed in previous studies of diminutives (cf. ch. 2). A major obstacle has been that the
communicative functions of linguistic forms in discourse have largely been ignored in
grammar, while in pragmatics the material side of language has not been analysed system-
atically. What is needed is an approach which integrates both aspects - as developed in
chapter 3.
2. Researching diminutives: the state of the art
It is neither possible nor necessary to provide a comprehensive review of the literature on

diminutives. It is not possible because there is not only a vast number, but also a wide and
extremely heterogeneous range of publications on the topic, some of which are barely ac-
cessible. However, it is not necessary either because bibliographical materials are available,
including annotated bibliographies, which cover many areas of diminutive research. Thus,
in section 2.1. only a brief overview is given for general orientation. Recent developments
and research relevant to the present study will be discussed in more detail in sections 2.2.
and 2.3. which deal with grammatical and pragmatic approaches respectively. Finally, in
section 2.4., the state of the art is summarised, gaps are indicated, and questions for further
research are formulated.
2.1. Overview
In this general overview of diminutive research, the following issues are addressed: the
historical and quantitative dimension (2.1.1.), the languages covered (2.1.2.), and frequently
examined topics (2.1.3.).
2.1.1. Historical and quantitative dimension
Diminutive research has a long history. Investigations into diminutives have been published
since the first half of the 19th century at least. Early examples are, in chronological order,
Lewis (1832), Coleridge (1857), Koch (1877), Mirisch (1882) and Kassel (1899). However,
the study of diminutives is by no means particular to the study of language in the 19th cen-
tury. Numerous publications have appeared on the topic in the course of the 20th century to
the present day.
The bibliographical material available provides a relatively complete picture of diminu-
tive research prior to the early 1990s. The most comprehensive source is Ettinger's biblio-
graphical research report (Ettinger 1974b), which supplements his doctoral thesis on di-
minutive and augmentative formation in Southern Romance languages (Ettinger 1974a). In
his bibliographical report, Ettinger reviews the literature which appeared between 1900 and
1970, but some studies published before 1900 are also included. The publications reviewed
deal predominantly with diminutives in Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, and Romanian, but
also Latin and German. So, by and large, the focus is on those languages stereotypically
associated with diminutives, but individual studies on diminutives in further languages such
as Frisian, Flemish, Polish and Russian are mentioned as well. The second, revised and
updated edition of Ettinger's report, which was published in 1980 (and received less atten-
tion than the first edition), covers an additional five years, i.e. publications which appeared
24
between 1970 and 1975. In all, almost 300 publications are reviewed. Furthermore, Ettinger
(1980: 1) also refers to Hasselrot's (1957) comprehensive work on diminutives in the Ro-
mance languages, in which the literature on this topic published before 1957 is considered.
The traditional literature on diminutives in English is discussed in Rotzoll (1910),
Charleston (1960), and Marchand (1969). Further publications from the 19th and 20th cen-
tury are listed in Stein's bibliography on English word-formation (Stein 1973: 183ff.; cf.
also Würstle 1992: ch. 2.3., and Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: ch. 3.3.5.).
Literature on diminutives and related phenomena in a range of different languages pub-
lished between 1960 and 1985 is included Beard and Szymanek's (1988) bibliography of
morphology. The numerous Eastern publications on diminutives in Slavic languages, which
are, as a rule, ignored in Western linguistics, are discussed in Volek (1987) and Kalasniemi
(1992).
A recent account of diminutive research prior to the early 1990s is included in Dressier
and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: ch. 3.2.). Since then, dozens of publications have appeared
examining a relatively wide range of aspects concerning diminutives (cf. 2.1.3.) in an in-
creasingly larger number of languages (cf. 2.1.2.). While an exhaustive list of these publica-
tions cannot be provided here, at least some major trends are mentioned in this and in the
following sections.
The 1990s alone have seen the publication of well over a hundred studies on diminu-
tives. While the vast majority of these publications are articles in journals and edited vol-
umes, there are also approximately twenty books on the topic, half of which are actually
unpublished doctoral, M.A., or diploma theses, written almost exclusively in either English
or German. Examples include Fayez (1991), Huber (1993), Guo (1994), Williams (1996),
and Mendoza (1998). Among the published books in the field are three doctoral disserta-
tions (written in German), which compare diminutives in (translations of) fictional litera-
ture (cf. 2.1.2. and 2.1.3.). These are Lukas (1992), Würstle (1992), and Koecke (1994).
From a theoretical and methodological perspective, the most important publications are: 1)
Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi's monograph-length chapter on diminutives in their book on
'morphopragmatics' which focuses in particular on Italian and German, (1994: ch. 3, writ-
ten in English) (cf. 2.3.4.), 2) Delhay's conceptual analysis of the category 'diminutive' in
French (1996, written in French), and 3) De Marco's empirical study of the sociopragmat-
ics of diminutives in Italian (1998, written in Italian). Additionally, there are three edited
volumes which include several papers on diminutives in a range of different languages.
These are Dressier (1997) on pre- and protomorphology, Gillis (1998) on the acquisition of
grammatical marking, and Mills (1999) on gender issues (cf. 2.2.4.2., and also 2.1.2. and
2.1.3.).
Diminutives make a popular topic for festschrift contributions (cf., e.g., Martin 1993,
Olmsted 1994, Freixeiro Mato 1996, Nekula 1998), short notes and brief observations.
Approximately one third of all articles which appeared between 1990 and 2000 are less
than ten pages long, one third of these in turn are shorter than five pages (cf., e.g., Vaba
1992, Frankl/Omar 1994, and Bauer/Bauer 1996). Many papers are not accessible to those
readers who are not polyglot. Despite the fact that English is the lingua franca of science
today, a considerable amount of the literature which deals with diminutives in a range of
different languages is written in the language under inspection, e.g. in Portuguese, Ukrain-
ian or Lithuanian.
25
2.1.2. Languages covered
While diminutives are prototypically associated with Southern Romance and Slavic lan-
guages, they are actually found in all languages (cf. 1.1.). This claim is supported in par-
ticular in those - still rare - publications in which diminutives are viewed from a universal
perspective (cf., e.g., Nieuwenhuis 1985, Matisoff 1992, Stump 1993, Jurafsky 1996, Bauer
1996 and 1997). Bauer (1996), for instance, considers 50 different and (mostly) genetically
diverse languages, while Jurafsky (1996) examines 60.
The bulk of the literature in which diminutives in individual languages are examined
covers a total of about fifty languages. Of these, a dozen has been studied intensively and
extensively, all of them - non-surprisingly - Indo-European languages, with the exception
of Lithuanian, a Baltic language, which is, however, also spoken in Europe.1 By far the
most frequently studied language is Spanish; approximately one quarter of all publications
in the field investigate Spanish diminutives.2 Other frequently studied languages include
German and Dutch; French, Italian and Portuguese; Russian, Polish and Czech; and also
(Modem) Greek.3
Apart from Lithuanian and Greek, all frequently studied languages belong to only three
language groups, viz. the Romance, the Slavic, and the Germanic languages. From each of
these groups, several members have been considered in diminutive research. From the Ro-
mance group, these are, in alphabetical order, Catalan, French, Galician, Italian, Portu-
guese, Romanian, and Spanish, and also Latin, one of the very few extinct languages still
studied in diminutive research today.4 From the Slavic group, the main languages are Bul-
garian, Croatian, Czech, Macedonian, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, and Ukrainian.5
1
On diminutives in Lithuanian, cf., e.g., Ambrazas (1991) and (1994), Wojcik (1994), and
Savickiene (1998).
2
Recent publications on Spanish diminutives include Prieto (1992), Hummel (1997), Mendoza
(1998), Miranda Miranda (2000).
3
On German diminutives, cf., e.g., Iverson and Salmons (1992), Martin (1993), and Féiy (1997a
and b); on Dutch diminutives, e.g., Bakema (199S and 1997), Daelemans et al. (1997) and van
Bree (1997); on French diminutives, e.g., Delhay (1995, 1996 and 1999) and Grandi (1998); on
Italian diminutives, e.g., Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi (1994: ch. 3), Ceccherini et al. (1997) and
De Marco (1998); on Portuguese diminutives, e.g., Malheiros-Poulet (1989), Harden (1997a) and
Rio-Torto (1997); on Russian diminutives, e.g., Andrews (1995 and 1999) and Spiridonova
(1999); on Polish diminutives, e.g., Tomaszkiewicz (1993), Koecke (1994) and Christensen
(1999); on Czech diminutives, e.g., Silhavy (1993), Striteská (1994) and Rusinova (1996); and on
Greek diminutives, e.g., Sifianou (1992), Alexopoulos (1994) and Dalalakis (1997).
4
On diminutives in Romance languages not mentioned before, cf., e.g., Garcia and Turrón (2000)
for Catalan, Freixeiro Mato (1996) for Galician, and Stefanescu (1992) for Romanian. Recent
studies of Latin diminutives include those by Fruyt (1989) and Gaide (1992).
5
On diminutives in Slavic languages not mentioned before, cf., e.g., Vaseva (1994) for Bulgarian,
Pintaric (1996) for Croatian, Stefanovski (1997) for Macedonian, Grickat (1995) for Serbian, Bar-
takova (1995) for Slovak, and Semerenko (1992) for Ukrainian.
26
Finally, Germanic languages considered include Afrikaans, Dutch, German, and Yiddish, 6
and also English. 7
Overall, there is still a strong bias in research into diminutives today towards languages
spoken in Europe, and more particularly towards languages belonging to the Indo-European
family. Among languages spoken outside Europe, Bantu languages, spoken in central and
southern Africa, clearly dominate, most notably Swahili. 8 By comparison, the diminutives
of languages spoken in Asia are understudied. Rare exceptions include Chinese, Korean,
and Oroquen. 9 That diminutives can also be found in the indigeneous languages of the
Americas is borne out, for instance, by a relatively small number of studies of some Algon-
quin and Salish languages, e.g. Island Lake Ojibwa and Passamaquoddy, and Comox and
Thompson River Salish respectively. 10
While the vast majority of studies examine diminutives in one language alone, there is
also a considerable body of contrastive analyses. As a rule, two languages are compared.
Pairs include Czech and Slovak (Bartakova 1995), French and Polish (Tomaszkiewicz
1993), and English and Ukrainian (Pan'kiv 1992). German is used particularly often for
comparison, cf., e.g., German and Spanish (Schmitt 1997), German and Portuguese
(Harden 1997b), and German and Chinese (Guo 1994). Many of the contrastive studies deal
with diminutives as a translation problem (cf., e.g., Krajcarz 1981, Krenceyová 1991, Wür-
stle 1992, Mayrhofer 1993, and Koecke 1994). Other studies contrast diminutives inside or
across language groups. Examples are Kolomiets (1988) on Slavic languages, Ambrazas
(1993) on Baltic languages, and Grandi (2001) on Romance versus Slavic languages versus
(Modern) Greek. Mladenova (2001) investigates diminutives in languages spoken in the
Balkans as a distinct cultural area of Europe, specifically in Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and
Greek. Finally, Matisoff (1992) examines diminutives not only in universal, but also in
areal perspective, especially diminutives in East and South East Asian languages.
Most investigations analyse diminutives of the respective standard language(s), but stud-
ies of other varieties of languages are also found in contemporary diminutive research.
Some of these studies examine the diminutives in a particular national variety, regional
standard, or areal dialect. Examples include Swiss German (Martin 1993), Chilean and
Nicaraguan Spanish (Puga 1999; Miranda Miranda 2000), Iraqi Arabic (Masliyah 1997),
Scottish Standard English (Dossena 1998), the Dutch dialects of Oostgelders and Twente
(Haan 1996, van Bree 1997), and the Tshiguvhu dialect of Venda, a Bantu langugage spo-
6
On diminutives in Germanic languages not mentioned before, cf., e.g., Dirven (1987) for Afri-
kaans, and Jacobs (1995) for Yiddish.
7
While English diminutives have received little attention in research in the past (cf. 4.1.), they have
been studied occasionally from a psycholinguistic or a sociolinguistic perspective in recent years;
cf. Svaib (1992) on -/'e-diminutives in child language, Dossena (1998) on -ie-diminutives in Stan-
dard Scottish English (cf. 4.2.1.), and Troutman (1996) on "culturally toned diminutives" such as
girl, honey or child (used particularly as address terms; cf. 5.1.) in African American women's
speech (cf. also van Dijk et al. 1997: 154).
8
On diminutives in Swahili, cf., e.g., Shepardson (1982), Herms (1989), and Frankl and Omar
(1994). On diminutives in other Bantu languages, cf., e.g., Stump (1992) on Kikuyu and Mwera,
and Mulaudzi (2000) on Venda.
9 Cf. Yip (1992), Lee (1992), and Whaley and Li (1998).
Ό Cf., e.g., Shrofel (1981), Le Sourd (1995), Harris (1981), and Coelho (1999).
27
ken in southern Africa (Mulaudzi 2000). Other studies contrast diminutives across national
or regional varieties, e.g. Mainland Greek versus Cypriot Greek (Terkourafi 1999), Mexi-
can versus peninsular Spanish (Curco 1998), and Andalusian versus Castilian (Lukas
1992). Yip (1992) compares diminutives across four dialects of Chinese.
By comparison, analyses of diminutives in sociolects, ethnolects or genderlects are rare.
Torres Montes (1990), for example, examines rural Malaga speech, whereas Palet Plaja
(1990) examines urban Sevilla speech, öller (1994) analyses diminutives in the urban dia-
lect of Vienna (cf. also Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi 1994: ch. 3). Diminutives in Mennonite
Low German are investigated in Erickson (1989), and Troutman (1996) studies a particular
type of diminutive in African American English, or, more precisely, diminutives in black
women's discourse (cf. fn. 7). Studies of gender-specific diminutive use include Schneider
and Schneider (1991), Harden (1992), and Andrews (1999).
Historical and diachronic studies of diminutives are equally rare in contemporary re-
search. Three examples are Fayez (1991) on Classical Arabic, Loskoutoff (1998) on 16th
century French literature, and Marynissen (1998) on the origin and development of the
Dutch suffix -(fije. In general, aspects of language change and language variation play only
a minor role in present-day diminutive research. Yet, while studies of historical and dia-
chronic aspects seem to be decreasing in number, studies of regional, social, ethnic and
gender variation seem to increase continuously. As a default, however, the focus is on di-
minutives in the standard variety of a language tacitly equated with the respective language
as such.
2.1.3. Topics
Research into diminutives has always addressed a wide range of different topics. For in-
stance, the 19th century studies mentioned at the beginning of section 2.1.1. above, all deal
with different aspects of diminutives. While Lewis (1832) deals with English diminutives
in general, Coleridge (1857) examines only one diminutive suffix of English, viz. -let.
Koch (1877) investigates the use of (Latin) diminutives in Plautus's oeuvre, whereas
Mirisch (1882) describes the development of the Latin diminutive suffix -olus in the Ro-
mance languages. Finally, Kassel (1899) studies diminutives in the regional dialect of
Hanau, in the southern part of Hesse, Germany.
These 19th century studies exemplify different perspectives on diminutives. Characteris-
tically, topics dealt with include historical, diachronic and dialectological aspects. At the
same time, the focus is either on one suffix, on diminutive formation in one language, or on
the idiosyncratic employment of diminutives as a stylistic device by one writer. None of
these topics are specific to 19th century diminutive research. All of them are still addressed
today, albeit with a change in their respective status.
Probably the most traditional topic of study is the use of diminutives as a stylistic feature
in fictional literature. In this field, at least four different focuses can be distinguished. These
are 1) diminutives in one particular piece of literature (cf., e.g., Christensen 1999); 2) the
use of diminutives by one particular writer (cf., e.g., Freixeiro 1996 and Nekula 1998); 3)
diminutives in one particular literary genre as, for instance, children's literature (cf., e.g.,
Slangalova 1991 and Yokoyama 1999); and 4) diminutives in the literature of one particu-
lar historical period (cf., e.g., Abu-Haidar 1989 and Loskoutoff 1998). Furthermore, fic-
28
tional material is often used as data in translation analytic approaches, especially works of
literature which have been translated into the same target language more than once (cf.,
e.g., Würstle 1992). Latin genres and Latin writers, however, are not as popular as they
used to be (cf. Ettinger 1980: ch. 2), as Latin and other extinct languages receive increas-
ingly less attention in diminutive research (cf. 2.1.2.).
As mentioned in the preceding section, the interest in historical, diachronic and dialecto-
logical aspects is generally decreasing. Those studies still published on these aspects adopt,
as a rule, a contemporary theoretical framework. This applies in particular to studies on all
aspects of language variation, not just regional variation, in diminutive use (for examples,
cf. 2.1.2.). Overwhelmingly, however, the focus is on synchronic aspects, and more specifi-
cally on diminutives in present-day standard language. The vast majority of all investiga-
tions deal with grammatical features in a broad sense and, more particularly, with formal
aspects. As diminutives are considered a category of morphology and word-formation, the
emphasis is on the structure of diminutive forms and the processes of diminutive formation.
A large number of studies take as their starting point either one particular suffix, e.g. Span-
ish -ico (Ariza 1998), or a group of suffixes referred to as 'evaluative' or 'appreciative
suffixes' (cf., e.g., Rio-Torto 1997, and Gracia/Turon 2000). As a default, suffixed nouns
are analysed, while all other word classes play only a minor role.11
While a large number of diminutive studies still deal with purely morphological issues,
the emphasis is shifting to prosodie morphology which adopts a syllable-, rather than a
segmentally-based approach (cf., e.g. Prieto 1992, Yip 1992, and Jacobs 1995; cf. also
2.2.4.1.). In this context, the question is posed to what extent diminutive formation is a
morphological or a phonological process (cf. Ambadiang 1996).
By comparison, studies combining both morphological and semantic perspectives are
comparatively rare (cf., e.g., Monterrubio Prieto 1990, Bakema 1995, and Spiridonova
1999), probably because diminutive meaning appears to be a given in the analysis of di-
minutive formation. There are, however, some studies which deal exclusively with seman-
tic or conceptual aspects, notably Delhay (1996), who treats diminutives as a conceptual
category, and Jurafsky (1996) who proposes a model of universal semantic features of di-
minutives. However, other recent investigations which adopt a more comprehensive per-
spective on language, combine the analysis of semantic and pragmatic aspects, thus ac-
knowledging a well-known peculiarity of diminutives often ignored in the analysis, viz. that
the meaning of diminutive forms largely depends on the context. Examples of this type of
investigation include Volek's (1987) semiotic study (cf. 2.3.1.) and Dressier and Merlini
Barbaresi's (1994) morphopragmatic study (cf. 2.3.4.). Referring to Jurafsky's (1996)
purely semantic model which has been widely received in recent literature (cf., e.g.,
Terkourafi 1999), Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi (2001) emphasise the necessity of dealing
with both the semantics and pragmatics of diminutives, and actually postulate the primacy
of pragmatics over semantics. Yet, the dominant paradigm is still system-oriented, largely
ignoring functional aspects of diminutive use.
11
Studies explicitly focusing on adjectives include Kolomiets (1988), Fruyt (1989), and Voeykova
(1998), and studies explicitly focusing on verbs include Monterrubio Prieto (1990), Bartakova
(1995), and Le Sourd (1995).
29
Overall, present-day diminutive research is characterized by tradition and innovation.

New questions are posed, while old questions are provided with new answers. If traditional
topics are dealt with today, they are, as a rule, dealt with in contemporary frameworks. At
the same time, choice of topics depends on the theory adopted. This applies in particular to
grammatical approaches to diminutives, i.e. to studies focusing on formal properties of
diminutives and processes of diminutive formation.
2.2. Grammatical approaches to diminutives
Generally speaking, research into diminutives is not a paradigm in its own right, nor a con-
sistent approach or theory, but defined solely via its object. Thus diminutive research de-
pends entirely on established theories, their aims, their questions, and their methods. This
applies especially to the study of formal aspects of diminutives, and more particularly to the
study of diminutives on the morphological level. Bauer (1988: 5) identifies three sources of
influence on present-day morphology: a) traditional grammar, b) structuralism, and c) gen-
erative grammar. Diminutives have been examined within each of these approaches. The
specific contributions of these areas to the study of diminutives are outlined in sections
2.2.1., 2.2.2., and 2.2.3. Section 2.2.4. provides a brief survey of recent developments, fo-
cusing in particular on optimality theory and on pre- and protomorphology.
2.2.1. Diminutives in traditional grammar
'Traditional grammar' is a relatively vague cover term for different schools in pre-
Saussurean linguistics, particularly in the 19th century. A common denominator is the use
of categories and terminology originally developed for the description of Latin. Further-
more, linguistic phenomena are primarily examined from a historical and/or diachronic
perspective.
From among traditional approaches, the neo-grammarian school had a lasting impact on
diminutive research. Neo-grammarians did not address the philosophical or psychological
issues discussed by their predecessors, but devoted themselves to empirical analysis. On the
basis of extensive materials, they studied discrete linguistic phenomena to establish the
origin of these phenomena and to reconstruct their development in the history of a given
language. Thus, as Helbig (1974: 14f.) points out in his history of linguistics, neo-
grammarians produced an unprecedented wealth of discoveries. To this day, Helbig (1974:
IS) continues, linguists profit from the works of Paul, Braune, Streitberg, Behaghel, and
others.
30
Paul's (1920) treatment of German diminutive formation serves as an illustration of the

nee-grammarians' contribution to the study of diminutives (cf. Olsen 1986: 5f.).12 Paul
focuses on the origin, development and distribution of -chert and -lein, the two most pro-
ductive diminutive suffixes in Modern Standard German. Paul maintains that both suffixes
were originally composed of two independent affixes. These were Gothic -ka/-kô and
-la/-lô respectively, used to derive pet forms from personal names, to which -in was added,
the neuter ending of nominalised adjectives predominantly used to refer to young animals.
These combinations were geminated to -lîn on the one hand, and Low German -kin and
High German -chin on the other hand. These geminations developed in different ways.
While -chin was reduced to -chen, -lin was diphthongised to -lein.
However, the regional dialects of German possess a range of suffix variants, which can
be traced back to the basic -k- and -/- types. While fc-suffixes are used in Lower Germany
and the better part of Middle Germany, the /-suffixes occur in Upper Germany and in the
southern part of Middle Germany. The regional distribution of the suffixes in the spoken
language has, however, been superseded by their genre-specific stylistic distribution in the
written language. In literary genres, -lin dominated until the end of the 17th century. One
reason was that Luther, in his translation of the Bible, used this particular suffix exclu-
sively. In private letters and speeches, however, he used the suffix -chen. After 1700, -chen
was preferred in written language, but to this day -lein is considered as more poetic (cf.
Scheidweiler 1984/85).
The distribution of the two German diminutive suffixes depends not only on regional
and stylistic factors, but also on phonological conditions. Paul (1920: 50f.) mentions the
following: -chen cannot be attached to stems ending in -ch or -g, whereas -lein cannot be
attached to stems ending in -I. If -lein is added to stems ending in -el (e.g. Vogel 'bird'), -el
is omitted (e.g. Vög+lein versus Vögel+chen). As can be seen from this example, both
suffixes effect an umlaut. Agent nouns in -er, however, are identified as exceptions to this
rule (cf., e.g., Malerchen, derived from Maler 'painter'). Further formal details discussed in
Paul are irrelevant to the present discussion, as are his brief and rather superficial remarks
on the meaning of diminutive forms.
In sum, it is worth noting that Paul not only describes the morphonological rules of
German diminutive formation (or, more particularly, the behaviour of two individual suf-
fixes), he also sheds some light on those features of diminutives perceived as peculiar to-
day. In particular, results of Paul's diachronic analysis contribute to a better understanding
of the following characteristics:
- why diminutives can be used as pet names,

- why diminutives can be used to refer to young animals,
- why all diminutives are neuter in German, and
- why -lein is regarded as more poetic than -chen.
12
An example of a traditional approach to English diminutives is Rotzoll's (1910) doctoral thesis,
which considers not only the standard variety, but also, and in particular, the regional dialects of
British English (cf. 4.1.).
31
Contemporary grammar books and descriptions of German word-formation, such as

Fleischer (1975), Stepanova/Fleischer (1985), and Fleischer/Barz (1995), do not add sub-
stantially to Paul's findings.
2.2.2. Diminutives in structuralism
In structuralism, the emphasis shifted from a historical and diachronic perspective to the
synchronic analysis of present-day language. As a rule, language change and (regional or
stylistic) variation were abstracted away, the focus was on language as an abstract relational
system ('langue' in Saussure's terminology).
On the descriptive level, the aim of structural approaches to diminutives was to establish
the inventory of linguistic devices used to express diminution in a given language. In more
concrete terms, this meant determining the diminutive suffixes of that language and the
relationships, most notably the differences, between them. Ettinger's (1974a) study of di-
minutives and augmentatives in Southern Romance languages is a case in point.
By contrast, Marchand (1969), in his standard work on English word-formation, com-
bines synchronic and diachronic perspectives, as indicated in the programmatic subtitle of
his book. In his chapters on prefixation and suffixation (which do not go substantially be-
yond Jespersen 1942), Marchand (1969: ch. III and IV) deals with the respective affix in-
ventories, a total of 66 prefixes and over 80 suffixes, in alphabetical order. The chapter on
suffixation includes both productive and obsolete morphemes, among them several diminu-
tive suffixes, such as -ette, -iel-y, and -let. For each suffix, Marchand first sketches origin
and history, before presenting a large number of derivations, i.e. words which include the
respective suffix (cf., e.g., Marchand 1969: 326f., on -let). All examples, listed in chrono-
logical order according to their first attestation, are lexicalised forms, which can be found in
dictionaries. Nonce-formations are mentioned only in passing, if at all (cf., e.g., Marchand
1969:290).
In a more theoretical vein, structuralists discussed the status of diminutive formation
relative to other word-formation processes, especially relative to derivation (in a narrow
sense) on the one hand and compounding on the other hand. While synthetic diminutive
formation is a type of suffixation, it is not a type of derivation, if derivation is defined as
effecting a change of word class. Since diminutive formation does not, as a rule, effect
word class change, it is sometimes considered 'word modification'. Erben (1983), on the
other hand, distinguishes two types of derivation. These are 'transposition', in which the
word class of the base lexeme changes, and 'modification', in which word class is retained.
Furthermore, diminutive formation differs from other types of suffixation in terms of
head and modifier distribution. In general, suffixes are regarded as the syntactic heads, but
their semantic status is controversial. For instance, Fleischer (1975: 69) maintains that the
semantic head in suffixed words is the left-hand component, whereas in compounds it is the
right-hand component. He considers this difference a criterion for distinguishing between
derivation and compounding. By contrast, Gauger (1968) and Mötsch (1984) assume that
suffixes differ on the level of semantic headship. Mötsch (1984: 32f.) takes Träumer
('dreamer') and bläulich ('blueish') as examples to illustrate this point. He claims that the
semantic head in Träumer is the suffix, while in bläulich it is the stem. In other words, a
dreamer is not a kind of dream, but a kind of person, as indicated by the suffix -er, em-
32
ployed to form agent nouns referring to persons who perform the action expressed by the
stem. Blueish, by contrast, is a kind of blue, which is modified by the meaning of the suffix.
Marchand's (1969: 228) analysis is more detailed. He interprets 'head' and 'modifier'
("determinatum" and "determinant" in his terminology) as syntactic categories. In this
sense, suffixes are always head constituents. Marchand further assumes that suffixes are
also dominant semantically, but he concedes that there are exceptions to this rule. For Eng-
lish, he specifies these exceptions as follows: nominal diminutive suffixes (as, e.g., in book-
let, boykin, daddy, and squireling), adjectival approximative suffixes (as, e.g., in blueish
and bluey), and verbal diminutive or frequentative suffixes (as, e.g., in crackle and pat-
ter).13 Formations with these suffixes diverge from the general semantic pattern of other
types of suffixation, as "... a booklet is still a book, a daddy is still a dad ...", and they
share a common meaning which is "based on the underlying theme of appreciation" (Mar-
chand 1969: 228). Elsewhere, Marchand (1969: 12) elaborates these aspects: "A streamlet
is basically a stream though an (emotionally) small one, and could therefore take the place
of stream, if semantic considerations were the criterion of substitution." Thus, semantically
speaking, diminutives can be considered as hyponyms of their base lexemes. In this respect,
they differ from other suffixed words and resemble endocentric compounds; cf. a streamlet
is a kind of stream, and a blackbird is a kind of bird, but a dreamer is not a kind of dream.
From this perspective, diminutive formation can be considered a cross-breed between deri-
vation and compounding.
Thus, structuralist approaches have emphasised the peculiar nature of diminutive suf-
fixation, which diverges from a number of word-formation rules. As the focus in linguistics
shifted from the empirical description of language data to more theoretical questions, di-
minutive formation acquired the status of a test case for theories of morphology, notably for
generative theories.
2.2.3. Diminutives in generative grammar
Generative grammar resembles structuralism in that it is not interested in the history and
development of languages. A crucial difference is, however, that generativists are not pri-
marily interested in individual languages, but rather in the universale shared by all lan-
guages and, thus, in the human capacity for language as such ('langage', and not 'langue',
in Saussure's terminology). Furthermore, generative grammar aims not only at describing,
but also at explaining linguistic phenomena. Empirical data analysis is replaced by develop-
ing theories on the basis of so-called introspection, i.e. the researcher's intuitions and fabri-
cated examples. Originally, generative theory was based on positions formulated in idealist
linguistics at the beginning of the 19th century, i.e. on positions much older than the neo-
grammarian school and explicitly rejected by neo-grammarians. While in structuralism, the
focus in the study of word-formation was on the analysis of complex words, generative
grammar, by contrast, focuses on the creative aspect (cf., e.g., Lipka 1990: 77ff.). Its aim
13
The category names used by Machand are retained here. Arguably, all three suffix classes could be
referred to as diminutive suffixes (cf. 1.1.).
33
consists in establishing the possibilities of forming new words as part of an ideal speaker-
hearer's linguistic competence.
In the early transformationalist version of generative grammar, word-formation was
dealt with as part of syntax (cf. Olsen 1986: ch. 1.1., Hansen/Hartmann 1991: ch. 3). In this
approach, complex words were considered as surface structures generated from underlying
syntactic constructions, known as deep structures, by applying specific transformational
operations. For instance, for the compound steamboat the deep structure 'boat driven by
steam* can be assumed (formalisations and transformations are irrelevant in the present
context).
In this approach, it is possible to solve two problems which could not be solved in a
structuralist analysis. These are the problems of synonymy and homonymy of construc-
tions. First, different (though formally similar) constructions may share the same deep
structure. For example, 'boat driven by steam' can be assumed for steamboat, steam-
powered boat, boat propelled by steam, and steamer. Second, homonymous constructions
are based on different deep structures. For instance, steamer has two established readings,
'vessel which is driven by steam' and 'vessel in which food is cooked by steam'. These two
readings correspond to two different deep structures.
Similarly, for the diminutive footie two different deep structures can be assumed, which
can be glossed as 'little foot' and 'little (match of) football' respectively. In general, the
deep structures postulated for synthetic diminutives in transformationalist approaches take
the format 'little + N'. Thus, they do not go essentially beyond traditional glosses of di-
minutive meaning (cf. Ettinger 1980: 172). In total, however, transformationalist treatments
of diminutives are rare (cf., e.g., Schwarze 1967 on Italian, and DuBois 1969 on French).
The more recent version of generative morphology is known as the 'lexicalist ap-
proach'. 14 In this approach, word-formation is no longer considered as a part of syntax, but
as a part of the lexicon. This classification is based on the insight that there are fundamental
differences between the construction of words and the construction of sentences. Olsen
(1986: 24), for example, mentions two phenomena specific to the formation of complex
words which have no equivalent in syntax. First, new words are perceived as new, while
sentences are never perceived as new. Second, unsystematic gaps occur even in highly
productive word-formation patterns, while they never occur in sentence-formation. There-
fore, it is necessary to locate word-formation in the lexicon, and not in syntax.
Applying these insights to diminutive formation yields interesting results. While gaps
seem to occur in diminutive formation, it is an open question whether diminutive forms are
ever perceived as novel, even if they are not entered in any dictionary. This feature adds to
the list of peculiarities of diminutive forms and diminutive formation not observed any-
where else in the lexicon (with the exception of synthetic augmentative formation and re-
lated phenomena).
The most famous generative treatment of diminutives is found in Scalise's (1986) book
on morphology. His analysis also emphasises the special status of diminutive formation,
especially its incompatibility with rules of derivational word-formation (cf. 2.2.2.).
14
Cf. Olsen (1986: ch. 1.2.-1.3.), Bauer (1988: ch. 9), and Hansen/Hartmann (1991: ch. 4); a detailed
discussion is included in Carstairs-McCarthy (1992: part II).
34
Scalise (1986: 101ff.)discusses the distinction between compounding, derivation and in-
flection within the framework of the 'Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis', according to which
inflection is not part of the syntactic, but of the lexical component of grammar. All morpho-
logical processes are interpreted as rules, which are grouped together in the lexicon in inter-
acting blocks. These blocks are called 'Compounding Rules' (CR), 'Derivation Rules'
(DR), and 'Inflection Rules' (IR). Following Siegel's (1974) 'Level Order Morphology',
the interaction of these blocks is modelled as a succession of modules in a particular order
('Extended Ordering Hypothesis'; Scalise 1986: 116ff.).
In this context, Scalise (1986: 127ff.) discusses two morphological categories not easily
assigned to either derivation or inflection. These are the past participle on the one hand and
evaluative suffixes on the other. The latter Scalise (1986: 131) regards as a specific feature
öf Romance languages. For Italian, he distinguishes four classes of evaluative suffixes:
1) diminutive suffixes, e.g. -ino-,

2) augmentative suffixes, e.g. -one\
3) pejorative suffixes, e.g. -accio, -ucolo\
4) other, e.g. -elio, -etto, and -uzzo.
In his analysis, which focuses on the suffix -ino alone, Scalise (1986: 133) arrives at the
conclusion that diminutive formation, or, more generally, evaluative fomation in Italian
displays features typical of derivation as well as features typical of inflection. In addition,
Scalise identifies features particular only to evaluative formation. Consequently, Scalise
postulates a set of word formation rules referred to as 'Evaluative Rules' (ER), constituting
an independent level between DR and IR.
This postulate is corroborated by the following observations (cf. Scalise 1986: 132f.):
(a) Evaluative suffixes (ES) alter the meaning of the base lexeme.
(b) ER can be applied recursively.
(c) ES do not change the word class of the base.
(d) ES do not change the syntactic properties or the subcategorisation of the base.
(e) ES occur to the right of derivation suffixes and to the left of inflection suffixes.
(f) The same ES can be attached to the same base recursively.
Features (a) and (b) are shared by ES/ER and derivation suffixes/DR, while features (c) and
(d) are shared by ES/ER and inflections/IR. Features (e) and (f), however, are particular to
evaluative suffixes alone. In the light of these findings, Scalise stresses the independent
status of ER, for which he proposes a middle position of Evaluative Rules to the right of
Derivation Rules and to the left of Inflection Rules.
It must be borne in mind that Scalise's model refers explicitly to Italian. The observation
under (f), for instance, does not apply to languages such as English or German. The diminu-
tive suffixes of these languages cannot be attached to the same base recursively (cf. *wife-
let-let or German *Bäum-chen-chen 'tree-DIM-DIM', but Italian car-in[o]-ino).
In his 1993 article "How peculiar is evaluative morphology?", Stump tests and modifies
Scalise's findings by using material from genetically unrelated languages, including Breton,
35
Welsh, Zulu, and Kikuyu. Stump arrives at the conclusion that Scalise's observations under
(d) and (e) do not apply to all languages.15
The discussion about the status of the constituents in diminutive forms begun in structur-
alism is continued in generative morphology. Two theories in particular are considered
relevant in this context: Williams' 'Right-Hand Head Rule' (1981) and Lieber's 'Feature
Percolation' (1981). However, the question whether diminutive suffixes are heads or modi-
fiers is still controversial (cf. also Lieber 1992: 77ff. and 9Iff.). It seems that this question
cannot be adequately answered in morphological approaches in which formal aspects
dominate over semantic ones (cf. Carstairs-McCarthy 1992: 107).
2.2.4. Recent post-generativist approaches
To conclude this short survey of grammatical approaches to diminutives, two new devel-
opments are mentioned here briefly. These are studies in the frameworks of optimality
theory and pre- and protomorphology.
2.2.4.1. Diminutives in optimality theory
Optimality theory (OT) has been celebrated by some as the most promising linguistic the-
ory of the 1990s.16 OT first gained attention in phonology, but meanwhile work has also
been carried out in morphology and syntax. Given its wide reception in phonology, it is not
surprising that the focus of morphological investigations is on phonological aspects, while
syntactic and especially semantic aspects have not been dealt with to the same extent. 17
In word-formation, OT does not aim at identifying formation rules, but at identifying
constraints on formation which can be ordered hierarchically according to their relative
importance. Thus, the crucial question is not whether or not an output form conforms to a
rule, but what the status of the constraint is to which it conforms. The higher this constraint
in the hierarchy, the higher is the degree of well-formedness of that particular form. Opti-
mal output is governed by the top-rank constraint.18
In the past few years, a number of studies on diminutive formation have appeared which
adopt an OT framework. Typical examples are Miranda Miranda's (2000) dissertation on
diminutives in Nicaraguan Spanish, which concentrates on establishing preference patterns
in the selection of suffixal allomorphs, and Coelho (1999) which deals with the distribution
of allomorphs of the reduplicative diminutive morpheme in a Salishan language of British
Columbia. Other studies using OT do not focus on diminutives alone, but deal with diminu-
tives along with other phenomena. Examples of this type include Brandstötter (1997) who
investigates umlaut in German, and Féry (1997a and 1997b) who analyses German i-
formations in the broader context of discussing unmarked prosodie feet across languages
15
Cf. also Bauer (1997) for a critical discussion of Scalise's analysis.
16
For a general introduction to optimality theory, cf. Archangeli/Langendoen (1997) and Kager
(1999).
17
For an outline of morphological analysis in the framework of OT, cf. Russell (1997).
!8 For a detailed summary, cf. Plag (1999: ch. 6.2.2.).
36
(German, French, and Japanese) and their relationship to 'hypocoristics' and words in se-
cret languages. In all studies, the emphasis is on phonological aspects, notably on syllabic
structure. Thus, diminutive research in OT continues earlier work in prosodie morphology
(cf., e.g., Crowhurst 1992, Harris 1994, Prieto 1992, Yip 1992, and Jacobs 1995).
2.2.4.2. Pre- and protomorphological approaches
All approaches discussed so far deal with diminutive formation as part of the fully devel-
oped language competence of an adult or an ideal speaker. By contrast, pre- and protomor-
phology (PPM) examines diminutives in the early stages of language development. In par-
ticular, PPM investigates the acquisition of diminutives, and more specifically of diminu-
tive markers (i.e. suffixes), the use of diminutives in infant speech, also in connection with
the use of diminutives in the speech of adults talking to young children, i.e., as a rule, in
caretaker speech (formerly known as 'parentese', 'motherese', or 'baby talk').
While diminutives in first language acqusition and their use in child or caretaker speech
have been studied before in psycholinguistics (cf., e.g., Clark 1993), PPM offers a new and
markedly different perspective. In PPM, advocated by the proponents of natural morphol-
ogy and morphopragmatics (cf. 2.3.4.), the peculiar nature and apparent irregularity of
diminutive formation addressed in virtually all grammatical approaches is explained by
pointing out that diminutives are acquired at a very early stage in life, before grammatical
categories proper are acquired (hence the term 'premorphology'). Therefore, diminutives
are considered an extra-grammatical phenomenon in PPM. Other categories analysed in the
same context include number and gender.
PPM investigations into diminutives have appeared in a series of edited volumes pub-
lished in the international "Crosslinguistic Project on Pre- and Protomorphology in Lan-
guage Acquisition", co-ordinated by Wolfgang Dressier in Vienna. Among these volumes
are Dressier (1997), Gillis (1998), and Dressler/Voeikova (2002) (cf. also Dressier 1994).
The papers in these collections cover a wide range of languages, including some lesser
studied languages in diminutive research, such as Finnish (Laalo 1998) and Hebrew (Ravid
1998). Other languages include Dutch (Gillis 1997), Greek (Stephany 1997), Italian (Cec-
cherini et al. 1997), Lithuanian (Savickiene 1998), and Russian (Voeykova 1998), but not
English, ι»
19
In addition, the reader is refen-ed to the following recent studies of developmental issues con-
ducted outside the PPM framework. These are Svaib (1992) on children's use of -¡'e-diminutives in
English, Olmsted (1994) on the acquisition of diminutives in Russian, and Wojcik (1994) and An-
drews (1995) on diminutives in caretaker speech in Lithuanian and Russian respectively.
37
2.3. Pragmatic approaches to diminutives
Even though certain aspects of the use of diminutives have been examined in traditional
approaches (cf. 2.1.3. and 2.2.1.), a coherent framework for the study of diminutive use,
and especially of the communicative functions of diminutive forms, has not been available
until recently, as pragmatics has a much shorter history than grammar. As a consistent
pragmatic framework is still lacking today, the few existing pragmatic approaches provid-
ing essentially new perspectives on diminutives are dealt with in more detail in the follow-
ing sections. These approaches are Volek's (1987) semiotic theory of emotive signs
(2.3.1.), Wierzbicka's (1985b) speech-act based cross-cultural analysis, also adopted by
Sifìanou (1992) (2.3.2.), the model of speech act modification developed by Bazzanella et
al. (1991) (2.3.3.), Dressler/Merlini Barbaresi's (1994) morphopragmatic treatment of di-
minutives (2.3.4.), and finally some preliminary studies of diminutives in discourse
(Schneider 1991a, 1991b, 1993a, 1993b; Schneider/Schneider 1991) (2.3.5.).
2.3.1. Diminutives as emotive signs
Grammatical approaches to diminutives focus, exclusively or primarily, on formal aspects.

Semantic aspects, however, are not adequately dealt with, if at all, in any of the mainstream
approaches (cf. 2.1.3. and 2.2.). As a rule, morphological studies employ a simplistic addi-
tive model of diminutive meaning, based on the prototypical understanding of the seman-
tics of diminutives. According to this model, the feature [+small] is added to the semantics
of the base word. Attitudinal meaning components are, at best, mentioned only in passing,
in superficial and sometimes contradictory statements (cf. 1.1.). An alternative, much more
elaborate, approach, termed 'emotive semantics', is advocated by Bronislava Volek, who
adopts the structural-functional perspective of the Prague School (which, essentially, is
similar to the formal-functional paradigm adopted in the present book).
Volek (1987) criticizes that mainstream linguistics has predominantly treated emotivity
as a peripheral phenomenon. By contrast, Volek suggests that emotivity permeates all types
of verbal communication and, therefore, has to be described as a system in its own right.
Against this background, she develops a theory of emotive signs, which serves as the
framework for her analysis of diminutives in Russian.2«*
Volek conceptualises language as a 'super-structure', to which a number of heterogene-
ous subsystems are subordinated. One of these is emotivity. After discussing the nature of
this subsystem (Volek 1987: 5ff.), the author defines the notion of emotive signs and pro-
poses a preliminary taxonomy, specified in a later chapter of her book (Volek 1987: 235ff.).
One type of emotive sign are nouns derived by affixation which have an emotive meaning.
While the main focus of her investigation is on this particular type of sign, Volek concen-
trates, in effect, only on Russian diminutive nouns derived by suffixation.
In her analysis, Volek (1987: 55ff.) examines the semantic and structural properties of
these diminutives, and offers a classification of the suffixes involved in their formation.
20
The central chapters of Volek's (1987) book are summarised in Volek (1990).
38
Furthermore, and more importantly, the author provides a systematic description of the
meaning of diminutives in the context of the utterances in which they appear (Volek 1987:
89ff.). The analysis is based on a large corpus of fictional material, predominantly Russian
prose and drama from the 1960s.
Volek develops a labelling system which makes it possible to capture and compare the
complex semantics of diminutives in their respective contexts. The format of the labels
comprises two elements, one which specifies the quantifying and one which specifies the
qualifying meaning components. The quantifying element is defined as 'referential quanti-
fication' (abbreviated as "Qt"). In the case of diminutives, it is indexed with an "S" for
'smallness'. The qualifying element is referred to as an 'excitizer' ("Exc") and defined as
an "emotive component communicated in a direct, expressive way" (Volek 1987: xi). This
emotive component conveys an evaluation which may be positive, negative, or ambivalent
("Ev+", "Ev-", or "Ev+/-")· Thus, Volek's approach differs from other approaches which
deal with the semantics of diminutives in several ways. The most significant differences are
that Volek describes the meaning only of contextualised diminutives and uses for this pur-
pose an apparatus with clearly defined categories in a transparent format. The following
example serves to illustrate this approach (Volek 1987: 165, original emphasis).
(1) - Daj-ka sigaretku, posidim pokurim, muzyéku poslusaem.

'Give me a cigarette [(Qts)ExcEv+], let's sit and smoke, listen to some music.'
The meaning of the diminutive form derived from sigareta 'cigarette' is labelled as follows.
The parentheses indicate that the quantifying (minorative) component is not directly rele-
vant to the interpretation. While it is potentially present, it is at best supportive. The domi-
nant element is the emotive component which conveys a positive evaluation, referred to as
'meliorative' (cf. 1.2.2.). Unfortunately, the author discusses neither the form muzycku, a
further diminutive, nor the aktionsart of the last three verbs, which in some terminologies is
also referred to as 'diminutive* (cf. 1.1.4.). Nor does she comment on the co-occurrence of
these devices (a discussion of similar instances in English is included in S.3.3.).
The above example is taken from Volek's brief chapter on the pragmatic analysis of di-
minutives (Volek 1987: 149ff.). In this chapter, she focuses on different types of direct
requests (Volek 1987: 164ff.). Regarding the predicated future event, she distinguishes
between 'Asking for waiting', 'Asking for action', 'Asking for information', and 'Asking
for an object' (cf. 5.2.3.3.). Furthermore, she deals with commands and offers, albeit not in
detail (Volek 1987: 159f. and 165f.). In this context, the author obviously appeals to the
notion of speech acts. She does not, however, explicitly refer to any speech act theoretic or
pragmalinguistic framework.
The categories which Volek uses in her analysis of the pragmatic functions of diminu-
tives are of a general and ad-hoc nature. Examples include 'poetic use', 'introducing a jocu-
lar atmosphere', or 'free characterising' (Volek 1987: 149ff. passim). In her analysis, she is
more interested in identifying the stimuli which trigger emotive attitudes. Three types of
stimuli are distinguished, viz. two basic types, termed "synthetic" and "analytical", 2 ' and a
21
These two terms are not related to the use of the same terms for the morphological and syntactic
types of diminutives in this book.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated
with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this
agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached
full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the
terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears,
or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning
of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or
expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or
a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original
“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must
include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for

the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3,
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR
NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR
BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK
OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL
NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF
YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving
it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or
entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide
a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation,

the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation,
anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with
the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or
any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission

of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many
small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to
maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

PDF Diminutives in English Schneider Download

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF Diminutives in English Schneider Download

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

PDF Diminutives in English Schneider Download

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download ebook at ebookgate.

Diminutives in English Schneider

Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com

Varieties of English Volume 2 The Americas and the

Gangs 1st Edition Jacqueline Schneider

Continuous Casting 1st Edition Wolfgang Schneider

Energy Leadership 2nd Edition Bruce D Schneider

Chaperonin Protocols 1st Edition. Edition Christine

Electronic Commerce 12th Edition Gary P. Schneider

The Psychology of Stereotyping Distinguished

Introduction to public health 4th edition Edition

Max Niemeyer Verlag

ISBN 3-484-30479-0 ISSN 0344-6727

© Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH, Tübingen 2003

This book is a radically shortened, updated English version of my postdoctoral thesis

Bonn, March 2003 KPS

0. Aims, claims and structure of the present study 1

2. Researching diminutives: the state of the art 23

3. Researching diminutives: integrating grammatical and pragmatic perspectives... 57

3.3. The grammatical perspective: diminutive formation 60

4. Grammatical aspects of English diminutives 74

4.3.4. The specific nature of little 127

5. Diminutive use in English conversation 138

5.3.3.1. Interactional characterisation 193

6. Summary and perspectives 236

LLC Svartvik, Jan/Quirk, Randolph (eds.) (1980): A Corpus of English

spectives. This integrative approach is applied to English diminutives in chapters 4 and 5.

1.1. What are diminutives?

As 'diminutive' is a term developed in traditional grammar, it is not surprising that pro-

1.1.1. Word class of input

i.) content words > function words,

1.1.2. Word class of output

i.) As a rule, word class is retained: X > X.

1.1.3. Formation processes

The prototypical process of diminutive formation is derivational suffixation. However,

1) synthetic formation > analytic formation,

1.1.4. Diminutive meaning

Prototypically, diminutives express smallness. Adding a diminutive suffix to a noun corre-

Thus, Strang's notion of diminutive meaning is much closer to a prototypical under-

1.2. Related terms and concepts

1.2.1.1. Prototypical augmentatives

'Augmentative' is the opposite of 'diminutive'. 15 Traditionally, the term 'augmentative' has

1.2.1.2. Augmentative formation

1.2.1.3. Augmentative meaning

Prototypically, augmentatives express largeness (or bigness). Adding an augmentative

DIM: POS > NEG,

If 'oversized' can be interpreted more generally as 'excessive of the prototypical norm',

1.2.2. Other related terms and concepts

quate in the case of diminutives, the phenomenon under inspection. As demonstrated

It is neither possible nor necessary to provide a comprehensive review of the literature on

2.1.1. Historical and quantitative dimension

2.1.2. Languages covered

Overall, present-day diminutive research is characterized by tradition and innovation.

2.2. Grammatical approaches to diminutives

2.2.1. Diminutives in traditional grammar

Paul's (1920) treatment of German diminutive formation serves as an illustration of the

- why diminutives can be used as pet names,

Contemporary grammar books and descriptions of German word-formation, such as

2.2.2. Diminutives in structuralism